Thin sample this season. Morgan Sanson has played 1 match (9 min) so far, so sections that need a bigger sample to say anything reliable are not shown here — they are missing on purpose, not broken. See all seasons combined →
01
What Patterns Define Him?
His repeatable signature. A step only appears if its reliability score (sample size × match coverage) reaches at least Medium confidence — pattern mining, not anecdotes.
RECEIVE
Right Half-Space, Attacking third — mostly in the attacking third (67% of his 3 passes)
67% completion · 3× in 1/1 matches
Signature: Only Receive shows a proven, repeatable pattern this season — too little evidence yet (1 match loaded) for a fuller signature chain.
Not a pattern: progress — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); arrive — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); create / finish — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet) — omitted from the signature rather than presented as one.
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Nice's output per match with Morgan Sanson (1 matches) versus without him (7 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 7 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (1)
WITHOUT (7)
Δ
goals for /match
1.00
1.00
+0.00
xG for /match
1.08
0.08
+0.99
goals against /match
2.00
1.14
+0.86
points /match
0.00
1.57
-1.57
03
His Share of the Team
Of everything Nice produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Morgan Sanson specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
successful take-ons
11%
23 / 202
interceptions
9%
25 / 274
expected assists (xA)
8%
1.8 / 23.9
Recruitment
Style and verdict
Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary.
Not raw event counts — football style scores: weighted models scored 0–100 against the 382 central mids in the pool (min 450 min). This is what separates players who post similar numbers but play differently. Proxy dimensions are inferred from on-ball data; true off-ball running / under-pressure context is not measured.
Why Transition runner 61%: a weighted blend of transition 68 (weight 45%) + defensive aggression 55 (weight 30%) + box threat 42 (weight 25%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
progression, territory (wide vs central), line-breaking, receiving zones, crossing
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Passing directness
97
Dribbling
83
Transition ~proxy
68
Press resistance ~proxy
65
Carrying
59
Ball-winning
56
Defensive aggression
55
Final-third threat
48
Box threat
42
Build-up
42
Retention
42
Through-balls ~proxy
41
Creativity
40
Progression
34
Territory (wide vs central)
31
Line-breaking
22
Receiving zones
19
Crossing
15
05
Similar Players — in style space
Closest comparables measured on the style scores above, within the same position family — so it separates how players are alike, not just how much they touch the ball. Each line explains the shared strength and the divergent mechanism. A light physical-profile term (height / weight; this player: 180 cm / 73 kg) is included at a quarter of one style axis's weight — enough to break ties between stylistic twins, not to override style.Scope: pooled across the Ligue 1, Bundesliga, La Liga, Premier League and Serie A, percentiled within each player's own league before comparing — a match from another league is marked with its league name.
Style, not quality:a high match here means two players tend to produce the ball in similar ways — it is not a ranking, a scouting recommendation, or a claim that they are equally good.
Obed Vargas Atletico · La Liga · 175 cm / 68 kg
66%
Driven by: crossing (16%), line-breaking (15%), dribbling (12%). Different mechanism — Sanson more via passing directness, through-balls; Vargas more via crossing.
Han-Noah Massengo Augsburg · Bundesliga · 178 cm / 70 kg
65%
Driven by: passing directness (19%), crossing (14%), dribbling (13%). Different mechanism — Sanson more via box threat, territory (wide vs central); Massengo more via retention, build-up.
Martín Payero Cremonese · Serie A 25/26 · 183 cm / 80 kg
62%
Driven by: crossing (31%), dribbling (15%), line-breaking (13%). Different mechanism — Sanson more via passing directness, final-third threat; Payero more via territory (wide vs central).
Mandela Keita Parma Calcio 1913 · Serie A · 180 cm / 78 kg
61%
Driven by: crossing (19%), dribbling (13%), line-breaking (12%). Different mechanism — Sanson more via passing directness, through-balls; Keita more via retention, build-up.
Idrissa Touré Pisa · Serie A · 188 cm / 76 kg
60%
Driven by: passing directness (20%), crossing (19%), receiving zones (15%). Different mechanism — Sanson more via build-up, retention; Touré more via territory (wide vs central), defensive aggression.
Jesper Karlström Udinese · Serie A · 182 cm / 81 kg
60%
Driven by: crossing (34%), passing directness (18%), line-breaking (9%). Different mechanism — Sanson more via dribbling, through-balls; Karlström more via build-up.
06
Summary
Morgan Sanson is a transition runner: 0.0 progressive passes, 0.00 key passes /90, 0 box entries, 0 goals from 0.00 xG. A box-to-box contributor across every phase.
Based on 1 matches (9 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a transition runner — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is box threat — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall transition runner profile.
✨ This report is interactive
Click any stat card to filter its map, hover a dot for the exact match, and use the dropdowns to slice passes zone-to-zone. Nothing here is static.
← BACK TO SEARCH
