العربيةVision AI ← BACK TO SEARCH
Player reportSerie A 2026
VEN

Ridgeciano Haps

Venezia
Ball-winning 6 (destroyer) DM
14.7 defensive actions/90
defensive middeep-lying playmakerpress resistancescreening
403
minutes
6 apps
195
passes
83% completed
83%
pass completion
195 passes
25
progressive passes
5.6/90
66
defensive actions
14.7/90
10
tackles + interceptions
100% tackle win
21
recoveries
4.7/90
29
line-breaking passes
6.5/90
Overview

The player

Who he is and how he compares with his peers.

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
drop between the centre-backs — mostly in the middle third (49% of his 195 passes)
83% completion · 195× in 6/6 matches
↓
ESCAPE PRESSURE
turn out of a tight central area
60% won · 5× in 4/6 matches
↓
PROGRESS CENTRAL
break a line through the middle
5.6 prog/90 · 29× in 6/6 matches
↓
SCREEN / WIN BALL
protect the back four
6.9 ball-wins/90 · 31× in 6/6 matches
↓
RECYCLE / PROGRESS
keep it ticking, feed the final third
2.9 f3-entries/90 · 13× in 4/6 matches
Signature: drop to receive → escape the press on the turn → progress centrally or recycle → screen the counter. Block the central lane and press his first touch to force him backwards.
17

Where is he influential — vs where is he merely present?

Red fill = raw touch territory. Gold rings = zones where his influence (xT added, progression, line-breaks, key passes) outweighs how often he's actually there — one combined map instead of two separate maps to compare by eye. Red with no ring: present but not dangerous. A ring on faint red: rare touches, outsized impact.

own goal left, attacking →
32
passes / match
14.7
def actions / 90
14–79
pass range (matches)
9
clearances
Pass range = his fewest and most passes in any single match this season (14 at the low end, 79 at the high) — a measure of match-to-match involvement, not pass distance.
In possession

In possession

What he does with the ball: build-up, progression, creation, carrying and finishing.

11

How dangerous are his carries?

Real ball-carries

41 tracked carries (9.2/90, 11 progressive, 416m total) — the ball moving with his touches, a different signal from dribbles below (beating an opponent 1v1). even a player who rarely dribbles past a man can still carry the ball forward constantly in build-up; this is that.

2%2%12%15%27%37%5%
progressivelateral/short% of his 41 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 8m, longest 31m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
7Outside → Inside
8Inside → Inside
25Outside → Outside
1Inside → Outside
First (21)Second (13)Third (7)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →

Beaten in the tackle

How often an attacker gets past him in a 1v1 defensive duel — the closest signal the data has to "dribbled past" (no attacker-beat-defender field exists directly, so this counts tackles he attempted and lost).

5
tackle duels
5
won
0
beaten · 0%
brighter band = more tackle duels · own goal left, attacking →
INSIDE 20%
OUTSIDE 80%
Tackle-duel location — 1 inside · 4 outside
Right Wing
0 · 0%
Right Half-Space
0 · 0%
Central
0 · 0%
Left Half-Space
1 · 20%
Left Wing
4 · 80%
Vision AI beaten in 0 of 5 tackle duels (0% loss rate) — a solid 1v1 defensive record.
Every tackle duel, exact location
wonlost — dribbled pastown goal left, attacking →

He attempted only 5 dribbles of his own all season — dribbling is not part of this role; his ball-carrying is covered above, his defending against the dribble below.

04

How does he build & move the ball?

How does he escape the first line?

27%
vertical passes
19×
4%
switches
3×
18%
carries
13×
51%
short circulation
36×
Answer: he escapes the press primarily through vertical passing — early balls past the first line; he almost never carries (13×), so pressing his passing lanes beats pressing him.

How he moves the ball — his 4 busiest progression routes, not where every pass starts and ends separately. Arrow width = how often, colour = xT gained, dashed = switch of play. The full breakdown is in the lane matrix below.

own goal left, attacking →
Lane transition matrix — when he receives in a lane, where does it go?
TO →RWRHSCLHSLWRW1100%1RHS0C1520%333%520%327%4LHS415%22%137%1527%1129%12LW1053%36%642%4450%52FROM
Rows normalised: each row sums to 100% of that lane's completed passes. Grey number = passes from that lane.

Primary route: the left wing in the middle third → the left half-space in the middle third — 4 progressive passes (17% of his progression) at 0.001 xT each. He moves it inside.

His progression is inward: 70% of progressive passes move the ball toward the middle versus 9% going wider — he cuts in rather than holding width.

Only 7% of his passes switch play, so his threat is same-side — contain the flank he occupies and the route closes.

Quality behind the volume: 7 line-breaking passes and 13 final-third entries, 2.9 total xT added.

Origin and destination are measured on the same event row — no receiver inference. Receiver identity is not recoverable from this data source.
All passes — origin zone share
Filter: from to
1%1%1%4%3%1%3%3%17%16%28%19%5%
completedincomplete195 passes · any zone → any zone · own goal left, attacking →
195
passes
83%
completed
33
lost
Vision AIIn line with his 83% season completion rate.
03

How does he progress play?

How much he drives the ball forward. Progressive = completed pass advancing ≥15 toward goal.

25
progressive · 5.6/90
13
final-third entries · 2.9/90
3
box entries · 0.67/90
18
progression index /90
Progression index: one composite number — progressive passes + progressive carries + 2% of total distance progressed + 8× positive xT added, all per 90. Weights VOLUME and THREAT together rather than counting progressive actions alone.
08

How does he create chances?

5 key passes (1.12/90), 0 of them assists — where his chance creation specifically comes from, 18 zones (6×3), showing his share of key passes originating there.

Chance creation — key pass origin zone share
Filter:
60%40%
chance creation (5)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
05

Where does he become vulnerable?

35 times he gave the ball away. For a defender the danger is where — a loss in his own third can turn into a chance against; higher up it costs little.

10
attacking third (cheap)
17
middle third
8
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 29% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 2.76 danger-index/90 · 0.353 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
07

What is his passing profile?

195
passes attempted
45%
mostly forward
48%
mostly short
Direction
Forward
88 · 45%
Sideways
44 · 23%
Backward
63 · 32%
Length (completed)
Short (<15m)
78 · 48%
Medium
70 · 43%
Long (>30m)
14 · 9%
06

Preferred Progression Routes — xT-weighted

His progressive passes as zone→zone routes, weighted by expected threat (xT) added — arrow width and the number are the total xT generated on each route, not just how often he plays it. This is where he actually moves the needle.

0.330.330.310.280.240.18
own goal left, attacking →
Highest-value routes (xT)
0.33
Left Wing Att third → Central Att third
1 passes · 1 to a shot
0.33
Left Wing Att third → Left Wing Att third
2 passes
0.31
Left Wing Def third → Left Half-Space Mid third
4 passes
0.28
Left Half-Space Mid third → Right Wing Att third
2 passes
0.24
Left Half-Space Att third → Right Half-Space Att third
1 passes
0.18
Left Wing Mid third → Left Half-Space Att third
1 passes
09

Where Does He Receive?

The zones where Ridgeciano Haps gets on the ball — his top three ball-collection areas highlighted (gold = primary). Reception is proxied by where his on-ball actions begin (no explicit receiver is recorded).

123
1 = primary, 2 = secondary, 3 = third · own goal left, attacking →
His collection zones
33%
Primary
Left Wing, Middle third
19%
Secondary
Left Wing, Attacking third
16%
Third
Left Wing, Defensive third
These are the zones where he collected the ball most.
10

Where Does He Operate? — Every Zone

Every on-ball touch (pass, dribble, shot) binned into a 6×3 grid — raw counts of where Ridgeciano Haps actually gets on the ball. Hover any zone for its breakdown by action type, its share of all touches, and the exact coordinate range it covers.

Filter:
6353354381117615121
own goal left, attacking → · brighter + higher number = more touches

Passes only — completed vs incomplete, by zone

Same zone grid, restricted to passes so completed/incomplete and match filters actually mean something — a shot or a dribble has no "completed" in the pass sense.

1%1%1%4%3%1%3%3%17%16%28%19%5%
own goal left, attacking →
12

Every Pass This Season — completed vs incomplete

Every pass this season, plotted individually — green = completed, grey (dashed) = incomplete, gold = key pass. Filter by outcome or isolate one match below.

5Key pass
3Cross
2Cutback
25Progressive
29Long ball
10Switch
By zone — where the pass started → where it landed
54Outside → Inside
35Inside → Inside
52Outside → Outside
21Inside → Outside
By direction
88Forward
63Backward
44Sideways
own goal left, attacking →
02

Tactical patterns — how his football actually looks

Three clustered sequence diagrams from his own event data — his three busiest routes: the way he progresses, the pattern behind his chances, and where a turnover turns dangerous.

own goal left, attacking →
How does he progress the ball forward?
His most common route for progressing play: he plays inside from the left wing toward the central in the final third — 1 passes worth 0.33 xT.
Where do his chances come from?
Of 5 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the left wing toward the right hs in the final third — 2 times. The receiver isn't identifiable in this data, only where the pass started and ended.
Where does he lose the ball most?
This is a RATE, not a raw count — the share of his touches in each zone that end in a turnover, so a zone he simply plays in more often doesn't automatically look riskier. His weakest zone is the left wing in the defensive third: 24% of his 29 touches there are lost (7 times).
—1 touch · too few—1 touch · too few—7 touches · too few0%0/10 lost24%7/29 lost—0 touches · too few—1 touch · too few—3 touches · too few12%3/26 lost20%13/65 lost—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too few—5 touches · too few20%2/10 lost16%6/37 lostRWRHSCLHSLWDEFMIDATT
Out of possession

Out of possession

Where and how he defends and presses.

13

How & where does he defend?

66 defensive actions across the season (14.7/90). Where he wins the ball, and how — the core question for a defender. Aerial duels are not recorded for this competition, so aerial dominance is not measured here.

click a card to isolate that action type · own goal left, attacking →
5
tackles · 100% won
5
interceptions · 1.1/90
21
recoveries · 4.7/90
9
clearances · 2.0/90
4
blocks
35
avg action height
7
won high (att 3rd)
24
middle third
35
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 31 proactive ball-wins (6.9/90), tackle success 100%. He defends mostly around the middle third.
14

Can he play under pressure?

Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Can Ridgeciano Haps still play out when the opponent presses high? His build-up quality split by press intensity — the key question for a ball-playing defender. Tiers of ~2-2 matches — directional evidence, not proof.

press tier
completion
prog /90
line-breaks /90
xT /90
High press (PPDA 4.2, 2m)
76%
1.3
3.2
0.52
Mid press (PPDA 5.0, 2m)
85%
5.8
4.5
0.94
Low press (PPDA 6.3, 2m)
85%
10.2
12.3
2.03
Team

Team context

How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.

15

Impact on the Team

Venezia's output per match with Ridgeciano Haps (6 matches) versus without him (2 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 2 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. What his own defending should move — goals conceded and results — leads; attacking output (largely out of a defender's hands) is shown after, for context. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.

WITH (6)
WITHOUT (2)
Δ
goals against /match
2.00
2.50
-0.50
points /match
0.50
0.00
+0.50
goals for /match
0.83
0.50
+0.33
xG for /match
1.31
1.10
+0.21
16

His Share of the Team

Of everything Venezia produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Ridgeciano Haps specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.

category
share
him / team
expected assists (xA)
4%
0.7 / 15.2
successful take-ons
3%
3 / 107
ball recoveries
3%
21 / 828
Recruitment

Style and verdict

Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary.

18

Playing-Style Profile

Not raw event counts — football style scores: weighted models scored 0–100 against the 302 defensive mids in the pool (min 180 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.

Deep-lying playmaker65%Tempo controller62%Ball-winning 653%
Why Deep-lying playmaker 65%: a weighted blend of progression 76 (weight 30%) + press resistance 69 (weight 20%) + build-up 44 (weight 30%) + retention 61 (weight 20%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
—
Strong
through-balls, territory (wide vs central), crossing, line-breaking, dribbling, progression, final-third threat
Average
press resistance, carrying, retention, creativity, defensive aggression, transition, build-up, ball-winning, box threat
Weak
passing directness, receiving zones
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Through-balls ~proxy
85
Territory (wide vs central)
85
Crossing
84
Line-breaking
81
Dribbling
78
Progression
76
Final-third threat
72
Press resistance ~proxy
69
Carrying
65
Retention
61
Creativity
60
Defensive aggression
58
Transition ~proxy
54
Build-up
44
Ball-winning
41
Box threat
40
Passing directness
36
Receiving zones
36
19

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: 175 cm / 74 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 Serie A, Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue 1 and Premier League, 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.

Manu Morlanes Mallorca · La Liga 25/26 · 178 cm / 75 kg
79%
Driven by: crossing (19%), through-balls (13%), territory (wide vs central) (13%). Different mechanism — Haps more via dribbling; Morlanes more via receiving zones, box threat.
Mateus Fernandes Tottenham · Premier League · 178 cm / 72 kg
75%
Driven by: crossing (15%), through-balls (15%), line-breaking (12%). Different mechanism — Haps more via territory (wide vs central); Fernandes more via receiving zones, box threat.
Beñat Turrientes Real Sociedad · La Liga · 181 cm / 70 kg
72%
Driven by: crossing (25%), dribbling (15%), line-breaking (11%). Different mechanism — Haps more via territory (wide vs central); Turrientes more via box threat, receiving zones.
Miro Muheim Hamburg · Bundesliga · 182 cm / 77 kg
71%
Driven by: progression (15%), through-balls (14%), final-third threat (12%). Different mechanism — Haps more via defensive aggression, retention; Muheim more via passing directness, final-third threat.
Vitaly Janelt Brentford · Premier League · 184 cm / 79 kg
69%
Driven by: crossing (25%), through-balls (18%), line-breaking (15%). Different mechanism — Haps more via dribbling; Janelt more via receiving zones, passing directness.
Rafik Messali Toulouse · Ligue 1 · 177 cm / 74 kg
68%
Driven by: crossing (17%), through-balls (16%), territory (wide vs central) (14%). Different mechanism — Haps more via retention, press resistance; Messali more via ball-winning.
20

Summary

Ridgeciano Haps is a deep-lying playmaker / tempo controller: 83% completion, 29 line-breaks and 5.6 progressive passes /90, resisting pressure with 60% dribble success. A central controller. [Off-ball screening position and scanning need tracking data.]

Based on 6 matches (403 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a deep-lying playmaker / tempo controller — best used in a system built around that identity. His biggest room for growth is build-up — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall deep-lying playmaker 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.

Vision AI · building report