Thin sample this season. Gianluca Scamacca has played 7 matches (299 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 / MOVE
occupy the box, drop or run channel — mostly in the middle third (52% of his 87 passes)
Signature: Receive / Move → Link → Finish — the only steps proven repeatable this season (3 of 4 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: convert — 1× (low confidence, shown as a number only, no tactical conclusion drawn) — omitted from the signature rather than presented as one.
In possession
In possession
What he does with the ball: build-up, progression, creation, carrying and finishing.
14 tracked carries (4.2/90, 0 progressive, 103m total) — the ball moving with his touches, a different signal from dribbles below (beating an opponent 1v1). this counts every touch-carry, not just his dribble attempts below — a fuller picture of how much of his ball-carrying is control-and-move rather than beating a man.
progressivelateral/short% of his 14 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 6m, longest 20m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
First (14)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Dribbles (1v1s)
Only 1 dribble attempted this season — too little volume to map a location pattern.
03
How does he create chances?
4 key passes (1.20/90), 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:
chance creation (4)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
Box deliveries — key passes reaching the final third, by flank
from the left (2)from the right (2)of 4 key passes landing in the final thirdattacking ↑ toward goal
04
Where does he become vulnerable?
27 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.
12
attacking third (cheap)
14
middle third
1
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 44% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 1.95 danger-index/90 · 0.239 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
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 →
Where do his chances come from?
Of 4 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he switches it out from the central to the left 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 right half-space in the middle third: 44% of his 9 touches there are lost (4 times).
29 defensive actions across the season (8.7/90). 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 →
2
tackles · 100% won
0
interceptions · 0.0/90
4
recoveries · 1.2/90
1
clearances · 0.3/90
1
blocks
50
avg action height
4
won high (att 3rd)
18
middle third
7
own third
Vision AI A front-foot / high defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 6 proactive ball-wins (1.8/90), tackle success 100%. He defends high, stepping out to intercept — suits a high line.
Defensive work in the attacking half
Ball-wins in the attacking half only (own half vs. attacking half, a simple 2-way split, not the usual thirds) — the clearest single signal of how much he presses and recovers the ball high up the pitch.
17
attacking-half actions · 5.12/90
06
Against Different Pressing Intensities
Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Does Gianluca Scamacca keep producing when the game is tight and the press is high? Tiers of ~2-3 matches — directional evidence, not proof.
press tier
xT /90
prog /90
key P /90
dribble%
High press (PPDA 3.3, 2m)
0.00
0.0
0.00
0%
Mid press (PPDA 7.2, 2m)
0.28
0.0
0.00
0%
Low press (PPDA 9.5, 3m)
0.43
0.9
1.87
0%
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Atalanta's output per match with Gianluca Scamacca (7 matches) versus without him (1 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 1 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (7)
WITHOUT (1)
Δ
goals for /match
1.57
3.00
-1.43
xG for /match
1.24
1.83
-0.59
goals against /match
2.00
1.00
+1.00
points /match
1.00
3.00
-2.00
09
His Share of the Team
Of everything Atalanta produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Gianluca Scamacca specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
expected goals (xG)
11%
7.6 / 70.0
shots
9%
63 / 713
goals
7%
1 / 14
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 299 strikers 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 Poacher 83%: a weighted blend of box threat 84 (weight 55%) + final-third threat 78 (weight 30%) + press resistance 68 (weight 15%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
transition, defensive aggression, carrying, territory (wide vs central)
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Receiving zones
86
Box threat
84
Through-balls ~proxy
79
Final-third threat
78
Passing directness
77
Dribbling
74
Line-breaking
73
Creativity
68
Press resistance ~proxy
68
Crossing
53
Retention
53
Progression
51
Ball-winning
49
Build-up
46
Transition ~proxy
40
Defensive aggression
33
Carrying
28
Territory (wide vs central)
1
11
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: 196 cm / 85 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.
Borja Iglesias Celta Vigo · La Liga · 187 cm / 86 kg
67%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (24%), defensive aggression (20%), receiving zones (10%). Different mechanism — Scamacca more via passing directness, box threat; Iglesias more via build-up.
Deniz Undav Stuttgart · Bundesliga · 179 cm / 86 kg
66%
Driven by: box threat (19%), receiving zones (18%), final-third threat (13%). Different mechanism — Scamacca more via dribbling; Undav more via progression, territory (wide vs central).
Harry Kane Bayern · Bundesliga · 188 cm / 86 kg
66%
Driven by: box threat (16%), receiving zones (14%), final-third threat (10%). Different mechanism — Scamacca more via crossing; Kane more via build-up, carrying.
Joshua Zirkzee Man Utd · Premier League · 193 cm / 84 kg
65%
Driven by: receiving zones (16%), territory (wide vs central) (12%), through-balls (11%). Different mechanism — Scamacca more via passing directness; Zirkzee more via build-up, carrying.
Fisnik Asllani Hoffenheim · Bundesliga · 191 cm / 81 kg
63%
Driven by: receiving zones (19%), final-third threat (14%), through-balls (12%). Different mechanism — Scamacca more via passing directness, box threat; Asllani more via territory (wide vs central), carrying.
Francesco Pio Esposito Inter · 190 cm / 80 kg
62%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (18%), receiving zones (16%), box threat (16%). Different mechanism — Scamacca more via dribbling, press resistance; Esposito more via defensive aggression.
12
Summary
Gianluca Scamacca is a poacher / target man: 1 goals from 0.36 xG (+0.64 vs expected), 6 shots, 3 box entries. A clinical finisher. [Off-ball runs, aerials and hold-up under contact need tracking/aerial data.]
Based on 7 matches (299 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a poacher / target man — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is press resistance — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall poacher 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.