Thin sample this season. Thibault De Smet has played 2 matches (61 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
Left Wing, Middle third — wide or inverted — mostly in the middle third (54% of his 37 passes)
86% completion · 37× in 2/2 matches
↓
PROGRESS
carry or combine up the flank
11.8 prog/90 · 8× in 2/2 matches
↓
DEFEND
1v1 and cover on his side
10 def actions · lost 80% deep · 10× in 2/2 matches
Signature: Receive → Progress → Defend — the only steps proven repeatable this season (3 of 5 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: dribble — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); deliver — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet) — 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.
0 key passes (0.00/90), 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 (0)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Paris FC's output per match with Thibault De Smet (2 matches) versus without him (6 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 6 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 (2)
WITHOUT (6)
Δ
goals against /match
1.50
1.00
+0.50
points /match
1.50
1.83
-0.33
goals for /match
1.50
1.67
-0.17
xG for /match
0.73
0.76
-0.04
04
His Share of the Team
Of everything Paris FC produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Thibault De Smet specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
clearances
5%
53 / 1030
progressive passes
4%
71 / 1685
tackles
3%
24 / 695
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 232 full-backs 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.
Inverted full-back62%Overlapping full-back18%
Why Inverted full-back 62%: a weighted blend of build-up 73 (weight 35%) + retention 68 (weight 30%) + progression 28 (weight 25%) + press resistance 56 (weight 10%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Territory (wide vs central)
82
Build-up
73
Retention
68
Press resistance ~proxy
56
Receiving zones
39
Dribbling
36
Defensive aggression
35
Creativity
35
Through-balls ~proxy
35
Line-breaking
33
Carrying
30
Final-third threat
29
Progression
28
Ball-winning
24
Transition ~proxy
23
Box threat
22
Crossing
17
Passing directness
10
06
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: 183 cm / 65 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.
Adam Marusic Lazio · Serie A · 185 cm / 76 kg
81%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (12%), build-up (12%), transition (11%). Different mechanism — Marusic more via crossing, passing directness.
Nhoa Sangui Paris FC 25/26 · 178 cm / 67 kg
76%
Driven by: box threat (14%), defensive aggression (13%), passing directness (13%). Different mechanism — Smet more via territory (wide vs central), defensive aggression; Sangui more via crossing, carrying.
Milos Kerkez Liverpool · Premier League · 180 cm / 71 kg
76%
Driven by: crossing (25%), ball-winning (13%), passing directness (11%). Different mechanism — Smet more via build-up, retention; Kerkez more via carrying, box threat.
Ximo Navarro Deportivo · La Liga · 176 cm / 75 kg
76%
Driven by: transition (18%), crossing (18%), passing directness (12%). Different mechanism — Smet more via dribbling, press resistance; Navarro more via ball-winning, box threat.
Genesis Antwi Strasbourg · 189 cm
72%
Driven by: crossing (12%), box threat (11%), passing directness (9%). Different mechanism — Smet more via territory (wide vs central), line-breaking; Antwi more via dribbling, ball-winning.
Buba Sangaré Elche · La Liga · 183 cm / 75 kg
70%
Driven by: transition (16%), box threat (13%), final-third threat (11%). Different mechanism — Smet more via territory (wide vs central), line-breaking; Sangaré more via ball-winning.
07
Summary
Thibault De Smet is an inverted full-back: 11.8 progressive passes and 0 box entries, delivering 0 key passes. Inverted full-back. [1v1 recovery pace and off-ball overlap timing need tracking.]
Based on 2 matches (61 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as an inverted full-back — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is progression — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall inverted full-back 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
