Thin sample this season. Eljif Elmas has played 6 matches (317 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 Wing, Attacking third — between the lines — mostly in the attacking third (47% of his 95 passes)
77% completion · 95× in 6/6 matches
↓
TURN / BEAT MAN
face forward in the pocket
67% won · 3× in 2/6 matches
↓
CREATE
through-ball, cut-back, key pass
2.56/90 · 9× in 3/6 matches
↓
FINISH
arrive and shoot from central zones
1 goals · 0.52 xG · 4× in 2/6 matches
Signature: receive between the lines → turn → create or finish.
In possession
In possession
What he does with the ball: build-up, progression, creation, carrying and finishing.
18 tracked carries (5.1/90, 7 progressive, 178m 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 18 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 10m, longest 20m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
First (18)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Dribbles (1v1s)
Only 3 dribbles attempted this season — too little volume to map a location pattern.
02
How does he create chances?
9 key passes (2.56/90), 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 (3)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 (0)from the right (3)of 3 key passes landing in the final thirdattacking ↑ toward goal
05
Where does he become vulnerable?
23 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.
8
attacking third (cheap)
9
middle third
6
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 35% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 1.99 danger-index/90 · 0.305 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
03
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 9 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the right wing toward the central in the final third — 6 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 wing in the middle third: 40% of his 15 touches there are lost (6 times).
27 defensive actions across the season (7.7/90). 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 →
3
tackles · 67% won
3
interceptions · 0.9/90
8
recoveries · 2.3/90
3
clearances · 0.9/90
3
blocks
39
avg action height
3
won high (att 3rd)
15
middle third
9
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 14 proactive ball-wins (4.0/90), tackle success 67%. He defends mostly around the middle third.
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.
7
attacking-half actions · 1.99/90
06
Against Different Pressing Intensities
Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Does Eljif Elmas keep producing when the game is tight and the press is high? Tiers of ~2-2 matches — directional evidence, not proof.
press tier
xT /90
prog /90
key P /90
dribble%
High press (PPDA 3.3, 2m)
1.30
1.1
2.83
0%
Mid press (PPDA 6.2, 2m)
1.24
0.9
3.46
0%
Low press (PPDA 8.9, 2m)
0.29
0.0
0.00
100%
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Atalanta's output per match with Eljif Elmas (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. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (6)
WITHOUT (2)
Δ
goals for /match
1.83
1.50
+0.33
xG for /match
1.32
0.81
+0.51
goals against /match
1.67
2.50
-0.83
points /match
1.67
0.00
+1.67
09
His Share of the Team
Of everything Atalanta produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Eljif Elmas specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
goals
8%
1 / 12
zone-14 entries
6%
31 / 499
box entries
5%
35 / 745
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 247 attacking 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.
Half-space creator32%Advanced playmaker (8)30%
Why Half-space creator 32%: a weighted blend of creativity 38 (weight 40%) + final-third threat 37 (weight 30%) + dribbling 59 (weight 15%) + box threat 17 (weight 15%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Retention
97
Press resistance ~proxy
79
Build-up
78
Crossing
68
Dribbling
59
Receiving zones
50
Line-breaking
42
Progression
41
Ball-winning
38
Creativity
38
Final-third threat
37
Carrying
37
Transition ~proxy
31
Passing directness
31
Through-balls ~proxy
31
Territory (wide vs central)
22
Box threat
17
Defensive aggression
13
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: 184 cm / 78 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.
Ruben Loftus-Cheek AC Milan · 191 cm / 88 kg
73%
Driven by: retention (19%), defensive aggression (18%), press resistance (8%). Different mechanism — Loftus-Cheek more via box threat.
Martim Neto Elche · La Liga · 185 cm / 82 kg
73%
Driven by: defensive aggression (22%), retention (18%), box threat (14%). Different mechanism — Neto more via through-balls, final-third threat.
Sebastian Nanasi Strasbourg · Ligue 1 · 178 cm / 71 kg
66%
Driven by: defensive aggression (19%), retention (17%), build-up (16%). Different mechanism — Elmas more via carrying, dribbling; Nanasi more via through-balls, passing directness.
Brahim Díaz Real Madrid · La Liga · 170 cm / 68 kg
66%
Driven by: retention (24%), press resistance (16%), defensive aggression (10%). Different mechanism — Elmas more via build-up; Díaz more via creativity, receiving zones.
Noah Nartey Lyon · Ligue 1 · 180 cm / 70 kg
65%
Driven by: retention (19%), box threat (17%), press resistance (15%). Different mechanism — Elmas more via line-breaking, progression; Nartey more via defensive aggression, dribbling.
Seko Fofana Rennes · Ligue 1 25/26 · 185 cm / 83 kg
62%
Driven by: retention (20%), defensive aggression (19%), press resistance (14%). Different mechanism — Fofana more via carrying, receiving zones.
12
Summary
Eljif Elmas is a half-space creator: 2.56 key passes /90, 0.9 progressive passes, 1 goals from 0.52 xG. A between-the-lines creator. [Off-ball movement into pockets needs tracking.]
Based on 6 matches (317 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a half-space creator — 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 half-space creator 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.