العربيةSeason2025/262026 · this seasonAll seasons
Building the full report
Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Vision AI ← BACK TO SEARCH
Player reportLa Liga 2026

Dani Vivian

Athletic Club
Ball-playing centre-back CB
13.5 progressive passes/90 · 2.9 line-breaking/90
centre-backstopper centre-backbuild-upline-breaking
93
minutes
1 apps
78
passes
94% completed
94%
pass completion
78 passes
14
progressive passes
13.5/90
7
line-breaking passes
6.8/90
19
defensive actions
18.4/90
3
tackles + interceptions
0% tackle win
5
clearances
4.8/90
Overview

The player

Who he is and how he compares with his peers.

Thin sample this season. Dani Vivian has played 1 match (93 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
in the first line of build-up — mostly in the middle third (63% of his 78 passes)
94% completion · 78× in 1/1 matches
↓
BREAK A LINE
vertical pass past the opponent midfield
13.5 prog/90 · 7× in 1/1 matches
↓
SWITCH PLAY
diagonal to the far side
cross-field balls · 4× in 1/1 matches
↓
PROGRESS
entries into the final third
6.8/90 · 7× in 1/1 matches
Signature: Receive → Break A Line → Switch Play → Progress — the only steps proven repeatable this season (4 of 5 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: carry out — 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.

03

How does he create chances?

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
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 straight through the right hs, advancing it forward in the middle third — 1 passes worth 0.16 xT.
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 defensive third: 12% of his 8 touches there are lost (1 times).
12%1/8 lost0%0/16 lost—2 touches · too few—2 touches · too few—0 touches · too few0%0/13 lost8%2/26 lost10%1/10 lost—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too few—1 touch · too few—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too fewRWRHSCLHSLWDEFMIDATT
Out of possession

Out of possession

Where and how he defends and presses.

04

How & where does he defend?

19 defensive actions across the season (18.4/90). 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 →
0
tackles · 0% won
3
interceptions · 2.9/90
8
recoveries · 7.7/90
5
clearances · 4.8/90
0
blocks
29
avg action height
0
won high (att 3rd)
6
middle third
13
own third
Vision AI A deep-defending defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 11 proactive ball-wins (10.6/90), tackle success 0%. He defends deep, protecting his box — a last-line stopper.
Team

Team context

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

05

Impact on the Team

Athletic Club's output per match with Dani Vivian (1 matches) versus without him (8 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 8 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 (1)
WITHOUT (8)
Δ
goals against /match
0.00
1.12
-1.12
points /match
3.00
1.12
+1.88
goals for /match
4.00
1.00
+3.00
xG for /match
0.72
0.36
+0.37
06

His Share of the Team

Of everything Athletic Club produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Dani Vivian specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.

category
share
him / team
clearances
16%
149 / 947
tackles
9%
55 / 619
interceptions
9%
35 / 397
Recruitment

Style and verdict

Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary.

07

Playing-Style Profile

Not raw event counts — football style scores: weighted models scored 0–100 against the 513 centre-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.

Stopper centre-back70%Ball-playing centre-back40%
Why Stopper centre-back 70%: a weighted blend of ball-winning 70 (weight 40%) + defensive aggression 62 (weight 35%) + transition 67 (weight 10%) + retention 44 (weight 15%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
—
Strong
passing directness, ball-winning
Average
transition, defensive aggression, final-third threat, dribbling, through-balls, press resistance, box threat, creativity, progression, crossing, receiving zones, retention, line-breaking, carrying
Weak
territory (wide vs central), build-up
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Passing directness
82
Ball-winning
70
Transition ~proxy
67
Defensive aggression
62
Final-third threat
53
Dribbling
53
Through-balls ~proxy
53
Press resistance ~proxy
51
Box threat
51
Creativity
50
Progression
49
Crossing
45
Receiving zones
45
Retention
44
Line-breaking
43
Carrying
41
Territory (wide vs central)
37
Build-up
36
08

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 / 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 La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, 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.

Giorgio Cittadini Frosinone · Serie A · 193 cm / 72 kg
68%
Driven by: ball-winning (26%), passing directness (19%), defensive aggression (16%). Different mechanism — Vivian more via through-balls, progression; Cittadini more via defensive aggression, dribbling.
Gabriele Calvani Frosinone · Serie A · 188 cm
65%
Driven by: ball-winning (23%), passing directness (21%), build-up (18%). Different mechanism — Vivian more via progression, through-balls; Calvani more via defensive aggression, creativity.
Andrias Edmundsson Hellas Verona · Serie A 25/26 · 193 cm / 81 kg
61%
Driven by: passing directness (25%), ball-winning (20%), transition (15%). Different mechanism — Vivian more via retention, box threat.
Kike Salas Sevilla · 188 cm / 80 kg
61%
Driven by: ball-winning (30%), defensive aggression (24%), passing directness (16%). Different mechanism — Vivian more via retention; Salas more via territory (wide vs central), defensive aggression.
Jeffrey Gouweleeuw Augsburg · Bundesliga · 188 cm / 83 kg
61%
Driven by: passing directness (41%), build-up (15%), ball-winning (12%). Different mechanism — Gouweleeuw more via crossing, through-balls.
Calvin Brackelmann Augsburg · Bundesliga · 196 cm / 86 kg
58%
Driven by: transition (22%), passing directness (20%), defensive aggression (17%). Different mechanism — Vivian more via receiving zones, line-breaking; Brackelmann more via territory (wide vs central), defensive aggression.
09

Summary

Dani Vivian is a stopper centre-back: 94% pass completion, 7 line-breaking passes and 13.5 progressive passes /90. A build-and-progress centre-back whose value is in beating the first line with the pass, not in raw defensive volume. [Aerial duels, marking, line-height and 1v1 recovery need aerial-event + tracking data, absent here.]

Based on 1 matches (93 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a stopper centre-back — best used in a system built around that identity. His biggest room for growth is retention — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall stopper centre-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.

Vision AI · building report