His repeatable signature. A step only appears if its reliability score (sample size × match coverage) reaches at least Medium confidence — pattern mining, not anecdotes.
Signature: Link → Finish — the only steps proven repeatable this season (2 of 4 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: receive / move — 2× (low confidence, shown as a number only, no tactical conclusion drawn); convert — 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
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 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 final third: 36% of his 11 touches there are lost (4 times).
20 defensive actions across the season (10.6/90). 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 →
1
tackles · 0% won
0
interceptions · 0.0/90
7
recoveries · 3.7/90
1
clearances · 0.5/90
4
blocks
53
avg action height
6
won high (att 3rd)
8
middle third
6
own third
Vision AI A front-foot / high defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 8 proactive ball-wins (4.2/90), tackle success 0%. 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.
10
attacking-half actions · 5.29/90
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Nice's output per match with Nathan Ngoumou (5 matches) versus without him (3 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 3 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (5)
WITHOUT (3)
Δ
goals for /match
0.60
1.67
-1.07
xG for /match
0.87
0.55
+0.32
goals against /match
1.20
1.33
-0.13
points /match
1.00
2.00
-1.00
06
His Share of the Team
Of everything Nice produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Nathan Ngoumou specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
box entries
1%
4 / 517
shots
1%
3 / 475
expected goals (xG)
1%
0.3 / 49.6
Recruitment
Style and verdict
Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary.
Nathan Ngoumou is a striker: 0 goals from 0.29 xG (-0.29 vs expected), 3 shots, 2 box entries. Under-performing his chances. [Off-ball runs, aerials and hold-up under contact need tracking/aerial data.]
Based on 5 matches (170 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a striker — best used in a system built around that identity.
✨ 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.
