Shot Stopping — 50% (goals prevented vs xGOT faced)
Overall index45/100
Risk levelLow — driven by distribution reliability (75%)
League comparison45% composite among 16 Ligue 1 goalkeepers (450'+)
Vision AI recommendationSolid, balanced profile — fit depends on system more than upside
Playing Style DNA
The question
Across the traits that actually separate goalkeeper profiles, where does Jeffrey de Lange sit?
Six axes, each a league percentile among Ligue 1 goalkeepers with 450+ minutes — not a raw stat, a rank. Cross-claiming and a literal "command"/communication signal are deliberately excluded: this data source has no claim, punch or audio event to measure them from.
Shot Stopping goals prevented vs xGOT faced
50
Distribution pass completion, league percentile
75
Progression progressive passes/90
56
Sweeping recoveries/90 (outside-box volume proxy)
0
Line Height average starting position (depth)
75
Long-Ball Reliance passing involvement/90
69
VISION AI READ
Jeffrey de Lange profiles as a Hybrid Keeper (8 matches) — a balanced profile across distribution and sweeping without one standout trait — flexible, not a system specialist.
Vision AI implicationMatches best where the system plays to his top two traits (Distribution, Line Height)
Shot Stopping
The question
When the ball actually gets on target, does Jeffrey de Lange save it more often than expected?
Every shot faced is individually attributed to him via the source's own goalkeeper-tagging (not approximated from "matches he played"), with real post-shot xG (xGOT) and placement. 0 shots on target across 8 matches.
Where shots landed (on target)
No data yet.
By finish
No data yet.
By situation
No data yet.
VISION AI READ
Not enough shots on target attributed to him yet for a reliable read.
Vision AI implicationRoughly league-average shot-stopping — not a decisive factor either way
Build-Up Behaviour
The question
How does Jeffrey de Lange actually start attacks — and does he invite or avoid pressure doing it?
Zone-based, not player-identity based: no pass-recipient field is recorded, so "which teammate receives" cannot be answered honestly — "which lane/zone he plays into" can. "Switches play across 3+ lanes" was dropped from this report — it measures 0-2% for every goalkeeper in the league, a structural artefact of starting central and deep, not a trait that separates one keeper from another.
Where his passes end up
Right Wing
7%
Right Half-Space
25%
Centre
15%
Left Half-Space
35%
Left Wing
17%
8%
recycles/retains
0.0%
breaks first line
VISION AI READ
Of 308 completed passes, 8% are sideways/backward relative to his own goal, and 35% of all his output funnels into a single lane — the left half-space. He breaks the opponent's first line with 0 line-breaking passes (0.0% of his output) — a keeper who progresses directly.
Vision AI implicationAdequate but not a defining build-up trait
Distribution Intelligence
The question
What does Jeffrey de Lange actually do with the ball once he has it — and does that change on restarts?
Preferred kicking foot and exact release timing are not available in this data source (no body-part field on pass events, no sub-second timestamps) — range, target zones and restart behaviour are. Hover any pass on either map for its length and outcome.
Every pass, real start→end
● completed● incomplete
Where passes land
His single busiest destination zone takes 31% of all completed passes — a genuinely concentrated, predictable release point for a team scouting how to press the release.
Pass clusters — long, wide (outside the box), or short
Every pass classified into exactly one of three named clusters — a spatial grouping, not the raw distance split below.
● Long● Wide (outside box)● Short
Pass count by cluster
Long
69
Wide (outside box)
24
Short
215
His release patterns, as one arrow each
Four named release patterns — where each one lands on average, sized by how often he uses it. Hover an arrow for its exact count and completion rate.
Release pattern mix
Long → wide
32 · 44%
Long → centre
37 · 24%
Short → wide (outside box)
48 · 98%
Short → CB in box
46 · 100%
Pass length mix
Short (<20m)
45%
Medium (20-40m)
32%
Long (40m+)
22%
Deep restarts vs in-play
Deep restarts (x<10, proxy for goal kicks)
33% long
In-play distribution
24% long
Team fit: Marseille plays a patient, short build-up approach in the build-up phase (5% of 3667 team passes from deep go long). Jeffrey de Lange goes long noticeably more than the rest of the team in build-up (22% vs the team's 5%) — either a deliberate release valve, or a more direct instinct than the team plays around him.
VISION AI READ
45% of his passes are short (<20m), 22% are long (40m+). On deep restarts specifically he goes long 33% of the time versus 24% in open play — a consistent distribution style regardless of the restart type.
Vision AI implicationPrimarily a short-range distributor
Sweeper Intelligence
The question
How much of the space behind his defence does Jeffrey de Lange actually cover himself?
Every recorded defensive action (recoveries, clearances, interceptions, tackles, blocks) plotted by real location — the only five event types this source records for any player, goalkeeper included.
Averages a starting position of x=12 on a 0-100 pitch scale (0 = his own goal-line). Of 13 defensive actions this season, 7 (54%) happen outside his own box — a genuine sweeper, regularly defending space in behind his back line.
Vision AI implicationA high line would leave space he does not habitually cover — pair him with a deeper block
Risk Profile
The question
When Jeffrey de Lange loses the ball, where does it happen and how dangerous is it?
Every incomplete pass, plotted at its real origin — not a turnover count, a turnover map.
17.5%
turnover rate
72%
lost centrally
1
lost past halfway
VISION AI READ
54 of his 308 passes (17.5%) are turned over. 72% of those losses happen in the central lane — the most dangerous channel to give the ball away in — and 1 losses occur at or past the halfway line. Overall distribution risk reads as low (75% on reliability).
Vision AI implicationLow-risk distributor — safe to build directly through him
Pressure Behaviour
The question
Does Jeffrey de Lange's decision-making actually change when the opponent presses him hard?
His own matches split by how aggressively that specific opponent pressed (PPDA tertiles) — the same technique used for team-level opponent splits elsewhere on this platform.
Completion vs high press (2m)
65%
Completion vs low press (2m)
97%
Long-ball share vs high press
52%
Long-ball share vs low press
10%
VISION AI READ
Completion drops from 97% against a low-pressing opponent to 65% against a high-pressing one (+32pt), and long-ball share moves from 10% to 52% — he visibly panics long under pressure.
Vision AI implicationn/a
Opponent Intelligence
The question
If I'm coaching against Jeffrey de Lange, what specifically do I tell my team?
Press his first pass into the left half-space — it's his clearest outlet; cutting it forces the alternative.
Show him long and don't chase — under pressure his long-ball share rises to 52%, so inviting the long ball and winning the second phase is a viable plan.
Attack the space in behind directly — he rarely steps outside his box (0% sweeping), so a covering sweeper isn't there to bail his defence out.
His weakest trait is Sweeping (0%) — a system that stresses that specific demand exposes him fastest.
Attack centrally when he has the ball — 72% of his turnovers happen in the central lane, the most dangerous place to win it back.