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 reportLigue 1 2025/26

Ansu Fati

Monaco
Half-space creator AM
46% of actions in the half-spaces
attacking midhalf-space creatorcreationbetween the lines
1193
minutes
25 apps
15
key passes
1.13/90
26
progressive passes
2.0/90
15
box entries
1.13/90
35
final-3rd entries
2.6/90
11
goals
8.70 xG
30
dribbles
47% won
82%
pass completion
440 passes
Overview

The player

Who he is and how he compares with his peers.

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 Half-Space, Middle third — between the lines — mostly in the middle third (57% of his 440 passes)
82% completion · 440× in 25/25 matches
↓
TURN / BEAT MAN
face forward in the pocket
47% won · 30× in 19/25 matches
↓
CREATE
through-ball, cut-back, key pass
1.13/90 · 15× in 12/25 matches
↓
FINISH
arrive and shoot from central zones
11 goals · 8.70 xG · 43× in 21/25 matches
Signature: receive between the lines → turn → create or finish.
02

attacking mid radar — percentile vs his peers

hierarchical score 59/100

A position-aware radar: these 12 axes are the metrics that matter for a attacking mid. Each axis is his percentile among the 40 attacking mids in the league (min 450 min). (padj) = possession-adjusted: defensive volumes are scaled by how much defending his team actually does, so opportunity is not confused with ability.

xA/9018% · #33/40(0.06)Half-space/9062% · #15/40(3.69)Box deliveries/9025% · #30/40(1.39)xT/9035% · #26/40(0.66)Progressive/9015% · #34/40(2.16)Dribbles/9040% · #24/40(1.04)Dribble %70% · #12/40(44.12)xG/9098% · #1/40(0.63)Shots/9092% · #3/40(3.34)Final-3rd/9042% · #23/40(3.55)Pass %80% · #8/40(81.95)Duel win %80% · #8/40(25.45)
Radar read: elite for xg/90 (98%), shots/90 (92%), pass % (80%); weakest axes progressive/90 (15%), xa/90 (18%). Percentiles, not raw values — 50% = league-average attacking mid.
Metric interactions: safe recycler — security without progression; the completion number flatters him.
League distribution — every dot a attacking mid, dashed cross = league average, diamond = him
X Y
Full context table — him vs league average vs top 5%
metrichimleague avgtop 5%pctl
xA/900.060.090.1818%
Half-space/903.693.115.2362%
Box deliveries/901.391.983.0225%
xT/900.660.731.3435%
Progressive/902.163.435.9015%
Dribbles/901.041.132.2540%
Dribble %44.1238.0851.7670%
xG/900.630.170.3998%
Shots/903.341.863.3492%
Final-3rd/903.553.755.8942%
Pass %81.9576.0685.4680%
Duel win %25.4510.0635.7180%

Evidence-based evaluation

Same underlying data, read by Vision AI: several independent dimensions with the specific evidence behind each, not one number.

Chance Creation: below-average (35/100 vs role peers), driven by xA/90 (below peer average, 18th percentile).
Progression Value: weak (23/100 vs role peers), driven by progressive passes/90 (below peer average, 15th percentile).
Decision Quality: elite (85/100 vs role peers), driven by pass completion vs difficulty-adjusted expectation (pts) (well above peer average, 85th percentile).
Finishing: elite (96/100 vs role peers), driven by xG/90 (well above peer average, 98th percentile).
Possession Value: strong (80/100 vs role peers), driven by times dispossessed/90 (well above peer average, 100th percentile). Bad touches/90 is well controlled (100th percentile).
27%
avg opponent strength faced
0%
of matches vs top-third teams
Tactical fit (Monaco): his Territory (wide vs central) (2) sits well below his own team's average (50, itself the 50% mark league-wide) — the single biggest gap between him and how Monaco plays on the whole.
03

Where is he influential — vs where is he merely present?

Red fill = raw touch territory. Gold rings = zones where his influence (xT added, progression, line-breaks, key passes) outweighs how often he's actually there — one combined map instead of two separate maps to compare by eye. Red with no ring: present but not dangerous. A ring on faint red: rare touches, outsized impact.

own goal left, attacking →
18
passes / match
1.6
dribbles / match
1–48
pass range (matches)
1–5
dribble range (matches)
Pass range = his fewest and most passes in any single match this season (1 at the low end, 48 at the high) — a measure of match-to-match involvement, not pass distance. Dribble range works the same way, for dribbles/carries per match.
In possession

In possession

What he does with the ball: build-up, progression, creation, carrying and finishing.

10

How dangerous are his carries?

Real ball-carries

105 tracked carries (7.9/90, 20 progressive, 920m 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.

4%6%2%2%9%17%7%1%13%22%16%2%
progressivelateral/short% of his 105 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 7m, longest 25m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
16Outside → Inside
72Inside → Inside
11Outside → Outside
6Inside → Outside
First (35)Second (34)Third (21)Fourth (15)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →

Dribbles (1v1s)

Does he carry to create or drift wide? Dribbles by channel. Season rate: 2.26 dribbles attempted /90.

brighter band = more dribbles · own goal left, attacking →
INSIDE 77%
OUTSIDE 23%
Dribble location — 23 inside · 7 outside
Right Wing
0 · 0%
Right Half-Space
1 · 3%
Central
12 · 40%
Left Half-Space
10 · 33%
Left Wing
7 · 23%
Vision AI His carries cluster centrally — a central creator.
18

How does he build & move the ball?

How he moves the ball — his 4 busiest progression routes, not where every pass starts and ends separately. Arrow width = how often, colour = xT gained, dashed = switch of play. The full breakdown is in the lane matrix below.

own goal left, attacking →
Lane transition matrix — when he receives in a lane, where does it go?
TO →RWRHSCLHSLWRW1984%1616%3RHS4316%742%1833%149%4C1038%817%1844%4520%2111%11LHS1342%36%828%3739%5225%34LW612%12%110%634%2152%32FROM
Rows normalised: each row sums to 100% of that lane's completed passes. Grey number = passes from that lane.

Primary route: the left half-space in the middle third → central areas in the final third — 4 progressive passes (13% of his progression) at 0.067 xT each. He moves it inside.

His progression is inward: 67% of progressive passes move the ball toward the middle versus 7% going wider — he cuts in rather than holding width.

Only 8% of his passes switch play, so his threat is same-side — contain the flank he occupies and the route closes.

Quality behind the volume: 14 line-breaking passes and 35 final-third entries, 2.3 total xT added.

Origin and destination are measured on the same event row — no receiver inference. Receiver identity is not recoverable from this data source.
All passes — origin zone share
Filter: from to
2%2%5%4%1%0%2%10%14%11%1%2%10%16%16%4%
completedincomplete440 passes · any zone → any zone · own goal left, attacking →
440
passes
82%
completed
80
lost
Vision AIIn line with his 82% season completion rate.
14

How does he progress play?

How much he drives the ball forward. Progressive = completed pass advancing ≥15 toward goal.

26
progressive · 2.0/90
35
final-third entries · 2.6/90
15
box entries · 1.13/90
12
progression index /90
Progression index: one composite number — progressive passes + progressive carries + 2% of total distance progressed + 8× positive xT added, all per 90. Weights VOLUME and THREAT together rather than counting progressive actions alone.
04

How does he create chances?

15 key passes (1.13/90), 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:
13%7%20%7%7%7%40%
chance creation (15)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 (10)from the right (4)of 14 key passes landing in the final thirdattacking ↑ toward goal
11

Can he finish?

43 shots · 8.70 xG · 11 goals (+2.30 vs xG). Mostly right-footed. Circle size = xG.

shots  43
on target  34
goals  11
xG  8.70
xG on target  9.05
xG / shot  0.202
Where he shoots from — click an area of the box
12

Where does he become vulnerable?

96 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.

47
attacking third (cheap)
41
middle third
8
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 49% of losses are in the attacking third — he gambles where a turnover costs little.
Mistake danger (proxy): 1.78 danger-index/90 · 0.246 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
16

What is his passing profile?

440
passes attempted
42%
mostly sideways
67%
mostly short
Direction
Forward
144 · 33%
Sideways
186 · 42%
Backward
110 · 25%
Length (completed)
Short (<15m)
240 · 67%
Medium
102 · 28%
Long (>30m)
18 · 5%
15

Preferred Progression Routes — xT-weighted

His progressive passes as zone→zone routes, weighted by expected threat (xT) added — arrow width and the number are the total xT generated on each route, not just how often he plays it. This is where he actually moves the needle.

0.610.440.320.300.250.19
own goal left, attacking →
Highest-value routes (xT)
0.61
Left Half-Space Att third → Left Half-Space Att third
3 passes
0.44
Central Att third → Left Half-Space Att third
2 passes
0.32
Left Wing Mid third → Central Att third
1 passes
0.30
Left Wing Att third → Central Att third
1 passes · 1 to a shot
0.25
Central Att third → Right Half-Space Att third
1 passes
0.19
Left Wing Mid third → Left Wing Att third
1 passes
08

Where Does He Receive?

The zones where Ansu Fati gets on the ball — his top three ball-collection areas highlighted (gold = primary). Reception is proxied by where his on-ball actions begin (no explicit receiver is recorded).

123
1 = primary, 2 = secondary, 3 = third · own goal left, attacking →
His collection zones
20%
Primary
Left Half-Space, Middle third
17%
Secondary
Central, Middle third
15%
Third
Left Half-Space, Attacking third
These are the zones where he collected the ball most.
09

Where Does He Operate? — Every Zone

Every on-ball touch (pass, dribble, shot) binned into a 6×3 grid — raw counts of where Ansu Fati actually gets on the ball. Hover any zone for its breakdown by action type, its share of all touches, and the exact coordinate range it covers.

Filter:
15447773201124463643581122177
own goal left, attacking → · brighter + higher number = more touches

Passes only — completed vs incomplete, by zone

Same zone grid, restricted to passes so completed/incomplete and match filters actually mean something — a shot or a dribble has no "completed" in the pass sense.

2%2%5%4%1%0%2%10%14%11%1%2%10%16%16%4%
own goal left, attacking →
17

Every Pass This Season — completed vs incomplete

Every pass this season, plotted individually — green = completed, grey (dashed) = incomplete, gold = key pass. Filter by outcome or isolate one match below.

15Key pass
5Cross
4Cutback
26Progressive
26Long ball
15Switch
By zone — where the pass started → where it landed
31Outside → Inside
217Inside → Inside
49Outside → Outside
63Inside → Outside
By direction
144Forward
110Backward
186Sideways
own goal left, attacking →
07

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 left hs in the final third — 3 passes worth 0.61 xT.
Where do his chances come from?
Of 15 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the right hs toward the central in the final third — 2 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 left half-space in the final third: 27% of his 64 touches there are lost (17 times).
—3 touches · too few—5 touches · too few9%1/11 lost—7 touches · too few—4 touches · too few17%2/12 lost10%3/29 lost22%17/76 lost10%9/91 lost16%7/43 lost22%2/9 lost25%4/16 lost24%11/45 lost27%17/64 lost12%3/25 lostRWRHSCLHSLWDEFMIDATT
05

Does he carry inside or outside — his ball-carries across the pitch

Four arrows, one per movement class of his ball-carries: outside→inside (cutting in with the ball), inside→outside (carrying wide), outside→outside (down the touchline) and inside→inside (through the middle). Each count is measured from the carry's real start and end coordinates.

own goal left, attacking →
Across 105 ball-carries, his dominant tendency is that he carries through central areas (69%). He carries from outside into the middle 16 times and out toward the touchline 6 — a genuine inside forward who cuts in with the ball.
06

What happens right after he carries the ball

Every carry's end point matched against his own very next pass or shot in the same match, when one starts almost exactly there — the direct continuation of that touch, not a separate stat. “No clean link” means no pass or shot of his own started close enough to count (often the carry ended in a tackle or a loss); it isn't a claim about exactly what happened, only that nothing traceable followed.

Shot
5 · 5%
Progressive / key pass
10 · 10%
Simple pass
75 · 71%
No clean link
15 · 14%
Of 105 carries, 5% flow straight into a shot of his own, 10% into a key or progressive pass — a genuine end product to the carry, not just ball retention. 14% have no clean link to a next touch of his own close to where the carry ended.
13

Crosses & Cutbacks

5 crosses (0.38/90, 2 completed) and 4 cutbacks (0.30/90, 4 completed) — two separate wide-delivery patterns into the box, each its own map with a completed/failed filter. Neither is a tagged event, so both are inferred from pass geometry — the intended end point of a failed attempt is still real data (an interception doesn’t erase where the ball was aimed): a cross is a pass aimed into the box starting from a wide channel; a cutback starts almost on the byline but is squared back rather than driven forward, aimed centrally around the box. The completed-cross count was checked against this platform’s own real match-level cross totals and lands within about 1 cross of the true count.

Crosses — close-up on the final third
Cutbacks — close-up on the final third
completedfailed (dashed)close-up on the box — attacking ↑ toward goal
Out of possession

Out of possession

Where and how he defends and presses.

20

How & where does he defend?

112 defensive actions across the season (8.4/90). 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 →
15
tackles · 67% won
4
interceptions · 0.3/90
37
recoveries · 2.8/90
9
clearances · 0.7/90
8
blocks
51
avg action height
29
won high (att 3rd)
56
middle third
27
own third
Vision AI A front-foot / high defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 56 proactive ball-wins (4.2/90), tackle success 67%. He defends high, stepping out to intercept — suits a high line.

Defensive work in the attacking half Top 5

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.

57
attacking-half actions · 4.30/90 — 3rd of 120 attacking mids in the league by total count
19

Against Different Pressing Intensities

Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Does Ansu Fati keep producing when the game is tight and the press is high? Tiers of ~8-9 matches — directional evidence, not proof.

press tier
xT /90
prog /90
key P /90
dribble%
High press (PPDA 4.7, 8m)
0.64
1.6
0.93
88%
Mid press (PPDA 6.5, 8m)
0.74
0.8
2.34
43%
Low press (PPDA 10.3, 9m)
0.67
2.9
0.48
12%
Team

Team context

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

21

Impact on the Team

Monaco's output per match with Ansu Fati (25 matches) versus without him (9 matches). A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.

WITH (25)
WITHOUT (9)
Δ
goals for /match
1.92
1.33
+0.59
xG for /match
1.60
0.11
+1.49
goals against /match
1.72
1.22
+0.50
points /match
1.64
1.44
+0.20
22

His Share of the Team

Of everything Monaco produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Ansu Fati specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.

category
share
him / team
goals
22%
11 / 49
expected goals (xG)
15%
9.1 / 59.1
shots
9%
48 / 525
Recruitment

Style and verdict

Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary.

23

Playing-Style Profile

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 creator54%Advanced playmaker (8)45%
Why Half-space creator 54%: a weighted blend of creativity 53 (weight 40%) + box threat 84 (weight 15%) + final-third threat 37 (weight 30%) + dribbling 58 (weight 15%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
—
Strong
box threat, retention, receiving zones, passing directness
Average
press resistance, build-up, dribbling, defensive aggression, creativity
Weak
final-third threat, through-balls, transition, ball-winning, line-breaking, carrying, progression, crossing, territory (wide vs central)
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Box threat
84
Retention
81
Receiving zones
76
Passing directness
72
Press resistance ~proxy
69
Build-up
61
Dribbling
58
Defensive aggression
55
Creativity
53
Final-third threat
37
Through-balls ~proxy
37
Transition ~proxy
32
Ball-winning
26
Line-breaking
26
Carrying
23
Progression
22
Crossing
10
Territory (wide vs central)
2
24

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: 178 cm / 66 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.

Eberechi Eze Arsenal · Premier League · 178 cm / 73 kg
84%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (18%), retention (13%), crossing (11%). Different mechanism — Fati more via box threat; Eze more via crossing, dribbling.
Oihan Sancet Athletic Club · La Liga · 188 cm / 73 kg
82%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (18%), ball-winning (13%), crossing (12%). Different mechanism — Fati more via receiving zones, through-balls; Sancet more via crossing, carrying.
Martin Terrier Leverkusen · Bundesliga · 184 cm / 73 kg
78%
Driven by: crossing (16%), territory (wide vs central) (14%), transition (13%). Different mechanism — Fati more via passing directness, transition.
Junior Kroupi Bournemouth · Premier League · 179 cm / 70 kg
75%
Driven by: crossing (22%), territory (wide vs central) (14%), progression (12%). Different mechanism — Fati more via retention, receiving zones.
Peque Fernández Sevilla · La Liga · 172 cm / 66 kg
70%
Driven by: crossing (25%), territory (wide vs central) (21%), ball-winning (18%). Different mechanism — Fati more via box threat, retention; Fernández more via carrying.
Jamal Musiala Bayern · Bundesliga · 186 cm / 75 kg
69%
Driven by: box threat (19%), territory (wide vs central) (15%), progression (11%). Different mechanism — Fati more via passing directness, line-breaking; Musiala more via crossing, dribbling.
25

Summary

Ansu Fati is a half-space creator: 1.13 key passes /90, 2.0 progressive passes, 11 goals from 8.70 xG. A between-the-lines creator. [Off-ball movement into pockets needs tracking.]

Based on 25 matches (1193 minutes) — a reasonable read, still building toward a full-season sample. He profiles as a half-space creator — best used in a system built around that identity. His biggest room for growth is final-third 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.

Vision AI · building report