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 → Convert — the only steps proven repeatable this season (3 of 4 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: receive / move — 1× (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.
11 tracked carries (3.7/90, 3 progressive, 97m 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 11 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 7m, longest 20m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
First (11)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Dribbles (1v1s)
Only 5 dribbles attempted this season — too little volume to map a location pattern.
03
How does he create chances?
5 key passes (1.70/90), 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 (5)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 (1)from the right (4)of 5 key passes landing in the final thirdattacking ↑ toward goal
04
Where does he become vulnerable?
15 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.
11
attacking third (cheap)
2
middle third
2
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 73% of losses are in the attacking third — he gambles where a turnover costs little.
Mistake danger (proxy): 1.16 danger-index/90 · 0.228 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
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 →
Where do his chances come from?
Of 5 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays straight through the right hs 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 central in the final third: 40% of his 10 touches there are lost (4 times).
29 defensive actions across the season (9.8/90). 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 →
4
tackles · 75% won
0
interceptions · 0.0/90
9
recoveries · 3.1/90
5
clearances · 1.7/90
0
blocks
45
avg action height
5
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. 13 proactive ball-wins (4.4/90), tackle success 75%. 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.
13
attacking-half actions · 4.42/90
06
Against Different Pressing Intensities
Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Does Troy Parrott keep producing when the game is tight and the press is high? Tiers of ~2-3 matches — directional evidence, not proof.
press tier
xT /90
prog /90
key P /90
dribble%
High press (PPDA 4.4, 2m)
0.04
0.0
1.48
0%
Mid press (PPDA 5.9, 2m)
0.23
1.0
2.05
25%
Low press (PPDA 6.3, 3m)
0.24
0.0
1.55
0%
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Real Betis's output per match with Troy Parrott (7 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 (7)
WITHOUT (3)
Δ
goals for /match
1.71
1.33
+0.38
xG for /match
1.36
1.39
-0.03
goals against /match
1.71
0.67
+1.05
points /match
1.86
2.33
-0.48
09
His Share of the Team
Of everything Real Betis produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Troy Parrott specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
goals
7%
1 / 14
expected goals (xG)
2%
1.1 / 63.1
shots
1%
8 / 693
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 354 strikers in the pool (min 180 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.
Why Target man 67%: a weighted blend of box threat 67 (weight 50%) + retention 77 (weight 20%) + final-third threat 50 (weight 30%). 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
77
Receiving zones
74
Build-up
72
Box threat
67
Ball-winning
63
Creativity
59
Final-third threat
50
Transition ~proxy
50
Press resistance ~proxy
48
Carrying
43
Line-breaking
40
Defensive aggression
35
Progression
35
Dribbling
22
Passing directness
15
Through-balls ~proxy
14
Crossing
9
Territory (wide vs central)
8
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: 185 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.
Danny Welbeck Chelsea · Premier League · 185 cm / 73 kg
82%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (15%), build-up (15%), retention (10%). Different mechanism — Parrott more via transition, line-breaking; Welbeck more via crossing.
Jonathan David Atletico · Serie A · 178 cm / 81 kg
76%
Driven by: crossing (15%), build-up (13%), territory (wide vs central) (12%). Different mechanism — David more via passing directness, carrying.
Patrik Schick Leverkusen · Bundesliga · 191 cm / 86 kg
68%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (13%), retention (11%), build-up (11%). Different mechanism — Parrott more via ball-winning, transition; Schick more via crossing.
Serhou Guirassy Borussia Dortmund · Bundesliga · 187 cm / 82 kg
67%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (19%), passing directness (15%), retention (12%). Different mechanism — Parrott more via ball-winning; Guirassy more via crossing, through-balls.
Robert Lewandowski Barcelona 25/26 · 186 cm / 81 kg
64%
Driven by: retention (14%), through-balls (14%), territory (wide vs central) (13%). Different mechanism — Parrott more via ball-winning, line-breaking; Lewandowski more via crossing, dribbling.
Gonçalo Ramos AC Milan · Serie A · 185 cm / 79 kg
63%
Driven by: build-up (22%), retention (13%), passing directness (13%). Different mechanism — Parrott more via transition, line-breaking; Ramos more via crossing, dribbling.
12
Summary
Troy Parrott is a target man / false 9: 1 goals from 1.06 xG (-0.06 vs expected), 8 shots, 1 box entries. Under-performing his chances. [Off-ball runs, aerials and hold-up under contact need tracking/aerial data.]
Based on 7 matches (265 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a target man / false 9 — 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 target man 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.