Thin sample this season. Jurriën Timber has played 4 matches (173 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
Right Wing, Middle third — wide or inverted — mostly in the middle third (41% of his 74 passes)
82% completion · 74× in 4/4 matches
↓
PROGRESS
carry or combine up the flank
3.1 prog/90 · 6× in 2/4 matches
↓
DELIVER
cross or cut-back into the box
1 key passes · 3× in 2/4 matches
↓
DEFEND
1v1 and cover on his side
23 def actions · lost 40% deep · 23× in 4/4 matches
Signature: Receive → Progress → Deliver → Defend — 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: dribble — 2× (low confidence, shown as a number only, no tactical conclusion drawn) — 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.
1 key passes (0.52/90), 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 (1)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
04
Where does he become vulnerable?
15 times he gave the ball away. For a defender the danger is where — a loss in his own third can turn into a chance against; higher up it costs little.
2
attacking third (cheap)
7
middle third
6
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 13% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 3.31 danger-index/90 · 0.424 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 →
How does he progress the ball forward?
His most common route for progressing play: he plays inside from the right wing toward the right hs, advancing it forward in the middle third — 2 passes worth 0.64 xT.
Where do his chances come from?
Of 1 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the right hs toward the central in the final third — 1 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 right wing in the defensive third: 33% of his 12 touches there are lost (4 times).
23 defensive actions across the season (12.0/90). 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 →
3
tackles · 33% won
1
interceptions · 0.5/90
9
recoveries · 4.7/90
4
clearances · 2.1/90
1
blocks
36
avg action height
3
won high (att 3rd)
5
middle third
15
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 (6.8/90), tackle success 33%. He defends mostly around the middle third.
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Arsenal's output per match with Jurriën Timber (4 matches) versus without him (4 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 4 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 (4)
WITHOUT (4)
Δ
goals against /match
1.00
0.25
+0.75
points /match
2.25
3.00
-0.75
goals for /match
1.25
2.00
-0.75
xG for /match
1.44
0.50
+0.94
07
His Share of the Team
Of everything Arsenal produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Jurriën Timber specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
tackles
10%
69 / 697
progressive passes
8%
141 / 1870
interceptions
7%
25 / 336
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 233 full-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.
Overlapping full-back59%Inverted full-back48%
Why Overlapping full-back 59%: a weighted blend of crossing 66 (weight 30%) + final-third threat 68 (weight 25%) + transition 52 (weight 25%) + dribbling 36 (weight 20%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Box threat
83
Receiving zones
74
Through-balls ~proxy
72
Final-third threat
68
Crossing
66
Line-breaking
66
Defensive aggression
64
Retention
61
Ball-winning
59
Transition ~proxy
52
Carrying
52
Creativity
51
Progression
50
Passing directness
47
Press resistance ~proxy
44
Build-up
43
Dribbling
36
Territory (wide vs central)
19
09
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: 179 cm / 79 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 Premier League, Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue 1 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.
Maxim De Cuyper Brighton · 182 cm / 71 kg
69%
Driven by: box threat (27%), through-balls (13%), crossing (13%). Different mechanism — Timber more via passing directness, ball-winning; Cuyper more via progression, line-breaking.
Giovanni Di Lorenzo Napoli · Serie A · 183 cm / 83 kg
66%
Driven by: box threat (29%), crossing (11%), defensive aggression (10%). Different mechanism — Timber more via ball-winning; Lorenzo more via territory (wide vs central), build-up.
Zachary Athekame Lyon · Ligue 1 · 181 cm / 74 kg
62%
Driven by: box threat (28%), receiving zones (11%), crossing (11%). Different mechanism — Timber more via retention, ball-winning; Athekame more via territory (wide vs central), creativity.
Flávio Nazinho Monaco · Ligue 1 · 178 cm / 72 kg
60%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (25%), final-third threat (14%), through-balls (13%). Different mechanism — Timber more via box threat, crossing; Nazinho more via progression, passing directness.
Achraf Hakimi PSG · Ligue 1 · 181 cm / 73 kg
59%
Driven by: box threat (27%), receiving zones (17%), final-third threat (13%). Different mechanism — Timber more via passing directness, ball-winning; Hakimi more via progression, carrying.
Alessandro Bastoni Inter · Serie A · 190 cm / 75 kg
58%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (17%), receiving zones (14%), final-third threat (13%). Different mechanism — Bastoni more via progression, build-up.
10
Summary
Jurriën Timber is an overlapping full-back: 3.1 progressive passes and 3 box entries, delivering 1 key passes. Overlap-first full-back. [1v1 recovery pace and off-ball overlap timing need tracking.]
Based on 4 matches (173 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as an overlapping full-back — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is dribbling — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall overlapping full-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.
← BACK TO SEARCH
