Thin sample this season. Nathan Patterson has played 0 matches (0 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.
Signature: Not enough matches loaded yet to establish a repeatable signature for him.
Not a pattern: receive — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); carry out — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); break a line — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); switch play — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); progress — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet) — omitted from the signature rather than presented as one.
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Insufficient sample: Nathan Patterson played nearly every Torino match in the loaded data, so there is no meaningful "without him" comparison yet. This section fills in as more matches (and the rest of the season) are scraped.
03
His Share of the Team
Of everything Torino produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Nathan Patterson specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
tackles
2%
14 / 712
clearances
2%
23 / 1331
interceptions
1%
4 / 313
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 585 centre-backs 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.
Stopper centre-back53%Ball-playing centre-back12%
Why Stopper centre-back 53%: a weighted blend of ball-winning 77 (weight 40%) + defensive aggression 49 (weight 35%) + transition 27 (weight 10%) + retention 5 (weight 15%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Territory (wide vs central)
98
Through-balls ~proxy
86
Ball-winning
77
Crossing
53
Final-third threat
52
Defensive aggression
49
Receiving zones
48
Dribbling
46
Box threat
43
Creativity
42
Progression
37
Press resistance ~proxy
27
Transition ~proxy
27
Line-breaking
23
Carrying
16
Passing directness
8
Build-up
8
Retention
5
05
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: 183 cm / 72 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.
Jan Gyamerah Elversberg · Bundesliga · 184 cm / 79 kg
89%
Driven by: build-up (17%), retention (16%), territory (wide vs central) (14%). Different mechanism — Patterson more via receiving zones; Gyamerah more via crossing, line-breaking.
Aaron Hickey Brentford · 185 cm / 72 kg
85%
Driven by: build-up (19%), passing directness (13%), territory (wide vs central) (13%). Different mechanism — Hickey more via line-breaking, crossing.
James Justin Leeds · 183 cm / 80 kg
83%
Driven by: build-up (21%), retention (17%), territory (wide vs central) (12%). Different mechanism — Patterson more via through-balls; Justin more via box threat, defensive aggression.
Timo Becker Schalke · Bundesliga · 190 cm / 86 kg
77%
Driven by: retention (18%), build-up (15%), carrying (14%). Different mechanism — Patterson more via dribbling, box threat; Becker more via passing directness, line-breaking.
Philipp Treu Freiburg · Bundesliga · 173 cm / 72 kg
76%
Driven by: build-up (22%), territory (wide vs central) (14%), passing directness (14%). Different mechanism — Patterson more via ball-winning, final-third threat; Treu more via box threat, retention.
Kilian Fischer Wolfsburg · Bundesliga 25/26 · 182 cm / 77 kg
75%
Driven by: build-up (17%), retention (16%), territory (wide vs central) (15%). Different mechanism — Patterson more via through-balls, ball-winning; Fischer more via carrying.
06
Summary
Nathan Patterson is a stopper centre-back: 0% pass completion, 0 line-breaking passes and 0.0 progressive passes /90. A build-and-progress centre-back whose value is in beating the first line with the pass, not in raw defensive volume. [Aerial duels, marking, line-height and 1v1 recovery need aerial-event + tracking data, absent here.]
Based on 0 matches (0 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a stopper centre-back — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is retention — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall stopper centre-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
