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 reportSerie A 2026

Giorgio Scalvini

Atalanta
Ball-playing centre-back CB
4.5 progressive passes/90 · 1.0 line-breaking/90
Capability Analysis
Aerial & Box Defending16%vs 43 centre-backs
"Can he win the individual defensive battle in his own box?"
Aerial duels won /900.00%
Aerial win rate: 0.0%
Clearances /903.6533%
Ball-Winning79%vs 43 centre-backs
"How actively does he win the ball back?"
Interceptions /901.7188%
Ball recoveries /904.2581%
Tackles /902.0181%
Duels won /902.0165%
Breaking Pressure
only 21 pressured-passing actions across 1 high-press match -- not enough sample (needs 5+ matches and 12+ actions)
Progression82%vs 43 centre-backs
"Can he move the team forward with a pass, not just recycle it sideways?"
Progressive passes /904.8188%
Line-breaking passes /901.3888%
Threat added by passing /901.31xT91%
Pass accuracy89.41%60%
Ball-Carrying56%vs 43 centre-backs
"Does he advance the ball himself when the pass isn't on?"
Progressive carries /904.6260%
Carry distance /90104.42m51%
centre-backstopper centre-backbuild-upline-breaking
540
minutes
6 apps
367
passes
96% completed
96%
pass completion
367 passes
27
progressive passes
4.5/90
18
line-breaking passes
3.0/90
83
defensive actions
13.8/90
10
tackles + interceptions
86% tackle win
23
clearances
3.8/90
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
in the first line of build-up — mostly in the middle third (56% of his 367 passes)
96% completion · 367× in 6/6 matches
↓
BREAK A LINE
vertical pass past the opponent midfield
4.5 prog/90 · 18× in 5/6 matches
↓
SWITCH PLAY
diagonal to the far side
cross-field balls · 11× in 5/6 matches
↓
PROGRESS
entries into the final third
3.3/90 · 20× in 4/6 matches
Signature: Receive → Break A Line → Switch Play → Progress — 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: carry out — 2× (low confidence, shown as a number only, no tactical conclusion drawn) — omitted from the signature rather than presented as one.
17

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 →
61
passes / match
13.8
def actions / 90
21–98
pass range (matches)
23
clearances
Pass range = his fewest and most passes in any single match this season (21 at the low end, 98 at the high) — a measure of match-to-match involvement, not pass distance.
In possession

In possession

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

08

How dangerous are his carries?

Real ball-carries

88 tracked carries (14.7/90, 16 progressive, 680m total) — the ball moving with his touches, a different signal from dribbles below (beating an opponent 1v1). even a player who rarely dribbles past a man can still carry the ball forward constantly in build-up; this is that.

1%7%14%27%7%9%20%9%6%
progressivelateral/short% of his 88 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 6m, longest 28m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
7Outside → Inside
76Inside → Inside
2Outside → Outside
3Inside → Outside
First (28)Second (23)Third (22)Fourth (15)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →

Beaten in the tackle

How often an attacker gets past him in a 1v1 defensive duel — the closest signal the data has to "dribbled past" (no attacker-beat-defender field exists directly, so this counts tackles he attempted and lost).

7
tackle duels
6
won
1
beaten · 14%
brighter band = more tackle duels · own goal left, attacking →
INSIDE 57%
OUTSIDE 43%
Tackle-duel location — 4 inside · 3 outside
Right Wing
0 · 0%
Right Half-Space
1 · 14%
Central
0 · 0%
Left Half-Space
3 · 43%
Left Wing
3 · 43%
Vision AI beaten in 1 of 7 tackle duels (14% loss rate) — a solid 1v1 defensive record.
Every tackle duel, exact location
wonlost — dribbled pastown goal left, attacking →

He attempted only 1 dribble of his own all season — dribbling is not part of this role; his ball-carrying is covered above, his defending against the dribble below.

02

How does he build & move the ball?

How does he escape the first line?

9%
vertical passes
26×
3%
switches
9×
27%
carries
76×
60%
short circulation
170×
Answer: he escapes the press primarily through carrying — stepping out with 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 →RWRHSCLHSLWRW1100%1RHS2100%2C1232%228%3545%5511%1414%17LHS1943%69%1737%7227%5224%47LW313%126%835%1135%11FROM
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 → the left half-space in the middle third — 4 progressive passes (22% of his progression) at 0.047 xT each. He keeps it in the same lane.

His progression is inward: 22% of progressive passes move the ball toward the middle versus 6% going wider — he cuts in rather than holding width.

Only 5% of his passes switch play, so his threat is same-side — contain the flank he occupies and the route closes.

Quality behind the volume: 6 line-breaking passes and 20 final-third entries, 6.2 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
0%1%4%13%22%11%0%6%19%15%7%2%0%
completedincomplete367 passes · any zone → any zone · own goal left, attacking →
367
passes
96%
completed
16
lost
Vision AIIn line with his 96% season completion rate.
04

How does he progress play?

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

27
progressive · 4.5/90
20
final-third entries · 3.3/90
0
box entries · 0.00/90
19
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.
12

How does he create chances?

0 key passes (0.00/90), 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 (0)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
09

Where does he become vulnerable?

17 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.

1
attacking third (cheap)
10
middle third
6
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 6% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 1.31 danger-index/90 · 0.463 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
05

What is his passing profile?

367
passes attempted
51%
mostly forward
54%
mostly medium
Direction
Forward
188 · 51%
Sideways
145 · 40%
Backward
34 · 9%
Length (completed)
Short (<15m)
149 · 42%
Medium
188 · 54%
Long (>30m)
14 · 4%
10

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.

0.450.240.170.150.130.11
own goal left, attacking →
Highest-value routes (xT)
0.45
Left Half-Space Mid third → Left Half-Space Mid third
5 passes
0.24
Left Wing Def third → Left Half-Space Mid third
3 passes
0.17
Left Half-Space Def third → Left Half-Space Mid third
4 passes
0.15
Left Half-Space Mid third → Central Att third
1 passes
0.13
Left Half-Space Mid third → Left Wing Att third
1 passes
0.11
Left Wing Mid third → Left Half-Space Mid third
1 passes
06

Where Does He Receive?

The zones where Giorgio Scalvini 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
30%
Primary
Left Half-Space, Middle third
24%
Secondary
Left Half-Space, Defensive third
23%
Third
Central, Middle third
These are the zones where he collected the ball most.
07

Where Does He Operate? — Every Zone

Every on-ball touch (pass, dribble, shot) binned into a 6×3 grid — raw counts of where Giorgio Scalvini 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:
2268572661164781401112
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.

0%1%4%13%22%11%0%6%19%15%7%2%0%
own goal left, attacking →
11

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.

27Progressive
18Long ball
11Switch
By zone — where the pass started → where it landed
21Outside → Inside
247Inside → Inside
11Outside → Outside
72Inside → Outside
By direction
188Forward
34Backward
145Sideways
own goal left, attacking →
03

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 middle third — 5 passes worth 0.45 xT.
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 wing in the middle third: 22% of his 9 touches there are lost (2 times).
—1 touch · too few—0 touches · too few5%2/42 lost5%4/88 lost0%0/21 lost—0 touches · too few—2 touches · too few4%3/85 lost4%4/111 lost22%2/9 lost—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too few—1 touch · too few—4 touches · too few—3 touches · too fewRWRHSCLHSLWDEFMIDATT
Out of possession

Out of possession

Where and how he defends and presses.

13

How & where does he defend?

83 defensive actions across the season (13.8/90). 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 →
7
tackles · 86% won
3
interceptions · 0.5/90
14
recoveries · 2.3/90
23
clearances · 3.8/90
6
blocks
27
avg action height
6
won high (att 3rd)
23
middle third
54
own third
Vision AI A deep-defending defender. He wins the ball mainly by clearing and blocking — a reactive, protect-the-box profile. 24 proactive ball-wins (4.0/90), tackle success 86%. He defends deep, protecting his box — a last-line stopper.
14

Can he play under pressure?

Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Can Giorgio Scalvini still play out when the opponent presses high? His build-up quality split by press intensity — the key question for a ball-playing defender. Tiers of ~2-2 matches — directional evidence, not proof.

press tier
completion
prog /90
line-breaks /90
xT /90
High press (PPDA 4.1, 2m)
96%
2.2
1.1
0.34
Mid press (PPDA 7.8, 2m)
94%
4.3
4.8
1.19
Low press (PPDA 10.2, 2m)
97%
6.7
2.9
2.01
Team

Team context

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

15

Impact on the Team

Atalanta's output per match with Giorgio Scalvini (6 matches) versus without him (2 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 2 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 (6)
WITHOUT (2)
Δ
goals against /match
1.33
3.50
-2.17
points /match
1.50
0.50
+1.00
goals for /match
1.33
3.00
-1.67
xG for /match
0.99
0.00
+0.99
16

His Share of the Team

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

category
share
him / team
interceptions
13%
46 / 358
clearances
10%
98 / 984
tackles
8%
54 / 664
Recruitment

Style and verdict

Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary.

18

Playing-Style Profile

Not raw event counts — football style scores: weighted models scored 0–100 against the 513 centre-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.

Stopper centre-back88%Ball-playing centre-back67%
Why Stopper centre-back 88%: a weighted blend of ball-winning 87 (weight 40%) + defensive aggression 89 (weight 35%) + retention 60 (weight 15%) + transition 65 (weight 10%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
receiving zones, box threat, line-breaking, final-third threat, defensive aggression, ball-winning, crossing
Strong
progression, through-balls, territory (wide vs central), dribbling, creativity
Average
transition, carrying, press resistance, retention, passing directness, build-up
Weak
—
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Receiving zones
97
Box threat
92
Line-breaking
92
Final-third threat
90
Defensive aggression
89
Ball-winning
87
Crossing
85
Progression
83
Through-balls ~proxy
80
Territory (wide vs central)
76
Dribbling
74
Creativity
72
Transition ~proxy
65
Carrying
64
Press resistance ~proxy
62
Retention
60
Passing directness
55
Build-up
51
19

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: 194 cm / 76 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 Serie A, Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue 1 and Premier League, 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.

Oumar Solet Udinese · 192 cm / 88 kg
90%
Driven by: ball-winning (12%), box threat (10%), final-third threat (10%). Different mechanism — Scalvini more via passing directness, territory (wide vs central); Solet more via carrying.
Nico Schlotterbeck Borussia Dortmund · Bundesliga · 191 cm / 81 kg
88%
Driven by: box threat (11%), receiving zones (11%), final-third threat (11%). Different mechanism — Scalvini more via territory (wide vs central), ball-winning; Schlotterbeck more via passing directness, carrying.
Gianluca Mancini Roma · 190 cm / 77 kg
87%
Driven by: defensive aggression (15%), box threat (13%), receiving zones (11%). Different mechanism — Scalvini more via ball-winning, receiving zones.
Eric García Barcelona · La Liga · 180 cm / 77 kg
87%
Driven by: receiving zones (12%), defensive aggression (11%), ball-winning (11%). Different mechanism — Scalvini more via dribbling.
Ismaëlo Ganiou Lens · Ligue 1 · 191 cm / 80 kg
83%
Driven by: box threat (12%), receiving zones (11%), ball-winning (10%). Different mechanism — Scalvini more via through-balls, crossing; Ganiou more via passing directness.
Ramy Bensebaini Borussia Dortmund · Bundesliga · 187 cm / 82 kg
83%
Driven by: box threat (14%), final-third threat (13%), receiving zones (13%). Different mechanism — Scalvini more via dribbling, ball-winning; Bensebaini more via through-balls, carrying.
20

Summary

Giorgio Scalvini is a stopper centre-back / ball-playing centre-back: 96% pass completion, 18 line-breaking passes and 4.5 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 6 matches (540 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a stopper centre-back / ball-playing 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.

Vision AI · building report