العربيةVision AI ← BACK TO SEARCH
Player reportLigue 1 2026

Flávio Nazinho

Monaco
Defensive full-back FB
16.0 defensive actions/90 · low final-third share 23%
Capability Analysis
Ball-Winning57%vs 21 full-backs
"How actively does he win the ball back?"
Interceptions /901.9486%
Ball recoveries /904.4871%
Tackles /901.6933%
Duels won /900.638%
Breaking Pressure
only 86 pressured-passing actions across 2 high-press matches -- not enough sample (needs 5+ matches and 12+ actions)
Wide Delivery14%vs 21 full-backs
"Does he create danger from wide areas -- crosses and cutbacks?"
Crosses /900.00%
Cross accuracy: 0.0%
Cutbacks /901.9429%
Ball-Carrying38%vs 21 full-backs
"Does he advance the ball himself when the pass isn't on?"
Progressive carries /904.8438%
Carry distance /9099.88m38%
full-backinverted full-backprogressioncrossing
744
minutes
8 apps
81%
pass completion
555 passes
55
progressive passes
6.7/90
48
final-3rd entries
5.8/90
5
box entries
0.60/90
132
defensive actions
16.0/90
30
tackles + interceptions
57% tackle win
6
dribbles
33% won
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 Wing, Middle third — wide or inverted — mostly in the middle third (58% of his 555 passes)
81% completion · 555× in 8/8 matches
↓
PROGRESS
carry or combine up the flank
6.7 prog/90 · 55× in 8/8 matches
↓
DRIBBLE
beat his man up the line
33% won · 6× in 5/8 matches
↓
DELIVER
cross or cut-back into the box
10 key passes · 5× in 4/8 matches
↓
DEFEND
1v1 and cover on his side
132 def actions · lost 26% deep · 132× in 8/8 matches
Signature: receive wide/inverted → progress the flank → deliver into the box → recover to defend 1v1. Attack the space behind him in transition.
18

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 →
69
passes / match
16.0
def actions / 90
36–91
pass range (matches)
23
clearances
Pass range = his fewest and most passes in any single match this season (36 at the low end, 91 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

95 tracked carries (11.5/90, 22 progressive, 826m 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%1%1%4%2%1%4%12%32%22%18%2%
progressivelateral/short% of his 95 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 7m, longest 36m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
9Outside → Inside
33Inside → Inside
39Outside → Outside
14Inside → Outside
First (49)Second (26)Third (19)Fourth (1)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).

14
tackle duels
8
won
6
beaten · 43%
brighter band = more tackle duels · own goal left, attacking →
INSIDE 29%
OUTSIDE 71%
Tackle-duel location — 4 inside · 10 outside
Right Wing
0 · 0%
Right Half-Space
0 · 0%
Central
1 · 7%
Left Half-Space
3 · 21%
Left Wing
10 · 71%
Vision AI beaten in 6 of 14 tackle duels (43% loss rate) — a real defensive leak worth flagging.
Every tackle duel, exact location
wonlost — dribbled pastown goal left, attacking →

He attempted only 6 dribbles of his own all season — dribbling is not part of this role; his ball-carrying is covered above, his defending against the dribble below.

04

How does he build & move the ball?

How does he escape the first line?

17%
vertical passes
38×
1%
switches
2×
23%
carries
51×
59%
short circulation
129×
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 →RWRHSCLHSLWRW520%120%160%3RHS2100%2C2015%355%1110%220%4LHS1621%12%434%5524%3939%63LW2630%10%16%1536%9458%152FROM
Rows normalised: each row sums to 100% of that lane's completed passes. Grey number = passes from that lane.

Primary route: the left wing in the middle third → the left half-space in the middle third — 9 progressive passes (16% of his progression) at 0.014 xT each. He moves it inside.

His progression is inward: 57% of progressive passes move the ball toward the middle versus 0% going wider — he cuts in rather than holding width.

Only 3% of his passes switch play, so his threat is same-side — contain the flank he occupies and the route closes.

Quality behind the volume: 18 line-breaking passes and 48 final-third entries, 10.0 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%0%1%2%0%2%2%3%1%3%14%25%28%14%5%
completedincomplete555 passes · any zone → any zone · own goal left, attacking →
555
passes
81%
completed
103
lost
Vision AIIn line with his 81% season completion rate.
05

How does he progress play?

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

55
progressive · 6.7/90
48
final-third entries · 5.8/90
5
box entries · 0.60/90
26
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.
10

How does he create chances?

10 key passes (1.21/90), 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:
12%12%12%38%25%
chance creation (8)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
09

Where does he become vulnerable?

107 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.

42
attacking third (cheap)
37
middle third
28
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 39% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 4.20 danger-index/90 · 0.325 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
11

What is his passing profile?

555
passes attempted
48%
mostly forward
56%
mostly short
Direction
Forward
269 · 48%
Sideways
162 · 29%
Backward
124 · 22%
Length (completed)
Short (<15m)
253 · 56%
Medium
188 · 42%
Long (>30m)
11 · 2%
12

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.

0.830.690.520.340.320.32
own goal left, attacking →
Highest-value routes (xT)
0.83
Left Wing Mid third → Left Wing Att third
7 passes
0.69
Left Wing Mid third → Left Wing Mid third
11 passes
0.52
Left Wing Mid third → Left Half-Space Att third
2 passes
0.34
Left Wing Att third → Central Att third
1 passes · 1 to a shot
0.32
Right Half-Space Mid third → Right Half-Space Att third
1 passes
0.32
Left Half-Space Mid third → Left Half-Space Mid third
4 passes
06

Where Does He Receive?

The zones where Flávio Nazinho 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
34%
Primary
Left Wing, Middle third
21%
Secondary
Left Half-Space, Middle third
14%
Third
Left Wing, Attacking 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 Flávio Nazinho 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:
17811421588125199165221411
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%0%1%2%0%2%2%3%1%3%14%25%28%14%5%
own goal left, attacking →
13

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.

10Key pass
14Cross
5Cutback
55Progressive
46Long ball
9Switch
By zone — where the pass started → where it landed
114Outside → Inside
116Inside → Inside
154Outside → Outside
68Inside → Outside
By direction
269Forward
124Backward
162Sideways
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 wing, advancing it forward in the middle third — 7 passes worth 0.83 xT.
Where do his chances come from?
Of 10 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the right wing toward the central in the final third — 3 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 final third: 73% of his 15 touches there are lost (11 times).
—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too few—7 touches · too few14%6/43 lost34%19/56 lost—1 touch · too few—2 touches · too few7%1/15 lost10%12/117 lost12%22/189 lost73%11/15 lost—1 touch · too few—2 touches · too few29%8/28 lost25%20/79 lostRWRHSCLHSLWDEFMIDATT
02

Crosses & Cutbacks

14 crosses (1.69/90, 3 completed) and 5 cutbacks (0.60/90, 0 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.

14

How & where does he defend?

132 defensive actions across the season (16.0/90). 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 →
14
tackles · 57% won
16
interceptions · 1.9/90
37
recoveries · 4.5/90
23
clearances · 2.8/90
8
blocks
36
avg action height
12
won high (att 3rd)
54
middle third
66
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 67 proactive ball-wins (8.1/90), tackle success 57%. He defends mostly around the middle third.
15

Can he play under pressure?

Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Can Flávio Nazinho 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 ~2-4 matches — directional evidence, not proof.

press tier
completion
prog /90
line-breaks /90
xT /90
High press (PPDA 3.7, 2m)
75%
7.2
5.7
1.57
Mid press (PPDA 5.6, 2m)
84%
6.6
5.2
1.46
Low press (PPDA 8.7, 4m)
83%
6.4
5.7
1.74
Team

Team context

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

16

Impact on the Team

Insufficient sample: Flávio Nazinho played nearly every Monaco 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.

17

His Share of the Team

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

category
share
him / team
goals
10%
1 / 10
interceptions
4%
16 / 390
progressive passes
4%
58 / 1532
Recruitment

Style and verdict

Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary.

19

Playing-Style Profile

Not raw event counts — football style scores: weighted models scored 0–100 against the 231 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.

Inverted full-back62%Overlapping full-back57%
Why Inverted full-back 62%: a weighted blend of build-up 63 (weight 35%) + progression 73 (weight 25%) + retention 54 (weight 30%) + press resistance 38 (weight 10%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
through-balls
Strong
line-breaking, final-third threat, receiving zones, progression
Average
defensive aggression, passing directness, ball-winning, transition, build-up, creativity, retention, box threat, carrying, crossing
Weak
press resistance, dribbling, territory (wide vs central)
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Through-balls ~proxy
86
Line-breaking
84
Final-third threat
83
Receiving zones
74
Progression
73
Defensive aggression
69
Passing directness
67
Ball-winning
67
Transition ~proxy
66
Build-up
63
Creativity
57
Retention
54
Box threat
49
Carrying
47
Crossing
44
Press resistance ~proxy
38
Dribbling
26
Territory (wide vs central)
8
20

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 / 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 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.

Pierre Kalulu Juventus · Serie A · 179 cm / 69 kg
75%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (20%), final-third threat (18%), dribbling (11%). Different mechanism — Nazinho more via through-balls; Kalulu more via retention, crossing.
Yuri Berchiche Athletic Club · La Liga · 181 cm / 79 kg
73%
Driven by: final-third threat (15%), territory (wide vs central) (14%), line-breaking (13%). Different mechanism — Nazinho more via through-balls, ball-winning; Berchiche more via creativity, retention.
Alessandro Bastoni Inter · Serie A · 190 cm / 75 kg
70%
Driven by: final-third threat (14%), territory (wide vs central) (13%), line-breaking (10%). Different mechanism — Bastoni more via press resistance, carrying.
Sergio Gómez Real Sociedad · La Liga · 173 cm / 71 kg
67%
Driven by: final-third threat (23%), progression (12%), line-breaking (12%). Different mechanism — Gómez more via territory (wide vs central), dribbling.
Nordi Mukiele Sunderland · Premier League · 187 cm / 84 kg
64%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (20%), through-balls (13%), line-breaking (11%). Different mechanism — Nazinho more via retention, final-third threat; Mukiele more via passing directness, dribbling.
Bernardo Hoffenheim · Bundesliga · 186 cm / 76 kg
63%
Driven by: defensive aggression (17%), through-balls (14%), territory (wide vs central) (10%). Different mechanism — Nazinho more via receiving zones, creativity; Bernardo more via passing directness, territory (wide vs central).
21

Summary

Flávio Nazinho is an inverted full-back / overlapping full-back: 6.7 progressive passes and 5 box entries, delivering 10 key passes. Inverted full-back. [1v1 recovery pace and off-ball overlap timing need tracking.]

Based on 8 matches (744 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as an inverted full-back / overlapping full-back — best used in a system built around that identity. His biggest room for growth is press resistance — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall inverted 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.

Vision AI · building report