Thin sample this season. Sam Beukema has played 2 matches (106 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
in the first line of build-up — mostly in the middle third (64% of his 94 passes)
89% completion · 94× in 2/2 matches
↓
BREAK A LINE
vertical pass past the opponent midfield
4.2 prog/90 · 6× in 2/2 matches
↓
SWITCH PLAY
diagonal to the far side
cross-field balls · 4× in 1/2 matches
↓
PROGRESS
entries into the final third
4.2/90 · 5× in 1/2 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 — 0× (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.
18 tracked carries (15.3/90, 0 progressive, 136m 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.
progressivelateral/short% of his 18 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 6m, longest 17m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
First (18)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).
brighter band = more tackle duels · own goal left, attacking →
Right Wing
0 · 0%
Right Half-Space
0 · 0%
Central
0 · 0%
Left Half-Space
0 · 0%
Left Wing
0 · 0%
Vision AI too few tackle duels this season to read a pattern.
He attempted only 0 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 create chances?
1 key passes (0.85/90), 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
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 straight through the right wing in the middle third — 3 passes worth 0.23 xT.
Where do his chances come from?
Of 1 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he switches it out from the right hs to the left wing 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 final third: 50% of his 8 touches there are lost (4 times).
19 defensive actions across the season (16.1/90). 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 →
0
tackles · 0% won
1
interceptions · 0.8/90
3
recoveries · 2.5/90
9
clearances · 7.6/90
0
blocks
21
avg action height
1
won high (att 3rd)
2
middle third
16
own third
Vision AI A deep-defending defender. He wins the ball mainly by clearing and blocking — a reactive, protect-the-box profile. 4 proactive ball-wins (3.4/90), tackle success 0%. He defends deep, protecting his box — a last-line stopper.
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Napoli's output per match with Sam Beukema (2 matches) versus without him (6 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 6 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 (2)
WITHOUT (6)
Δ
goals against /match
2.00
1.00
+1.00
points /match
0.50
1.67
-1.17
goals for /match
1.50
1.67
-0.17
xG for /match
2.26
1.79
+0.47
07
His Share of the Team
Of everything Napoli produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Sam Beukema specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
clearances
9%
71 / 821
final-third entries
7%
136 / 2000
interceptions
6%
15 / 247
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 515 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.
Ball-playing centre-back70%Stopper centre-back36%
Why Ball-playing centre-back 70%: a weighted blend of retention 67 (weight 30%) + progression 77 (weight 25%) + build-up 61 (weight 30%) + press resistance 53 (weight 15%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
final-third threat
Strong
line-breaking, territory (wide vs central), receiving zones, progression, box threat
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Final-third threat
85
Line-breaking
84
Territory (wide vs central)
80
Receiving zones
78
Progression
77
Box threat
73
Retention
67
Build-up
61
Carrying
61
Through-balls ~proxy
61
Creativity
58
Press resistance ~proxy
53
Crossing
51
Transition ~proxy
50
Dribbling
42
Defensive aggression
42
Ball-winning
30
Passing directness
25
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: 188 cm / 77 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.
Arthur Theate Bologna · 185 cm / 78 kg
81%
Driven by: final-third threat (25%), progression (20%), line-breaking (18%). Different mechanism — Beukema more via territory (wide vs central); Theate more via ball-winning.
Dávid Hancko Atletico · La Liga · 188 cm / 82 kg
75%
Driven by: final-third threat (19%), progression (14%), line-breaking (14%). Different mechanism — Hancko more via dribbling, creativity.
Josip Stanisic Bayern · Bundesliga · 186 cm / 77 kg
73%
Driven by: final-third threat (15%), receiving zones (13%), progression (12%). Different mechanism — Beukema more via passing directness; Stanisic more via crossing, dribbling.
Tom Bischof Bayern · Bundesliga · 176 cm / 66 kg
73%
Driven by: final-third threat (17%), receiving zones (14%), line-breaking (12%). Different mechanism — Beukema more via passing directness; Bischof more via creativity, crossing.
Adam Boayar Elche · La Liga · 181 cm / 83 kg
73%
Driven by: final-third threat (27%), progression (18%), line-breaking (15%). Different mechanism — Beukema more via box threat, receiving zones; Boayar more via crossing, through-balls.
Javi Rodríguez Celta Vigo · La Liga · 178 cm / 70 kg
72%
Driven by: final-third threat (16%), receiving zones (14%), ball-winning (12%). Different mechanism — Beukema more via box threat, transition; Rodríguez more via crossing, dribbling.
10
Summary
Sam Beukema is a ball-playing centre-back: 89% pass completion, 6 line-breaking passes and 4.2 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 2 matches (106 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a ball-playing centre-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 ball-playing 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.