Thin sample this season. Omri Gandelman has played 2 matches (20 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
Central, Attacking third — between the lines — mostly in the attacking third (100% of his 3 passes)
33% completion · 3× in 1/1 matches
↓
CREATE
through-ball, cut-back, key pass
4.50/90 · 1× in 1/1 matches
↓
FINISH
arrive and shoot from central zones
0 goals · 0.08 xG · 2× in 1/1 matches
Signature: Receive → Create → Finish — the only steps proven repeatable this season (3 of 4 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: turn / beat man — 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.
Lecce's output per match with Omri Gandelman (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. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (2)
WITHOUT (6)
Δ
goals for /match
1.50
1.00
+0.50
xG for /match
1.55
0.98
+0.58
goals against /match
1.00
2.00
-1.00
points /match
1.50
1.00
+0.50
03
His Share of the Team
Of everything Lecce produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Omri Gandelman specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
box entries
4%
11 / 303
half-space entries
4%
21 / 589
shots
3%
12 / 370
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 247 attacking mids 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.
Half-space creator9%Advanced playmaker (8)9%
Why Half-space creator 9%: a weighted blend of creativity 12 (weight 40%) + final-third threat 6 (weight 30%) + dribbling 4 (weight 15%) + box threat 4 (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
Passing directness
86
Defensive aggression
84
Crossing
43
Territory (wide vs central)
33
Transition ~proxy
28
Build-up
27
Ball-winning
22
Creativity
12
Receiving zones
10
Retention
8
Press resistance ~proxy
7
Progression
6
Final-third threat
6
Line-breaking
6
Dribbling
4
Through-balls ~proxy
4
Box threat
4
Carrying
3
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: 188 cm / 84 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.
Brennan Johnson Everton · Premier League · 186 cm / 73 kg
92%
Driven by: press resistance (11%), box threat (10%), progression (9%). Different mechanism — Gandelman more via defensive aggression; Johnson more via through-balls, territory (wide vs central).
Jens Odgaard Bologna · 188 cm / 83 kg
91%
Driven by: progression (10%), creativity (10%), press resistance (8%). Different mechanism — Gandelman more via defensive aggression; Odgaard more via box threat, dribbling.
Ilyas Ansah Union Berlin · Bundesliga 25/26 · 194 cm / 84 kg
85%
Driven by: creativity (11%), box threat (10%), final-third threat (9%). Different mechanism — Gandelman more via passing directness; Ansah more via carrying, dribbling.
Kevin Schade Brentford · Premier League · 183 cm / 74 kg
85%
Driven by: press resistance (11%), retention (9%), dribbling (9%). Different mechanism — Schade more via box threat, ball-winning.
Unai Gómez Udinese · 183 cm / 75 kg
84%
Driven by: progression (8%), transition (8%). Different mechanism — Gandelman more via passing directness; Gómez more via box threat, dribbling.
Ismaïla Sarr Crystal Palace · Premier League · 185 cm / 76 kg
83%
Driven by: press resistance (13%), dribbling (10%), retention (8%). Different mechanism — Gandelman more via defensive aggression; Sarr more via box threat, transition.
06
Summary
Omri Gandelman is a half-space creator: 4.50 key passes /90, 0.0 progressive passes, 0 goals from 0.08 xG. A between-the-lines creator. [Off-ball movement into pockets needs tracking.]
Based on 2 matches (20 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a half-space creator — 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 half-space creator 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
