Thin sample this season. Loum Tchaouna has played 4 matches (223 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
Right Wing, Attacking third — between the lines — mostly in the attacking third (53% of his 76 passes)
66% completion · 76× in 4/4 matches
↓
TURN / BEAT MAN
face forward in the pocket
33% won · 6× in 3/4 matches
↓
CREATE
through-ball, cut-back, key pass
1.21/90 · 3× in 2/4 matches
↓
FINISH
arrive and shoot from central zones
0 goals · 0.30 xG · 6× in 4/4 matches
Signature: receive between the lines → turn → create or finish.
In possession
In possession
What he does with the ball: build-up, progression, creation, carrying and finishing.
20 tracked carries (8.1/90, 6 progressive, 237m total) — the ball moving with his touches, a different signal from dribbles below (beating an opponent 1v1). this counts every touch-carry, not just his dribble attempts below — a fuller picture of how much of his ball-carrying is control-and-move rather than beating a man.
progressivelateral/short% of his 20 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 10m, longest 34m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
First (20)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Dribbles (1v1s)
Only 6 dribbles attempted this season — too little volume to map a location pattern.
02
How does he create chances?
3 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:
chance creation (3)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
Box deliveries — key passes reaching the final third, by flank
from the left (1)from the right (2)of 3 key passes landing in the final thirdattacking ↑ toward goal
06
Where does he become vulnerable?
30 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.
20
attacking third (cheap)
6
middle third
4
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 67% of losses are in the attacking third — he gambles where a turnover costs little.
Mistake danger (proxy): 2.68 danger-index/90 · 0.221 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
04
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 →
Where do his chances come from?
Of 3 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the right wing toward the central 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 half-space in the final third: 62% of his 13 touches there are lost (8 times).
05
Crosses & Cutbacks
5 crosses (2.02/90, 2 completed) and 2 cutbacks (0.81/90, 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
27 defensive actions across the season (10.9/90). 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 →
1
tackles · 100% won
0
interceptions · 0.0/90
11
recoveries · 4.4/90
5
clearances · 2.0/90
1
blocks
34
avg action height
4
won high (att 3rd)
6
middle third
17
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 12 proactive ball-wins (4.8/90), tackle success 100%. He defends mostly around the middle third.
Defensive work in the attacking half
Ball-wins in the attacking half only (own half vs. attacking half, a simple 2-way split, not the usual thirds) — the clearest single signal of how much he presses and recovers the ball high up the pitch.
8
attacking-half actions · 3.23/90
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Coventry's output per match with Loum Tchaouna (4 matches) versus without him (4 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 4 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (4)
WITHOUT (4)
Δ
goals for /match
0.25
1.25
-1.00
xG for /match
0.76
0.39
+0.37
goals against /match
1.25
2.50
-1.25
points /match
0.75
0.75
+0.00
09
His Share of the Team
Of everything Coventry produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Loum Tchaouna specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
half-space entries
14%
47 / 338
box entries
14%
26 / 190
shots
13%
29 / 222
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.
Advanced playmaker (8)27%Half-space creator22%
Why Advanced playmaker (8) 27%: a weighted blend of creativity 34 (weight 35%) + progression 42 (weight 25%) + final-third threat 28 (weight 25%) + box threat 20 (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
Through-balls ~proxy
68
Territory (wide vs central)
66
Line-breaking
58
Crossing
56
Passing directness
54
Progression
42
Build-up
40
Creativity
34
Defensive aggression
33
Receiving zones
31
Final-third threat
28
Transition ~proxy
28
Ball-winning
22
Box threat
20
Carrying
20
Press resistance ~proxy
18
Retention
18
Dribbling
16
11
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: 180 cm / 68 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.
Jacob Bruun Larsen Burnley 25/26 · 183 cm / 77 kg
81%
Driven by: box threat (15%), transition (14%), dribbling (10%). Different mechanism — Tchaouna more via passing directness; Larsen more via territory (wide vs central), retention.
Brennan Johnson Everton · 186 cm / 73 kg
75%
Driven by: press resistance (16%), box threat (12%), dribbling (12%). Different mechanism — Tchaouna more via line-breaking, through-balls; Johnson more via ball-winning, defensive aggression.
Diego López Valencia · La Liga 25/26 · 172 cm / 62 kg
72%
Driven by: press resistance (18%), dribbling (15%), carrying (12%). Different mechanism — Tchaouna more via crossing, through-balls; López more via defensive aggression.
Tete Morente Elche · La Liga · 180 cm / 76 kg
69%
Driven by: press resistance (17%), box threat (17%), retention (14%). Different mechanism — Morente more via ball-winning, territory (wide vs central).
Chemsdine Talbi Sunderland · 175 cm / 70 kg
67%
Driven by: ball-winning (17%), box threat (15%), defensive aggression (15%). Different mechanism — Tchaouna more via crossing, passing directness; Talbi more via press resistance, dribbling.
Habib Diarra Sunderland · 178 cm / 74 kg
66%
Driven by: dribbling (19%), ball-winning (17%), press resistance (17%). Different mechanism — Tchaouna more via territory (wide vs central), line-breaking; Diarra more via retention, build-up.
12
Summary
Loum Tchaouna is an advanced playmaker (8): 1.21 key passes /90, 0.8 progressive passes, 0 goals from 0.30 xG. A between-the-lines creator. [Off-ball movement into pockets needs tracking.]
Based on 4 matches (223 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as an advanced playmaker (8) — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is box threat — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall advanced playmaker (8) 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.