Thin sample this season. Ben Gannon-Doak has played 7 matches (127 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
Left Wing, Attacking third — between the lines — mostly in the attacking third (77% of his 66 passes)
67% completion · 66× in 7/7 matches
↓
TURN / BEAT MAN
face forward in the pocket
33% won · 3× in 3/7 matches
↓
CREATE
through-ball, cut-back, key pass
2.13/90 · 3× in 2/7 matches
↓
FINISH
arrive and shoot from central zones
0 goals · 0.20 xG · 3× in 2/7 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.
28 tracked carries (19.8/90, 13 progressive, 375m 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 28 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 10m, longest 45m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
First (18)Second (10)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Dribbles (1v1s)
Only 3 dribbles attempted this season — too little volume to map a location pattern.
02
How does he create chances?
3 key passes (2.13/90), 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 (2)from the right (1)of 3 key passes landing in the final thirdattacking ↑ toward goal
07
Where does he become vulnerable?
24 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.
19
attacking third (cheap)
3
middle third
2
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 79% of losses are in the attacking third — he gambles where a turnover costs little.
Mistake danger (proxy): 2.85 danger-index/90 · 0.167 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
06
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 hs 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 left wing in the final third: 37% of his 27 touches there are lost (10 times).
04
Does he carry inside or outside — his ball-carries across the pitch
Four arrows, one per movement class of his ball-carries: outside→inside (cutting in with the ball), inside→outside (carrying wide), outside→outside (down the touchline) and inside→inside (through the middle). Each count is measured from the carry's real start and end coordinates.
own goal left, attacking →
Across 28 ball-carries, his dominant tendency is that he drives along the touchline (57%). He carries from outside into the middle 9 times and out toward the touchline 0 — a genuine inside forward who cuts in with the ball.
05
What happens right after he carries the ball
Every carry's end point matched against his own very next pass or shot in the same match, when one starts almost exactly there — the direct continuation of that touch, not a separate stat. “No clean link” means no pass or shot of his own started close enough to count (often the carry ended in a tackle or a loss); it isn't a claim about exactly what happened, only that nothing traceable followed.
Shot
0 · 0%
Progressive / key pass
5 · 18%
Simple pass
11 · 39%
No clean link
12 · 43%
Of 28 carries, 0% flow straight into a shot of his own, 18% into a key or progressive pass — a genuine end product to the carry, not just ball retention. 43% have no clean link to a next touch of his own close to where the carry ended.
24 defensive actions across the season (17.0/90). 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 →
4
tackles · 75% won
0
interceptions · 0.0/90
14
recoveries · 9.9/90
0
clearances · 0.0/90
2
blocks
57
avg action height
11
won high (att 3rd)
11
middle third
2
own third
Vision AI A front-foot / high defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 18 proactive ball-wins (12.8/90), tackle success 75%. He defends high, stepping out to intercept — suits a high line.
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.
16
attacking-half actions · 11.34/90
08
Against Different Pressing Intensities
Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Does Ben Gannon-Doak keep producing when the game is tight and the press is high? Tiers of ~2-3 matches — directional evidence, not proof.
press tier
xT /90
prog /90
key P /90
dribble%
High press (PPDA 3.2, 2m)
0.96
0.0
0.00
0%
Mid press (PPDA 4.1, 2m)
0.77
1.9
0.00
50%
Low press (PPDA 4.8, 3m)
0.93
1.4
4.15
0%
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Bournemouth's output per match with Ben Gannon-Doak (7 matches) versus without him (1 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 1 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (7)
WITHOUT (1)
Δ
goals for /match
1.57
1.00
+0.57
xG for /match
1.43
2.47
-1.05
goals against /match
1.71
1.00
+0.71
points /match
1.14
1.00
+0.14
11
His Share of the Team
Of everything Bournemouth produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Ben Gannon-Doak specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
expected assists (xA)
2%
0.6 / 32.5
zone-14 entries
2%
5 / 299
tackles
1%
10 / 707
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 294 attacking mids in the pool (min 180 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)72%Half-space creator63%
Why Advanced playmaker (8) 72%: a weighted blend of creativity 83 (weight 35%) + progression 77 (weight 25%) + final-third threat 54 (weight 25%) + box threat 38 (weight 15%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
territory (wide vs central), line-breaking, carrying
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Territory (wide vs central)
94
Line-breaking
89
Carrying
86
Creativity
83
Through-balls ~proxy
82
Receiving zones
78
Ball-winning
77
Progression
77
Transition ~proxy
72
Defensive aggression
63
Final-third threat
54
Crossing
41
Box threat
38
Dribbling
29
Build-up
27
Press resistance ~proxy
27
Retention
15
Passing directness
9
13
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: 173 cm / 65 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.
Álex Berenguer Athletic Club · La Liga · 175 cm / 73 kg
74%
Driven by: line-breaking (13%), retention (12%), creativity (11%). Different mechanism — Gannon-Doak more via carrying, transition; Berenguer more via passing directness, box threat.
Josip Brekalo Real Oviedo · La Liga 25/26 · 175 cm / 70 kg
68%
Driven by: line-breaking (13%), retention (12%), creativity (12%). Different mechanism — Gannon-Doak more via carrying, territory (wide vs central); Brekalo more via passing directness, crossing.
Romain Del Castillo Osasuna · Ligue 1 · 172 cm / 60 kg
67%
Driven by: ball-winning (14%), retention (13%), line-breaking (11%). Different mechanism — Gannon-Doak more via carrying, territory (wide vs central); Castillo more via passing directness, box threat.
Rodrigo Riquelme Real Betis · La Liga · 173 cm / 66 kg
66%
Driven by: creativity (13%), ball-winning (13%), line-breaking (12%). Different mechanism — Gannon-Doak more via territory (wide vs central), through-balls; Riquelme more via retention, build-up.
Arijon Ibrahimovic Augsburg · Bundesliga · 176 cm / 69 kg
66%
Driven by: ball-winning (14%), retention (13%), line-breaking (12%). Different mechanism — Gannon-Doak more via carrying, receiving zones; Ibrahimovic more via passing directness, build-up.
Robert Navarro Athletic Club · La Liga · 178 cm / 65 kg
65%
Driven by: line-breaking (17%), carrying (14%), progression (11%). Different mechanism — Gannon-Doak more via ball-winning, territory (wide vs central); Navarro more via passing directness, dribbling.
14
Summary
Ben Gannon-Doak is an advanced playmaker (8) / half-space creator: 2.13 key passes /90, 1.4 progressive passes, 0 goals from 0.20 xG. A between-the-lines creator. [Off-ball movement into pockets needs tracking.]
Based on 7 matches (127 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as an advanced playmaker (8) / half-space creator — 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.