Thin sample this season. Panos Katseris has played 5 matches (183 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 — mostly in the attacking third (50% of his 82 passes)
25% of touches wide right · 82× in 5/5 matches
↓
CARRY / BEAT MAN
dribble past the full-back, cut inside
25% won · 4× in 3/5 matches
↓
PROGRESS
drive the ball into the final third
2.0 progressive · 2.0 f3/90 · 4× in 2/5 matches
↓
CREATE / FINISH
cut-back or shot from inside
2.46 key passes /90 · 0 goals · 6× in 5/5 matches
Signature: receive wide right → beat the full-back → carry into the left-foot channel → deliver or shoot. Stop the 1v1 on the right and you starve the chain.
In possession
In possession
What he does with the ball: build-up, progression, creation, carrying and finishing.
17 tracked carries (8.4/90, 6 progressive, 192m 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 17 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 8m, longest 36m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
First (17)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Dribbles (1v1s)
Only 4 dribbles attempted this season — too little volume to map a location pattern.
02
How does he create chances?
5 key passes (2.46/90), 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 (5)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 (0)from the right (5)of 5 key passes landing in the final thirdattacking ↑ toward goal
06
Where does he become vulnerable?
33 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.
23
attacking third (cheap)
3
middle third
7
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 70% of losses are in the attacking third — he gambles where a turnover costs little.
Mistake danger (proxy): 3.53 danger-index/90 · 0.217 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
05
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 5 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the right hs toward the central in the final third — 4 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: 53% of his 32 touches there are lost (17 times).
03
Crosses & Cutbacks
3 crosses (1.48/90, 0 completed) and 8 cutbacks (3.93/90, 4 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
42 defensive actions across the season (20.7/90). 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
4
interceptions · 2.0/90
10
recoveries · 4.9/90
9
clearances · 4.4/90
3
blocks
34
avg action height
7
won high (att 3rd)
9
middle third
26
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 18 proactive ball-wins (8.9/90), tackle success 75%. 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 · 3.93/90
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Lorient's output per match with Panos Katseris (5 matches) versus without him (3 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 3 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (5)
WITHOUT (3)
Δ
goals for /match
1.00
0.67
+0.33
xG for /match
0.94
0.57
+0.37
goals against /match
1.20
0.00
+1.20
points /match
1.00
2.33
-1.33
09
His Share of the Team
Of everything Lorient produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Panos Katseris specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
expected assists (xA)
13%
2.5 / 19.8
box entries
10%
28 / 285
interceptions
6%
15 / 251
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 180 wingers 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.
Why Pressing forward 52%: a weighted blend of ball-winning 76 (weight 30%) + defensive aggression 44 (weight 45%) + transition 48 (weight 25%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Territory (wide vs central)
88
Ball-winning
76
Build-up
70
Passing directness
68
Crossing
58
Creativity
50
Transition ~proxy
48
Through-balls ~proxy
48
Defensive aggression
44
Final-third threat
43
Progression
40
Box threat
29
Retention
28
Press resistance ~proxy
28
Dribbling
21
Receiving zones
20
Carrying
15
Line-breaking
12
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: 187 cm) 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.
Niklas Beste Freiburg · Bundesliga · 175 cm / 66 kg
75%
Driven by: carrying (17%), territory (wide vs central) (14%), receiving zones (13%). Different mechanism — Katseris more via build-up; Beste more via line-breaking.
Patrick Dorgu Man Utd · Premier League · 185 cm / 68 kg
74%
Driven by: dribbling (16%), territory (wide vs central) (16%), press resistance (14%). Different mechanism — Katseris more via creativity; Dorgu more via line-breaking, through-balls.
Carlos Vicente Alaves · La Liga 25/26 · 179 cm / 72 kg
74%
Driven by: press resistance (19%), dribbling (17%), territory (wide vs central) (15%). Different mechanism — Katseris more via passing directness; Vicente more via line-breaking, box threat.
Marcus Pedersen Torino · Serie A · 184 cm / 76 kg
72%
Driven by: press resistance (13%), receiving zones (12%), dribbling (11%). Different mechanism — Katseris more via ball-winning, creativity.
Joel Mvuka Lorient 25/26 · 176 cm / 66 kg
71%
Driven by: line-breaking (14%), receiving zones (13%), territory (wide vs central) (12%). Different mechanism — Katseris more via through-balls, creativity.
Denzel Dumfries Real Madrid · La Liga · 188 cm / 80 kg
68%
Driven by: carrying (18%), dribbling (15%), territory (wide vs central) (12%). Different mechanism — Katseris more via passing directness, transition; Dumfries more via retention.
12
Summary
Panos Katseris is a wide, outside-first right carrier: 25% of dribbles in the wing lane, 78% of passes from wide — but 37% land inside. 2.0 progressive passes and 2.46 key passes /90 plus 0 goals from 0.11 xG. A carry-and-deliver threat.
Based on 5 matches (183 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a pressing forward — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is defensive aggression — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall pressing forward 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.