Thin sample this season. Oso has played 2 matches (154 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 — mostly in the attacking third (45% of his 44 passes)
100% of touches wide left · 44× in 2/2 matches
↓
CARRY / BEAT MAN
dribble past the full-back, cut inside
33% won · 3× in 2/2 matches
↓
PROGRESS
drive the ball into the final third
1.2 progressive · 1.8 f3/90 · 2× in 2/2 matches
↓
CREATE / FINISH
cut-back or shot from inside
0.58 key passes /90 · 1 goals · 5× in 1/2 matches
Signature: receive wide left → beat the full-back → carry into the right-foot channel → deliver or shoot. Stop the 1v1 on the left and you starve the chain.
In possession
In possession
What he does with the ball: build-up, progression, creation, carrying and finishing.
1 key passes (0.58/90), 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
Box deliveries — key passes reaching the final third, by flank
from the left (1)from the right (0)of 1 key passes landing in the final thirdattacking ↑ toward goal
04
Where does he become vulnerable?
23 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.
10
attacking third (cheap)
9
middle third
4
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 43% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 3.84 danger-index/90 · 0.286 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
03
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 left wing in the final third — 2 passes worth 0.18 xT.
Where do his chances come from?
Of 1 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the left 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 middle third: 62% of his 13 touches there are lost (8 times).
35 defensive actions across the season (20.5/90). 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
2
interceptions · 1.2/90
9
recoveries · 5.3/90
5
clearances · 2.9/90
1
blocks
37
avg action height
3
won high (att 3rd)
15
middle third
17
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 15 proactive ball-wins (8.8/90), 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.
11
attacking-half actions · 6.43/90
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Strasbourg's output per match with Oso (2 matches) versus without him (8 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 8 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (2)
WITHOUT (8)
Δ
goals for /match
2.50
1.38
+1.12
xG for /match
1.53
0.00
+1.53
goals against /match
1.00
1.75
-0.75
points /match
3.00
1.38
+1.62
07
His Share of the Team
Of everything Strasbourg produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Oso specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
goals
20%
1 / 5
box entries
11%
46 / 436
expected assists (xA)
9%
1.8 / 19.5
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 63%: a weighted blend of ball-winning 74 (weight 30%) + defensive aggression 44 (weight 45%) + transition 76 (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
Passing directness
100
Territory (wide vs central)
89
Transition ~proxy
76
Ball-winning
74
Build-up
74
Final-third threat
72
Progression
63
Press resistance ~proxy
54
Crossing
54
Through-balls ~proxy
52
Carrying
51
Retention
48
Dribbling
46
Defensive aggression
44
Line-breaking
41
Creativity
24
Receiving zones
20
Box threat
19
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: 183 cm / 70 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 La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, 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.
Daniel Oyegoke Hellas Verona · Serie A 25/26 · 188 cm / 63 kg
80%
Driven by: box threat (20%), creativity (16%), passing directness (16%). Different mechanism — Oso more via crossing, through-balls; Oyegoke more via defensive aggression.
Ángel Pérez Alaves · 183 cm
77%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (19%), passing directness (19%), box threat (16%). Different mechanism — Oso more via retention; Pérez more via creativity, line-breaking.
Emanuele Lulli Roma · Serie A · 184 cm
76%
Driven by: transition (17%), territory (wide vs central) (13%), passing directness (12%). Different mechanism — Oso more via through-balls, line-breaking; Lulli more via defensive aggression, crossing.
Abde Rebbach Alaves · 176 cm / 68 kg
74%
Driven by: passing directness (18%), transition (16%), ball-winning (14%). Different mechanism — Oso more via press resistance, territory (wide vs central); Rebbach more via ball-winning.
Julian Ryerson Borussia Dortmund · Bundesliga · 183 cm / 86 kg
68%
Driven by: transition (20%), box threat (15%), territory (wide vs central) (15%). Different mechanism — Oso more via passing directness, press resistance; Ryerson more via creativity, through-balls.
Yan Couto Como · Serie A · 168 cm / 60 kg
64%
Driven by: build-up (18%), box threat (15%), transition (14%). Different mechanism — Oso more via passing directness; Couto more via line-breaking, receiving zones.
10
Summary
Oso is a wide, outside-first left carrier: 100% of dribbles in the wing lane, 80% of passes from wide — but 39% land inside. 1.2 progressive passes and 0.58 key passes /90 plus 1 goals from 0.22 xG. A carry-and-deliver threat.
Based on 2 matches (154 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.