Thin sample this season. Daren Mosengo has played 2 matches (37 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
drop between the centre-backs — mostly in the middle third (68% of his 19 passes)
74% completion · 19× in 2/2 matches
↓
SCREEN / WIN BALL
protect the back four
9.7 ball-wins/90 · 4× in 2/2 matches
↓
RECYCLE / PROGRESS
keep it ticking, feed the final third
4.9 f3-entries/90 · 2× in 2/2 matches
Signature: Receive → Screen / Win Ball → Recycle / Progress — the only steps proven repeatable this season (3 of 5 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: escape pressure — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); progress central — 2× (low confidence, shown as a number only, no tactical conclusion drawn) — 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.
Le Havre's output per match with Daren Mosengo (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. What his own defending should move — goals conceded and results — leads; attacking output (largely out of a defender's hands) is shown after, for context. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (2)
WITHOUT (6)
Δ
goals against /match
2.00
1.83
+0.17
points /match
0.50
0.17
+0.33
goals for /match
1.50
0.83
+0.67
xG for /match
2.01
1.45
+0.56
03
His Share of the Team
Of everything Le Havre produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Daren Mosengo specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
zone-14 entries
1%
2 / 136
ball recoveries
1%
14 / 1076
clearances
1%
5 / 559
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 303 defensive 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.
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Passing directness
100
Territory (wide vs central)
79
Transition ~proxy
77
Defensive aggression
75
Line-breaking
67
Progression
54
Build-up
45
Receiving zones
43
Ball-winning
42
Carrying
37
Creativity
36
Crossing
19
Final-third threat
18
Press resistance ~proxy
15
Retention
12
Through-balls ~proxy
11
Dribbling
5
Box threat
2
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 / 72 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 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.
Wataru Endo Liverpool · Premier League · 178 cm / 77 kg
72%
Driven by: press resistance (17%), dribbling (16%), crossing (16%). Different mechanism — Mosengo more via line-breaking, receiving zones; Endo more via retention, final-third threat.
Matteo Cichella Frosinone · Serie A · 169 cm / 59 kg
64%
Driven by: press resistance (16%), dribbling (15%), passing directness (11%). Different mechanism — Mosengo more via line-breaking, progression; Cichella more via box threat.
Patrizio Masini Frosinone · Serie A · 182 cm / 72 kg
64%
Driven by: press resistance (19%), retention (15%), dribbling (14%). Different mechanism — Mosengo more via line-breaking, progression; Masini more via box threat, ball-winning.
James Sands St. Pauli · Bundesliga 25/26 · 186 cm / 84 kg
63%
Driven by: press resistance (24%), dribbling (21%), passing directness (12%). Different mechanism — Mosengo more via transition, passing directness; Sands more via box threat, through-balls.
Marius Marin Pisa · Serie A 25/26 · 180 cm / 72 kg
62%
Driven by: press resistance (22%), box threat (18%), dribbling (18%). Different mechanism — Mosengo more via transition, passing directness; Marin more via through-balls, crossing.
Frank Onyeka Coventry · Premier League · 183 cm / 70 kg
62%
Driven by: box threat (14%), crossing (13%), press resistance (12%). Different mechanism — Mosengo more via line-breaking, defensive aggression; Onyeka more via dribbling.
06
Summary
Daren Mosengo is a ball-winning 6: 74% completion, 2 line-breaks and 2.4 progressive passes /90, resisting pressure with 0% dribble success. A central controller. [Off-ball screening position and scanning need tracking data.]
Based on 2 matches (37 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a ball-winning 6 — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is retention — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall ball-winning 6 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
