Thin sample this season. Chema Andrés has played 1 match (8 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 defensive third (33% of his 3 passes)
67% completion · 3× in 1/1 matches
↓
SCREEN / WIN BALL
protect the back four
11.2 ball-wins/90 · 1× in 1/1 matches
Signature: Receive → Screen / Win Ball — the only steps proven repeatable this season (2 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 — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); recycle / progress — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet) — 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.
Brighton's output per match with Chema Andrés (1 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 (1)
WITHOUT (6)
Δ
goals against /match
5.00
1.33
+3.67
points /match
0.00
1.00
-1.00
goals for /match
1.00
1.50
-0.50
xG for /match
1.13
0.00
+1.13
03
His Share of the Team
Of everything Brighton produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Chema Andrés specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
interceptions
10%
32 / 315
ball recoveries
6%
81 / 1431
zone-14 entries
5%
24 / 440
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 258 defensive 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.
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Receiving zones
94
Passing directness
79
Final-third threat
78
Retention
78
Defensive aggression
76
Ball-winning
73
Press resistance ~proxy
71
Box threat
70
Transition ~proxy
65
Creativity
64
Build-up
52
Through-balls ~proxy
50
Dribbling
47
Progression
46
Crossing
43
Line-breaking
42
Carrying
37
Territory (wide vs central)
4
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: 190 cm / 82 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 Bundesliga, La Liga, 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.
Mamadou Sangaré Brentford · Premier League · 181 cm / 72 kg
72%
Driven by: defensive aggression (17%), receiving zones (15%), ball-winning (15%). Different mechanism — Sangaré more via dribbling, line-breaking.
Nico González Newcastle · Premier League · 189 cm / 88 kg
71%
Driven by: receiving zones (17%), territory (wide vs central) (13%), defensive aggression (12%). Different mechanism — Andres more via box threat; González more via carrying, dribbling.
Pape Diop Strasbourg · Ligue 1 · 182 cm
69%
Driven by: receiving zones (22%), ball-winning (18%), territory (wide vs central) (17%). Different mechanism — Andres more via passing directness, press resistance; Diop more via line-breaking.
Aurélien Tchouaméni Real Madrid · La Liga · 187 cm / 81 kg
69%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (17%), receiving zones (16%), passing directness (10%). Different mechanism — Andres more via dribbling, press resistance; Tchouaméni more via progression, line-breaking.
Jobe Bellingham Borussia Dortmund · 188 cm / 73 kg
66%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (22%), receiving zones (20%), defensive aggression (12%). Different mechanism — Andres more via passing directness, through-balls; Bellingham more via carrying, line-breaking.
Morten Hjulmand Atletico · La Liga · 185 cm / 77 kg
62%
Driven by: receiving zones (20%), territory (wide vs central) (17%), retention (14%). Different mechanism — Andres more via through-balls, passing directness; Hjulmand more via line-breaking, build-up.
06
Summary
Chema Andrés is a ball-winning 6 / tempo controller: 67% completion, 0 line-breaks and 0.0 progressive passes /90, resisting pressure with 0% dribble success. A central controller. [Off-ball screening position and scanning need tracking data.]
Based on 1 matches (8 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a ball-winning 6 / tempo controller — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is progression — 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
