العربيةVision AI ← BACK TO SEARCH
Player reportLigue 1 2026

Genesis Antwi

Strasbourg
Defensive full-back FB
12.6 defensive actions/90 · low final-third share 18%
Capability Analysis
Ball-Winning50%vs 21 full-backs
"How actively does he win the ball back?"
Interceptions /900.9748%
Ball recoveries /904.3562%
Tackles /901.9357%
Duels won /900.633%
Breaking Pressure
only 95 pressured-passing actions across 3 high-press matches -- not enough sample (needs 5+ matches and 12+ actions)
Wide Delivery0%vs 21 full-backs
"Does he create danger from wide areas -- crosses and cutbacks?"
Crosses /900.00%
Cross accuracy: 0.0%
Cutbacks /900.360%
Ball-Carrying7%vs 21 full-backs
"Does he advance the ball himself when the pass isn't on?"
Progressive carries /902.90%
Carry distance /9086.69m14%
full-backinverted full-backprogressioncrossing
745
minutes
8 apps
87%
pass completion
369 passes
16
progressive passes
1.9/90
22
final-3rd entries
2.7/90
1
box entries
0.12/90
104
defensive actions
12.6/90
24
tackles + interceptions
88% tackle win
12
dribbles
58% won
Overview

The player

Who he is and how he compares with his peers.

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, Middle third — wide or inverted — mostly in the middle third (47% of his 369 passes)
87% completion · 369× in 8/8 matches
↓
PROGRESS
carry or combine up the flank
1.9 prog/90 · 16× in 6/8 matches
↓
DRIBBLE
beat his man up the line
58% won · 12× in 6/8 matches
↓
DEFEND
1v1 and cover on his side
104 def actions · lost 40% deep · 104× in 8/8 matches
Signature: Receive → Progress → Dribble → Defend — the only steps proven repeatable this season (4 of 5 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: deliver — 1× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet) — omitted from the signature rather than presented as one.
02

full-back radar — percentile vs his peers

hierarchical score 53/100

A position-aware radar: these 10 axes are the metrics that matter for a full-back. Each axis is his percentile among the 47 full-backs in the league (min 450 min). (padj) = possession-adjusted: defensive volumes are scaled by how much defending his team actually does, so opportunity is not confused with ability.

Progressive/900% · #47/47(2.05)Final-3rd/9019% · #38/47(3.38)Box deliveries/902% · #46/47(0.60)xA/9017% · #39/47(0.04)xT/900% · #47/47(0.56)Dribbles/9074% · #12/47(0.85)Dribble %89% · #5/47(58.33)Def actions/90 (padj)21% · #37/47(11.64)Duel win %45% · #26/47(26.32)Pass %91% · #4/47(87.26)
Radar read: elite for pass % (91%), dribble % (89%), dribbles/90 (74%); weakest axes progressive/90 (0%), xt/90 (0%). Percentiles, not raw values — 50% = league-average full-back.
League distribution — every dot a full-back, dashed cross = league average, diamond = him
X Y
Full context table — him vs league average vs top 5%
metrichimleague avgtop 5%pctl
Progressive/902.055.929.730%
Final-3rd/903.384.257.2719%
Box deliveries/900.601.082.542%
xA/900.040.070.1417%
xT/900.561.171.760%
Dribbles/900.850.481.3974%
Dribble %58.3337.5061.4489%
Def actions/90 (padj)11.6413.5220.5421%
Duel win %26.3226.5346.7145%
Pass %87.2679.4188.4991%

Evidence-based evaluation

Same underlying data, read by Vision AI: several independent dimensions with the specific evidence behind each, not one number.

Defensive Value: average (50/100 vs role peers), driven by duels won/90 (below peer average, 32nd percentile). Duels lost/90 is well controlled (70th percentile).
Progression Value: weak (1/100 vs role peers), driven by progressive passes/90 (below peer average, 0th percentile).
Possession Value: elite (95/100 vs role peers), driven by location-weighted turnover cost/90 (well above peer average, 94th percentile). Times dispossessed/90 is well controlled (100th percentile).
Chance Creation: weak (7/100 vs role peers), driven by shot-creating actions/90 (below peer average, 2nd percentile).
Risk Discipline: elite (97/100 vs role peers), driven by location-weighted turnover cost/90 (well above peer average, 94th percentile). Times dispossessed/90 is well controlled (100th percentile).
Decision Quality: elite (87/100 vs role peers), driven by pass completion vs difficulty-adjusted expectation (pts) (well above peer average, 87th percentile).
61%
avg opponent strength faced
50%
of matches vs top-third teams
Tactical fit (Strasbourg): his Line-breaking (2) sits well below his own team's average (48, itself the 20% mark league-wide) — the single biggest gap between him and how Strasbourg plays on the whole.
03

Where is he influential — vs where is he merely present?

Red fill = raw touch territory. Gold rings = zones where his influence (xT added, progression, line-breaks, key passes) outweighs how often he's actually there — one combined map instead of two separate maps to compare by eye. Red with no ring: present but not dangerous. A ring on faint red: rare touches, outsized impact.

own goal left, attacking →
46
passes / match
12.6
def actions / 90
30–66
pass range (matches)
17
clearances
Pass range = his fewest and most passes in any single match this season (30 at the low end, 66 at the high) — a measure of match-to-match involvement, not pass distance.
In possession

In possession

What he does with the ball: build-up, progression, creation, carrying and finishing.

09

How dangerous are his carries?

Real ball-carries

77 tracked carries (9.3/90, 15 progressive, 718m total) — the ball moving with his touches, a different signal from dribbles below (beating an opponent 1v1). even a player who rarely dribbles past a man can still carry the ball forward constantly in build-up; this is that.

21%23%29%12%4%3%4%1%1%3%
progressivelateral/short% of his 77 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 7m, longest 35m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
9Outside → Inside
17Inside → Inside
40Outside → Outside
11Inside → Outside
First (31)Second (29)Third (10)Fourth (7)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →

Beaten in the tackle

How often an attacker gets past him in a 1v1 defensive duel — the closest signal the data has to "dribbled past" (no attacker-beat-defender field exists directly, so this counts tackles he attempted and lost).

16
tackle duels
14
won
2
beaten · 12%
brighter band = more tackle duels · own goal left, attacking →
INSIDE 31%
OUTSIDE 69%
Tackle-duel location — 5 inside · 11 outside
Right Wing
9 · 56%
Right Half-Space
4 · 25%
Central
1 · 6%
Left Half-Space
0 · 0%
Left Wing
2 · 12%
Vision AI beaten in 2 of 16 tackle duels (12% loss rate) — a solid 1v1 defensive record.
Every tackle duel, exact location
wonlost — dribbled pastown goal left, attacking →

Dribbles (1v1s)

Does he carry outside (overlap) or inside (invert into midfield)? Every carry by channel. Season rate: 1.45 dribbles attempted /90.

brighter band = more dribbles · own goal left, attacking →
INSIDE 50%
OUTSIDE 50%
Dribble location — 6 inside · 6 outside
Right Wing
6 · 50%
Right Half-Space
6 · 50%
Central
0 · 0%
Left Half-Space
0 · 0%
Left Wing
0 · 0%
Vision AI 50% of his carries are wide — an inverting full-back who steps into midfield.
06

How does he build & move the ball?

How does he escape the first line?

7%
vertical passes
13×
3%
switches
5×
21%
carries
41×
70%
short circulation
136×
Answer: he escapes the press primarily through carrying — stepping out with the ball.

How he moves the ball — his 4 busiest progression routes, not where every pass starts and ends separately. Arrow width = how often, colour = xT gained, dashed = switch of play. The full breakdown is in the lane matrix below.

own goal left, attacking →
Lane transition matrix — when he receives in a lane, where does it go?
TO →RWRHSCLHSLWRW21564%13730%655%110%10%1RHS7036%2529%2027%196%43%2C128%18%150%625%38%1LHS520%120%120%140%2LW2030%670%14FROM
Rows normalised: each row sums to 100% of that lane's completed passes. Grey number = passes from that lane.

Primary route: the right wing in the final third → the right wing in the final third — 5 progressive passes (29% of his progression) at 0.015 xT each. He keeps it in the same lane.

His progression is inward: 35% of progressive passes move the ball toward the middle versus 6% going wider — he cuts in rather than holding width.

Only 4% of his passes switch play, so his threat is same-side — contain the flank he occupies and the route closes.

Quality behind the volume: 1 line-breaking passes and 22 final-third entries, 0.7 total xT added.

Origin and destination are measured on the same event row — no receiver inference. Receiver identity is not recoverable from this data source.
All passes — origin zone share
Filter: from to
7%24%21%19%9%6%0%1%2%1%2%1%2%2%1%1%
completedincomplete369 passes · any zone → any zone · own goal left, attacking →
369
passes
87%
completed
47
lost
Vision AIIn line with his 87% season completion rate.
11

How does he progress play?

How much he drives the ball forward. Progressive = completed pass advancing ≥15 toward goal.

16
progressive · 1.9/90
22
final-third entries · 2.7/90
1
box entries · 0.12/90
10
progression index /90
Progression index: one composite number — progressive passes + progressive carries + 2% of total distance progressed + 8× positive xT added, all per 90. Weights VOLUME and THREAT together rather than counting progressive actions alone.
10

How does he create chances?

2 key passes (0.24/90), 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:
100%
chance creation (2)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
12

Where does he become vulnerable?

52 times he gave the ball away. For a defender the danger is where — a loss in his own third can turn into a chance against; higher up it costs little.

18
attacking third (cheap)
13
middle third
21
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 35% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 2.58 danger-index/90 · 0.410 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
13

What is his passing profile?

369
passes attempted
36%
mostly backward
66%
mostly short
Direction
Forward
127 · 34%
Sideways
109 · 30%
Backward
133 · 36%
Length (completed)
Short (<15m)
211 · 66%
Medium
100 · 31%
Long (>30m)
11 · 3%
15

Preferred Progression Routes — xT-weighted

His progressive passes as zone→zone routes, weighted by expected threat (xT) added — arrow width and the number are the total xT generated on each route, not just how often he plays it. This is where he actually moves the needle.

0.300.140.120.070.070.07
own goal left, attacking →
Highest-value routes (xT)
0.30
Right Wing Mid third → Right Wing Att third
2 passes
0.14
Left Half-Space Mid third → Right Wing Att third
1 passes
0.12
Right Wing Mid third → Right Wing Mid third
2 passes
0.07
Right Wing Def third → Right Half-Space Mid third
1 passes
0.07
Left Half-Space Att third → Left Wing Att third
1 passes
0.07
Right Wing Def third → Central Mid third
1 passes
07

Where Does He Receive?

The zones where Genesis Antwi gets on the ball — his top three ball-collection areas highlighted (gold = primary). Reception is proxied by where his on-ball actions begin (no explicit receiver is recorded).

123
1 = primary, 2 = secondary, 3 = third · own goal left, attacking →
His collection zones
31%
Primary
Right Wing, Middle third
25%
Secondary
Right Wing, Defensive third
10%
Third
Right Half-Space, Middle third
These are the zones where he collected the ball most.
08

Where Does He Operate? — Every Zone

Every on-ball touch (pass, dribble, shot) binned into a 6×3 grid — raw counts of where Genesis Antwi actually gets on the ball. Hover any zone for its breakdown by action type, its share of all touches, and the exact coordinate range it covers.

Filter:
3884314946269079723728
own goal left, attacking → · brighter + higher number = more touches

Passes only — completed vs incomplete, by zone

Same zone grid, restricted to passes so completed/incomplete and match filters actually mean something — a shot or a dribble has no "completed" in the pass sense.

7%24%21%19%9%6%0%1%2%1%2%1%2%2%1%1%
own goal left, attacking →
14

Every Pass This Season — completed vs incomplete

Every pass this season, plotted individually — green = completed, grey (dashed) = incomplete, gold = key pass. Filter by outcome or isolate one match below.

2Key pass
2Cross
6Cutback
16Progressive
35Long ball
10Switch
By zone — where the pass started → where it landed
83Outside → Inside
55Inside → Inside
152Outside → Outside
32Inside → Outside
By direction
127Forward
133Backward
109Sideways
own goal left, attacking →
04

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 right wing, advancing it forward in the middle third — 2 passes worth 0.30 xT.
Where do his chances come from?
Of 2 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the right hs toward the central in the final third — 2 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 central in the middle third: 50% of his 8 touches there are lost (4 times).
19%18/93 lost5%1/19 lost—4 touches · too few—0 touches · too few9%1/11 lost3%4/117 lost6%2/36 lost50%4/8 lost—4 touches · too few10%1/10 lost16%5/32 lost33%9/27 lost—5 touches · too few—2 touches · too few—1 touch · too fewRWRHSCLHSLWDEFMIDATT
05

Crosses & Cutbacks

2 crosses (0.24/90, 0 completed) and 6 cutbacks (0.72/90, 3 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
Out of possession

Out of possession

Where and how he defends and presses.

16

How & where does he defend?

104 defensive actions across the season (12.6/90). 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 →
16
tackles · 88% won
8
interceptions · 1.0/90
36
recoveries · 4.3/90
17
clearances · 2.1/90
5
blocks
28
avg action height
6
won high (att 3rd)
29
middle third
69
own third
Vision AI A deep-defending defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 60 proactive ball-wins (7.2/90), tackle success 88%. He defends deep, protecting his box — a last-line stopper.
17

Can he play under pressure?

Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Can Genesis Antwi still play out when the opponent presses high? His build-up quality split by press intensity — the key question for a ball-playing defender. Tiers of ~2-4 matches — directional evidence, not proof.

press tier
completion
prog /90
line-breaks /90
xT /90
High press (PPDA 3.7, 2m)
87%
1.6
5.2
0.37
Mid press (PPDA 4.8, 2m)
92%
1.4
6.1
0.52
Low press (PPDA 6.2, 4m)
85%
2.4
2.8
0.67
Team

Team context

How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.

18

Impact on the Team

Insufficient sample: Genesis Antwi played nearly every Strasbourg match in the loaded data, so there is no meaningful "without him" comparison yet. This section fills in as more matches (and the rest of the season) are scraped.

19

His Share of the Team

Of everything Strasbourg produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Genesis Antwi specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.

category
share
him / team
tackles
3%
16 / 544
interceptions
3%
8 / 291
ball recoveries
3%
36 / 1348
Recruitment

Style and verdict

Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary.

20

Playing-Style Profile

Not raw event counts — football style scores: weighted models scored 0–100 against the 231 full-backs 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.

Inverted full-back70%Overlapping full-back22%
Why Inverted full-back 70%: a weighted blend of retention 93 (weight 30%) + build-up 77 (weight 35%) + press resistance 86 (weight 10%) + progression 3 (weight 25%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
retention, press resistance
Strong
dribbling, build-up
Average
ball-winning, territory (wide vs central)
Weak
defensive aggression, carrying, transition, crossing, creativity, final-third threat, receiving zones, passing directness, through-balls, box threat, progression, line-breaking
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Retention
93
Press resistance ~proxy
86
Dribbling
83
Build-up
77
Ball-winning
61
Territory (wide vs central)
45
Defensive aggression
32
Carrying
28
Transition ~proxy
26
Crossing
18
Creativity
15
Final-third threat
11
Receiving zones
10
Passing directness
8
Through-balls ~proxy
6
Box threat
5
Progression
3
Line-breaking
2
21

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: 189 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.

Fodé Ballo-Touré Metz 25/26 · 182 cm / 70 kg
92%
Driven by: press resistance (11%), progression (10%), final-third threat (9%). Different mechanism — Antwi more via ball-winning; Ballo-Touré more via box threat, carrying.
Reinildo Mandava Sunderland · Premier League · 183 cm / 73 kg
92%
Driven by: creativity (13%), progression (12%), box threat (10%). Different mechanism — Antwi more via retention; Mandava more via passing directness, defensive aggression.
Marius Louër Angers · 181 cm / 70 kg
87%
Driven by: progression (12%), final-third threat (11%), box threat (10%). Different mechanism — Antwi more via territory (wide vs central); Louër more via passing directness, transition.
Jordy Makengo Freiburg · Bundesliga · 191 cm / 81 kg
83%
Driven by: box threat (14%), progression (11%), line-breaking (11%). Different mechanism — Antwi more via ball-winning, retention; Makengo more via carrying, passing directness.
José Salinas Malaga · La Liga · 179 cm / 69 kg
79%
Driven by: crossing (11%), progression (10%), line-breaking (9%). Different mechanism — Antwi more via territory (wide vs central), ball-winning; Salinas more via defensive aggression, box threat.
Buba Sangaré Elche · La Liga · 183 cm / 75 kg
75%
Driven by: final-third threat (13%), box threat (13%), progression (12%). Different mechanism — Antwi more via dribbling, press resistance.
22

Summary

Genesis Antwi is an inverted full-back: 1.9 progressive passes and 1 box entries, delivering 2 key passes. Inverted full-back. [1v1 recovery pace and off-ball overlap timing need tracking.]

Based on 8 matches (745 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as an inverted full-back — 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 inverted full-back 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.

Vision AI · building report