العربيةSeason2025/262026 · this seasonAll seasons
Building the full report
Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Vision AI ← BACK TO SEARCH
Player reportLa Liga 2026

Davinchi

Getafe
Defensive full-back FB
15.1 defensive actions/90 · low final-third share 25%
full-backoverlapping full-backprogressioncrossing
155
minutes
6 apps
57%
pass completion
61 passes
7
progressive passes
4.1/90
5
final-3rd entries
2.9/90
1
box entries
0.58/90
26
defensive actions
15.1/90
2
tackles + interceptions
100% tackle win
2
dribbles
100% won
Overview

The player

Who he is and how he compares with his peers.

Thin sample this season. Davinchi has played 6 matches (155 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, Middle third — wide or inverted — mostly in the middle third (54% of his 61 passes)
57% completion · 61× in 6/6 matches
↓
PROGRESS
carry or combine up the flank
4.1 prog/90 · 7× in 3/6 matches
↓
DEFEND
1v1 and cover on his side
26 def actions · lost 23% deep · 26× in 6/6 matches
Signature: Receive → Progress → Defend — 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: dribble — 2× (low confidence, shown as a number only, no tactical conclusion drawn); deliver — 1× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet) — omitted from the signature rather than presented as one.
In possession

In possession

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

02

How does he create chances?

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:
100%
chance creation (1)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
04

Where does he become vulnerable?

26 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.

9
attacking third (cheap)
11
middle third
6
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 35% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 5.82 danger-index/90 · 0.386 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, advancing it forward in the middle third — 3 passes worth 0.46 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 final third: 55% of his 11 touches there are lost (6 times).
—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too few—1 touch · too few—2 touches · too few50%5/10 lost—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too few—1 touch · too few—4 touches · too few32%9/28 lost—0 touches · too few—0 touches · too few—1 touch · too few—3 touches · too few55%6/11 lostRWRHSCLHSLWDEFMIDATT
Out of possession

Out of possession

Where and how he defends and presses.

06

How & where does he defend?

26 defensive actions across the season (15.1/90). 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 →
2
tackles · 100% won
0
interceptions · 0.0/90
8
recoveries · 4.6/90
6
clearances · 3.5/90
3
blocks
34
avg action height
3
won high (att 3rd)
8
middle third
15
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 10 proactive ball-wins (5.8/90), tackle success 100%. He defends mostly around the middle third.
05

Can he play under pressure?

Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Can Davinchi 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 ~2-2 matches — directional evidence, not proof.

press tier
completion
prog /90
line-breaks /90
xT /90
High press (PPDA 2.3, 2m)
46%
6.1
9.7
1.07
Mid press (PPDA 4.0, 2m)
65%
3.4
5.1
1.13
Low press (PPDA 4.3, 2m)
65%
0.0
9.6
0.51
Team

Team context

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

07

Impact on the Team

Getafe's output per match with Davinchi (6 matches) versus without him (4 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 4 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 (6)
WITHOUT (4)
Δ
goals against /match
2.00
0.75
+1.25
points /match
0.67
1.25
-0.58
goals for /match
0.33
0.75
-0.42
xG for /match
0.53
0.94
-0.41
08

His Share of the Team

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

category
share
him / team
successful take-ons
6%
12 / 198
tackles
5%
28 / 536
progressive passes
4%
70 / 1643
Recruitment

Style and verdict

Style profile, closest comparables, and the summary.

09

Playing-Style Profile

Not raw event counts — football style scores: weighted models scored 0–100 against the 232 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.

Overlapping full-back38%Inverted full-back23%
Why Overlapping full-back 38%: a weighted blend of dribbling 84 (weight 20%) + transition 42 (weight 25%) + crossing 30 (weight 30%) + final-third threat 32 (weight 25%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
passing directness, territory (wide vs central)
Strong
dribbling, defensive aggression
Average
press resistance, through-balls, ball-winning, box threat, transition, progression
Weak
final-third threat, crossing, creativity, receiving zones, build-up, retention, carrying, line-breaking
Unknown
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Passing directness
97
Territory (wide vs central)
89
Dribbling
84
Defensive aggression
77
Press resistance ~proxy
56
Through-balls ~proxy
54
Ball-winning
50
Box threat
46
Transition ~proxy
42
Progression
41
Final-third threat
32
Crossing
30
Creativity
28
Receiving zones
28
Build-up
23
Retention
22
Carrying
20
Line-breaking
18
10

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: 182 cm / 73 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.

Sebastián Boselli Getafe · 183 cm / 80 kg
71%
Driven by: passing directness (14%), defensive aggression (14%), carrying (11%). Different mechanism — Davinchi more via territory (wide vs central), progression; Boselli more via box threat.
Ali Abdi Nice · Ligue 1 · 177 cm / 78 kg
68%
Driven by: build-up (16%), dribbling (12%), retention (11%). Different mechanism — Davinchi more via territory (wide vs central), passing directness; Abdi more via box threat, receiving zones.
Jacques Ekomié Angers · Ligue 1 · 179 cm / 74 kg
67%
Driven by: creativity (12%), build-up (12%), defensive aggression (11%). Different mechanism — Davinchi more via passing directness, through-balls; Ekomié more via carrying, ball-winning.
Fabien Centonze Nantes · Ligue 1 25/26 · 182 cm / 75 kg
66%
Driven by: build-up (18%), passing directness (15%), retention (13%). Different mechanism — Davinchi more via dribbling, press resistance; Centonze more via crossing, box threat.
Lewie Coyle Hull City · Premier League · 173 cm / 67 kg
65%
Driven by: crossing (15%), build-up (12%), line-breaking (11%). Different mechanism — Davinchi more via dribbling, defensive aggression.
Tom Rothe Union Berlin · Bundesliga · 193 cm / 85 kg
59%
Driven by: territory (wide vs central) (15%), defensive aggression (15%), build-up (15%). Different mechanism — Davinchi more via dribbling, press resistance; Rothe more via carrying, box threat.
11

Summary

Davinchi is an overlapping full-back: 4.1 progressive passes and 1 box entries, delivering 1 key passes. Overlap-first full-back. [1v1 recovery pace and off-ball overlap timing need tracking.]

Based on 6 matches (155 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as an overlapping full-back — best used in a system built around that identity. His biggest room for growth is crossing — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall overlapping 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