Thin sample this season. George Hemmings has played 5 matches (311 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 60 passes)
72% completion · 60× in 5/5 matches
↓
CREATE / FINISH
cut-back or shot from inside
0.87 key passes /90 · 0 goals · 4× in 3/5 matches
Signature: Receive → Create / Finish — the only steps proven repeatable this season (2 of 4 in the full pattern). Not enough evidence yet for the rest of the chain below.
Not a pattern: progress — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); arrive — 1× (low confidence, shown as a number only, no tactical conclusion drawn) — 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.
21 tracked carries (6.1/90, 9 progressive, 215m total) — the ball moving with his touches, a different signal from dribbles below (beating an opponent 1v1). this counts every touch-carry, not just his dribble attempts below — a fuller picture of how much of his ball-carrying is control-and-move rather than beating a man.
progressivelateral/short% of his 21 carries originating in each zone · own goal left, attacking →
Every carry, exact path — median 9m, longest 23m
By zone — where the carry started → where it ended
First (21)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Dribbles (1v1s)
Only 7 dribbles attempted this season — too little volume to map a location pattern.
02
How does he create chances?
3 key passes (0.87/90), 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 (3)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
05
Where does he become vulnerable?
20 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.
8
attacking third (cheap)
8
middle third
4
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 40% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 1.67 danger-index/90 · 0.288 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 →
Where do his chances come from?
Of 3 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he switches it out from the central to the left hs in the middle 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 defensive third: 38% of his 8 touches there are lost (3 times).
50 defensive actions across the season (14.5/90). 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 →
6
tackles · 33% won
0
interceptions · 0.0/90
10
recoveries · 2.9/90
5
clearances · 1.4/90
5
blocks
43
avg action height
12
won high (att 3rd)
15
middle third
23
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 16 proactive ball-wins (4.6/90), tackle success 33%. He defends high, stepping out to intercept — suits a high line.
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Aston Villa's output per match with George Hemmings (5 matches) versus without him (3 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 3 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (5)
WITHOUT (3)
Δ
goals for /match
0.80
1.67
-0.87
xG for /match
0.95
0.19
+0.75
goals against /match
1.80
1.00
+0.80
points /match
0.80
2.33
-1.53
08
His Share of the Team
Of everything Aston Villa produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through George Hemmings specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
successful take-ons
1%
4 / 315
tackles
1%
6 / 731
ball recoveries
1%
11 / 1676
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 433 central 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.
Tempo controller33%Transition runner31%Deep-lying playmaker27%Box-to-box runner17%
Why Tempo controller 33%: a weighted blend of retention 50 (weight 35%) + press resistance 69 (weight 20%) + build-up 13 (weight 30%) + progression 13 (weight 15%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
Elite
dribbling
Strong
defensive aggression
Average
press resistance, territory (wide vs central), retention, carrying
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Dribbling
86
Defensive aggression
78
Press resistance ~proxy
69
Territory (wide vs central)
51
Retention
50
Carrying
45
Transition ~proxy
23
Ball-winning
19
Progression
13
Build-up
13
Creativity
11
Receiving zones
11
Box threat
10
Passing directness
6
Final-third threat
4
Crossing
3
Through-balls ~proxy
3
Line-breaking
1
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) 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 Premier League, Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue 1 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.
Charles Pickel Espanyol · La Liga 25/26 · 187 cm / 78 kg
85%
Driven by: crossing (11%), final-third threat (11%), transition (10%). Different mechanism — Hemmings more via carrying, dribbling; Pickel more via build-up, box threat.
Isak Vural Pisa · Serie A 25/26 · 175 cm
85%
Driven by: creativity (14%), crossing (12%), final-third threat (9%). Different mechanism — Hemmings more via defensive aggression, territory (wide vs central); Vural more via build-up, box threat.
Fisayo Dele-Bashiru Lazio · Serie A · 176 cm / 70 kg
81%
Driven by: crossing (17%), ball-winning (9%), line-breaking (9%). Different mechanism — Hemmings more via defensive aggression, dribbling; Dele-Bashiru more via retention, build-up.
Lucas Bergvall Tottenham · 187 cm / 75 kg
81%
Driven by: creativity (16%), build-up (11%), dribbling (10%). Different mechanism — Bergvall more via box threat, crossing.
Lassana Coulibaly Lecce · Serie A · 183 cm / 77 kg
80%
Driven by: creativity (13%), final-third threat (12%), progression (12%). Different mechanism — Hemmings more via territory (wide vs central), carrying; Coulibaly more via box threat, passing directness.
Alexis Vossah Toulouse · Ligue 1 · 181 cm / 69 kg
78%
Driven by: crossing (16%), final-third threat (12%), progression (10%). Different mechanism — Hemmings more via dribbling, carrying; Vossah more via build-up, creativity.
11
Summary
George Hemmings is a tempo controller: 0.0 progressive passes, 0.87 key passes /90, 1 box entries, 0 goals from 0.07 xG. A box-to-box contributor across every phase.
Based on 5 matches (311 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a tempo controller — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is build-up — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall tempo controller 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
