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 middle third (38% of his 89 passes)
0% of touches wide left · 89× in 6/6 matches
↓
CREATE / FINISH
cut-back or shot from inside
0.72 key passes /90 · 0 goals · 6× in 3/6 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: carry / beat man — 1× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); progress — 2× (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 (5.1/90, 10 progressive, 237m 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 10m, 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 1 dribble attempted this season — too little volume to map a location pattern.
02
How does he create chances?
3 key passes (0.72/90), 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
Box deliveries — key passes reaching the final third, by flank
from the left (3)from the right (0)of 3 key passes landing in the final thirdattacking ↑ toward goal
05
Where does he become vulnerable?
28 possessions lost. Directness has a cost — the question is where. Attacking-third losses are cheap; deep ones are dangerous.
12
attacking third (cheap)
5
middle third
11
own third (dangerous)
Vision AI 43% of losses are in the attacking third — a notable share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Mistake danger (proxy): 2.73 danger-index/90 · 0.405 avg/turnover. Weights each loss by threat conceded at that location. True xT-conceded needs the opponent possession model; positional proxy.
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 →
Where do his chances come from?
Of 3 key passes, his busiest route is a delivery where he plays inside from the left 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 left wing in the defensive third: 62% of his 13 touches there are lost (8 times).
56 defensive actions across the season (13.5/90). 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 →
11
tackles · 45% won
3
interceptions · 0.7/90
19
recoveries · 4.6/90
1
clearances · 0.2/90
3
blocks
42
avg action height
16
won high (att 3rd)
14
middle third
26
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 33 proactive ball-wins (7.9/90), tackle success 45%. He defends high, stepping out to intercept — suits a high line.
Defensive work in the attacking half
Ball-wins in the attacking half only (own half vs. attacking half, a simple 2-way split, not the usual thirds) — the clearest single signal of how much he presses and recovers the ball high up the pitch.
20
attacking-half actions · 4.81/90
06
Against Different Pressing Intensities
Split by how hard the opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower = more intense press). Does Elliot Stroud keep producing when the game is tight and the press is high? Tiers of ~2-2 matches — directional evidence, not proof.
press tier
xT /90
prog /90
key P /90
dribble%
High press (PPDA 3.0, 2m)
0.55
0.7
1.44
0%
Mid press (PPDA 3.4, 2m)
0.33
0.0
0.00
0%
Low press (PPDA 4.1, 2m)
0.26
0.7
0.74
100%
Team
Team context
How much of the team runs through him, and what changes without him.
Hull City's output per match with Elliot Stroud (6 matches) versus without him (2 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 2 matches; treat every Δ below as noise until more games exist. A proper on-off model needs many more minutes.
WITH (6)
WITHOUT (2)
Δ
goals for /match
1.33
0.50
+0.83
xG for /match
1.10
0.87
+0.23
goals against /match
0.83
1.50
-0.67
points /match
1.67
0.00
+1.67
09
His Share of the Team
Of everything Hull City produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Elliot Stroud specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
tackles
3%
11 / 330
ball recoveries
3%
19 / 711
final-third entries
2%
12 / 525
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 234 wingers 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.
Why Pressing forward 75%: a weighted blend of ball-winning 92 (weight 30%) + defensive aggression 59 (weight 45%) + transition 59 (weight 25%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Ball-winning
92
Passing directness
91
Transition ~proxy
59
Defensive aggression
59
Press resistance ~proxy
57
Build-up
50
Crossing
47
Retention
41
Dribbling
41
Territory (wide vs central)
37
Final-third threat
33
Creativity
22
Receiving zones
17
Line-breaking
15
Progression
11
Carrying
9
Through-balls ~proxy
8
Box threat
3
11
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: 185 cm / 75 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 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.
Santiago Pierotti Lecce · Serie A · 189 cm / 69 kg
89%
Driven by: box threat (14%), ball-winning (14%), progression (11%). Different mechanism — Stroud more via crossing, final-third threat; Pierotti more via defensive aggression.
Víctor García Levante · La Liga · 180 cm / 79 kg
80%
Driven by: ball-winning (14%), receiving zones (12%), line-breaking (11%). Different mechanism — García more via territory (wide vs central), box threat.
Malick Mbaye Metz · Ligue 1 25/26 · 173 cm / 71 kg
78%
Driven by: box threat (18%), creativity (13%), ball-winning (12%). Different mechanism — Stroud more via passing directness, final-third threat; Mbaye more via territory (wide vs central).
Chris Rigg Sunderland · 177 cm / 65 kg
77%
Driven by: box threat (16%), carrying (16%), progression (14%). Different mechanism — Stroud more via ball-winning, territory (wide vs central); Rigg more via through-balls.
Tatsuhiro Sakamoto Coventry · 170 cm / 63 kg
75%
Driven by: box threat (15%), creativity (12%), progression (11%). Different mechanism — Stroud more via build-up, crossing; Sakamoto more via territory (wide vs central), defensive aggression.
Joel Mvuka Lorient · Ligue 1 25/26 · 176 cm / 66 kg
69%
Driven by: ball-winning (15%), box threat (13%), progression (13%). Different mechanism — Stroud more via passing directness, crossing; Mvuka more via territory (wide vs central), carrying.
12
Summary
Elliot Stroud is a wide, outside-first left carrier: 0% of dribbles in the wing lane, 61% of passes from wide — but 51% land inside. 0.5 progressive passes and 0.72 key passes /90 plus 0 goals from 0.11 xG. A carry-and-deliver threat.
Based on 6 matches (374 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a pressing forward — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is defensive aggression — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall pressing forward 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.