Thin sample this season. Dan Burn has played 3 matches (109 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
in the first line of build-up — mostly in the middle third (66% of his 47 passes)
81% completion · 47× in 3/3 matches
↓
BREAK A LINE
vertical pass past the opponent midfield
2.5 prog/90 · 5× in 1/3 matches
↓
PROGRESS
entries into the final third
3.3/90 · 4× in 1/3 matches
Signature: Receive → Break A Line → Progress — 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: carry out — 0× (insufficient confidence, hidden — not enough evidence yet); switch play — 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.
0 key passes (0.00/90), 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 (0)assist (0)% of the selected group's key passes originating in each zone
02
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 central, advancing it forward in the middle third — 1 passes worth 0.36 xT.
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: 12% of his 8 touches there are lost (1 times).
30 defensive actions across the season (24.8/90). 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 →
1
tackles · 100% won
2
interceptions · 1.7/90
6
recoveries · 5.0/90
7
clearances · 5.8/90
0
blocks
43
avg action height
6
won high (att 3rd)
13
middle third
11
own third
Vision AI A mid-block defender. He wins the ball mainly by stepping in — tackles, interceptions & recoveries outweigh clearances. 9 proactive ball-wins (7.4/90), tackle success 100%. 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.
Newcastle's output per match with Dan Burn (3 matches) versus without him (5 matches). Insufficient evidence — the without-sample is only 5 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 (3)
WITHOUT (5)
Δ
goals against /match
1.67
1.80
-0.13
points /match
1.00
1.60
-0.60
goals for /match
1.00
1.80
-0.80
xG for /match
1.28
0.00
+1.28
06
His Share of the Team
Of everything Newcastle produced this season, the categories where the biggest share ran through Dan Burn specifically — his share of the team total, not a per-90 rate.
category
share
him / team
clearances
14%
163 / 1151
interceptions
8%
23 / 304
tackles
7%
41 / 594
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 515 centre-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.
Stopper centre-back58%Ball-playing centre-back20%
Why Stopper centre-back 58%: a weighted blend of defensive aggression 84 (weight 35%) + ball-winning 46 (weight 40%) + transition 36 (weight 10%) + retention 19 (weight 15%). The score reflects how distinctively his profile SHAPE matches this archetype vs his peers.
aerial ability, marking, off-ball running — not in event data
Defensive aggression
84
Territory (wide vs central)
82
Through-balls ~proxy
63
Passing directness
62
Crossing
57
Ball-winning
46
Receiving zones
37
Box threat
37
Transition ~proxy
36
Final-third threat
33
Progression
30
Dribbling
30
Creativity
30
Press resistance ~proxy
30
Build-up
29
Line-breaking
27
Retention
19
Carrying
18
08
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: 201 cm / 87 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.
Kristoffer Ajer Brentford · 198 cm / 92 kg
90%
Driven by: defensive aggression (18%), retention (11%), press resistance (9%). Different mechanism — Burn more via territory (wide vs central), receiving zones; Ajer more via carrying.
Ethan Pinnock Coventry · 194 cm / 79 kg
79%
Driven by: carrying (15%), progression (10%), retention (9%). Different mechanism — Burn more via through-balls, defensive aggression.
Timo Becker Schalke · Bundesliga · 190 cm / 86 kg
76%
Driven by: carrying (15%), press resistance (14%), retention (14%). Different mechanism — Burn more via defensive aggression, dribbling; Becker more via ball-winning, line-breaking.
Tobias Slotsager Hellas Verona · Serie A 25/26 · 190 cm
76%
Driven by: press resistance (16%), retention (14%), creativity (10%). Different mechanism — Burn more via through-balls, press resistance.
Nikola Katic Schalke · Bundesliga · 194 cm / 90 kg
72%
Driven by: carrying (13%), press resistance (13%), retention (12%). Different mechanism — Burn more via territory (wide vs central), through-balls; Katic more via passing directness, box threat.
Domingos Duarte Getafe · La Liga 25/26 · 192 cm / 80 kg
71%
Driven by: press resistance (14%), carrying (14%), retention (12%). Different mechanism — Burn more via territory (wide vs central), defensive aggression; Duarte more via passing directness.
09
Summary
Dan Burn is a stopper centre-back: 81% pass completion, 5 line-breaking passes and 2.5 progressive passes /90. A build-and-progress centre-back whose value is in beating the first line with the pass, not in raw defensive volume. [Aerial duels, marking, line-height and 1v1 recovery need aerial-event + tracking data, absent here.]
Based on 3 matches (109 minutes) — an early read, treat with caution until more minutes are logged. He profiles as a stopper centre-back — best used in a system built around that identity.
His biggest room for growth is retention — even a modest improvement there would meaningfully lift his overall stopper centre-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.