VISION AI ← BACK TO SEARCHSeasonThis season · 2026All seasons
Building the full report
Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team Intelligence Report · Egyptian Premier League 2026

Pyramids FC

A balanced-territory side, passive / low-block out of possession, with a low-output attack. Currently #1 of 20 on 12 points (4-0-0, 7:0). Tactical profile below is built from 3 matches of ball-by-ball event data, a sample of the full season, contextualised against the league.

balanced-territorypassive / low-blocklow-output attack
W
W
W
L
W
W
D
L
W
W
D
W
W
W
W
12
points
#1 of 20 · 4 games
7:0
goals
+7 GD
4-0-0
record
W-D-L
3.00
points/game
#1 in the league
0.92
xG for/game
rank #12
0.32
xG against/game
rank #1
#18
press rank
of 20 · most aggressive
53%
field tilt
#8
Record, points, goals and league position come from the league table as it stands today — 4 games played, season in progress. Every tactical metric — xG, PPDA, field tilt, progression, zone maps — is measured from the 3 matches of detailed event data currently loaded, so those samples may not span the whole season.
Part 1

Overview

Who Pyramids FC are and how the season actually went — the authoritative record first, tactical identity second.

Who Are They? — Identity

The question
In one read, what kind of team is Pyramids FC and how good was the season?
Read. Pyramids FC currently sit #1 of 20 on 12 points (4W-0D-0L, 3.00 pts/game), scoring 7 and conceding 0 for a goal difference of +7. On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (53% field tilt, #8 in the league); off it they defend with a passive / low-block (#18 of 20 for press intensity). Across the 3 matches of event data, they create 0.92 xG/game (#12) and concede 0.32 (#1), a net of +0.61 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.

Season Context — the league table

The question
Where did Pyramids FC actually finish, and against whom?

The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Pyramids FC.

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
1Pyramids FC440070+712
2Zamalek SC431071+610
3Al Ahly FC431073+410
4Cleopatra FC430183+59

Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger

The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Pyramids FC actually dominate for chances — and which periods hurt them?

Net xG (created minus conceded) in each 15-minute window, summed across the whole season's matches — above the line is time they dominate for chances, below is time it hurts them. Real on-clock shot timing, the only event type on this platform with a genuine in-match timestamp.

dominant (net xG for)conceding (net xG against)
even0-15'16-30'31-45'46-60'61-75'76-90+'+0.61
Vision AI Model Insight
Pyramids FC tend to stay fairly even across both halves — first-half net xG +0.80, second-half +1.02. Their strongest period is 61-75' (net +0.61 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 76-90+' (net +0.03 xG against them).

Tactical DNA

The football question
In five genes, what is Pyramids FC's footballing identity?

Each gene is a 0–100 score — the team's league percentile across the metrics that define that phase of play. It distils the whole report into an identity fingerprint: the taller the gene, the more that trait defines them.

78
Build-Up
possession control from the back
40
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
50
Creation
manufacturing chances
35
Press
winning the ball high & hard
95
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Pyramids FC are defined most by their Solidity DNA (95/100 · elite at resisting the opponent's threat), and least by their Press DNA (35/100). Percentiles vs the 20 teams in the league.
Part 2

Shape & Personnel

The real on-ball structure and the job each key player performs inside it.

The Playstyle Wheel

Fifteen style metrics across five domains — Possess, Disrupt, Finish, Press, Defend — each a percentile against the rest of the league. Metrics marked ~proxy use the closest available event-data signal where the standard definition needs data this feed doesn't carry (explicit pressure events, offside/keeper-sweep incidents).

Possess88Disrupt35Finish42Press81Defend81
Possess
Deep buildup
83%
Possession
88%
Field tilt
92%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
33%
Dribble tendency
21%
Progressive passes
50%
Finish
Final-third patience
12%
Shot quality
33%
Open-play xG
79%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
88%
High regains
62%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
92%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
96%
High line ~proxy
58%
PAdj defensive actions
88%
Pyramids FC is defined most by Possess (88% in the league) and weakest on Disrupt (35%). Percentiles vs the 24 teams in the league this season.
Part 3

In Possession

Where they play, how the ball travels, how they progress it, and whether the passing actually creates value.
In possession · phase 1
Build-Up

Field Tilt — Territorial Control

The question
How much of the pitch does Pyramids FC actually control, relative to the rest of the league?

Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Pyramids FC's matches, the standard proxy for territorial dominance. Plotted against points per game for every side in the league — the real question isn't just who controls territory, it's whether that control actually converts into results. Dashed lines mark the league average on each axis; Pyramids FC highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.

Pyramids FC: 53% tilt, 3.00 pts/gZamalek SC: 49% tilt, 2.50 pts/gAl Ahly FC: 69% tilt, 2.50 pts/gCleopatra FC: 56% tilt, 2.25 pts/gAl-Ittihad Alexandria: 49% tilt, 1.75 pts/gTala'ea El-Gaish: 43% tilt, 1.75 pts/gWadi Degla: 61% tilt, 1.67 pts/gNational Bank of Egypt: 62% tilt, 1.50 pts/gCanal SC: 36% tilt, 1.50 pts/gAl-Masry: 57% tilt, 1.50 pts/gModern Sport FC: 43% tilt, 1.33 pts/gENPPI: 43% tilt, 1.00 pts/gZED FC: 51% tilt, 1.00 pts/gEl Gouna FC: 62% tilt, 1.00 pts/gPetrojet: 64% tilt, 1.00 pts/gAbu Qir Fertilizers SC: 34% tilt, 0.75 pts/gAsyut Petroleum: 35% tilt, 0.50 pts/gArab Contractors FC: 42% tilt, 0.33 pts/gSmouha: 47% tilt, 0.25 pts/gGhazl El Mahalla FC: 49% tilt, 0.25 pts/gPyramids FC34%45%57%69%0.21.22.13.0FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
Vision AI Model Insight
Pyramids FC post 53% field tilt, ranking #8 of 20 in the league — comfortably above the league mid-point for territorial control, and their 3.00 points/game sits above the league-average return — territory is genuinely converting into results.

Which Zones Do They Attack Through?

The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Pyramids FC actually do its on-ball work?

Every pass and carry Pyramids FC makes, binned into the 15 pitch zones (three thirds × five vertical lanes) and shown as a % share of all on-ball actions.

2%7%10%6%3%5%15%16%13%6%3%4%3%3%3%VISION AI
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the middle third (15.9% of all actions). 78% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 22% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 28% defensive, 55% middle, 17% attacking.

Build-Up — the tactical board

The football question
How does Pyramids FC progress possession from defence into attack — and who runs it?

The board is the picture: each flow line is one of their most-repeated build-up passes — it brightens from blue to red toward its destination (where the threat lands), its width is how often it is played, and travelling particles show the direction. Toggle the overlays to isolate lateral, forward or switch passes; hover any line and the sidebar names its dominant passer.

Origin Fans — where they can actually go

The four busiest build-up origins, each fanning into the directions they really pass in. Blade width is how often that direction is used, colour is the threat it adds. The spread is the point: a narrow fan is a predictable side you can press on one shoulder, a wide one keeps its options open.

6 passes6 passes8 passes12 passes12 passes17 passes17 passes29 passes16 passes6 passes7 passes9 passes13 passes14 passes18 passes29 passes27 passes8 passes9 passes10 passes11 passes14 passes16 passes22 passes37 passes9 passes10 passes10 passes11 passes14 passes17 passes4VISION AI
Low threatMidHigh threatNumbered dot = busiest origin
DEFMIDATTattacking →RHSCLHSLHSCRW
43×busiest route
Mareimost build-up passes
19%of passes progress forward
81%lateral / back circulation
Selected route
RHS Mid → C Mid
PasserMarei
Volume43 passes
Usage24%
Avg threat0.017 xT
Avg distance15 m
Hover a flow line to explore · click to lock, click again to release. The line brightens toward where the danger lands.
colour = threat: blue → red toward the destinationwidth = how often (log)dashed = switchparticles show direction · toggle & hover

Real Team Shape — from player average positions (not a schematic)

The board above is the pattern; this is the evidence — the eleven most-used players at their true average on-ball positions this season, named, with each one's actual side-aware role. Dot size = minutes played.

LBHafezGKEl-ShenawyRCBMareiRBChibiLCBSamyCMLasheenCAMObamaSTFakhouryCAMZalakaCMKartiCMSaberattacking →VISION AI
◆ Vision AI Insight
Pyramids FC build predominantly down the left, with Marei as the fulcrum (174 build-up passes). Only 19% of their build-up passes actually advance a third — the rest is lateral circulation, the hallmark of a possession-controlling side that circulates patiently in midfield before progressing. Their single most-repeated pattern is RHS mid → C mid (43×) — deny that lane and you slow their whole build.
In possession · phase 2
Progression

How They Progress — the mechanism

Not just how many progressive passes, but where they start, who plays them, and whether they actually penetrate. 122 progressive passes across 3 matches (40.7/game).

Origin lane

Right wing
13%
Right half-space
30%
Central
20%
Left half-space
18%
Left wing
18%
Progression is right-dominant: 43% right side · 20% central · 36% left.

Who generates it

Mohamed Chibi
21 · 17%
Mahmoud Marei
16 · 13%
Mohanad Lasheen
16 · 13%
Ahmed Samy
15 · 12%
Karim Hafez
13 · 11%
Top two — Mohamed Chibi & Mahmoud Marei — account for 30% of all progression. Concentrated, therefore stoppable.
PROGRESSION
40.7 prog passes/game
mostly right
PENETRATION
36% reach final third
18% reach the box
THREAT
the other 64% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
Cause → effect. They move the ball well, but only 36% of progressive passes break the final-third line — the rest is lateral recycling in front of the block. Deny the right half-space and you cut the supply at source, because 30% of it runs through two players.

Decision Quality — not all completed passes are equal

A 90% pass completion can hide a sideways habit. Grading every pass by the threat it adds separates value creation from safe circulation.

Excellent (high xT gain)
17%
Progressive
0%
Neutral / sideways
47%
Safe / backward
36%
17% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 83% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.
Part 4

Attack

Shot volume and quality, how the goals are manufactured, and the pitch locations they go in from.

Shot Map

33 shots for 2.8 xG (0.92/game, #12 in the league). Size = shot xG · gold = goal. Hover a shot for the player, or filter to one below.

Ahmed Abdelkader — save (0.20 xG)Mahmoud Zalaka — goal (0.20 xG)Nasser Maher — goal (0.35 xG)Youssef Obama — block (0.05 xG)Youssef Obama — miss (0.07 xG)Mahmoud Saber — block (0.03 xG)Youssef Obama — miss (0.19 xG)Odeh Fakhoury — goal (0.22 xG)Odeh Fakhoury — miss (0.11 xG)Youssef Obama — miss (0.22 xG)Hamed Hemdan — miss (0.03 xG)Nasser Maher — miss (0.11 xG)Hamed Hemdan — miss (0.01 xG)Mahmoud Zalaka — save (0.02 xG)Karim Hafez — miss (0.04 xG)Ahmed Atef — save (0.04 xG)Mostafa Fathy — miss (0.03 xG)Ahmed Atef — save (0.01 xG)Ahmed Samy — goal (0.11 xG)Odeh Fakhoury — miss (0.11 xG)Hamed Hemdan — save (0.02 xG)Mostafa Fathy — post (0.03 xG)Mostafa Fathy — miss (0.03 xG)Nasser Maher — block (0.07 xG)Mohamed Chibi — block (0.03 xG)Mahmoud Saber — miss (0.03 xG)Odeh Fakhoury — goal (0.02 xG)Youssef Obama — goal (0.08 xG)Mahmoud Saber — miss (0.20 xG)Karim Hafez — miss (0.03 xG)Mohamed Chibi — miss (0.04 xG)Mahmoud Saber — save (0.02 xG)Mahmoud Zalaka — block (0.05 xG)
Low-output attack. 11.0 shots/game at 0.084 xG/shot. Box entries 14/game (#6). Threat created 11.6 xT/game (#9).

Goal Map — where the goals go in from

The question
Physically, from where on the pitch does Pyramids FC score — and how?

All 6 goals plotted at the point of the shot, coloured by how the chance began. Hover a goal for the scorer, or filter to one player below.

Mahmoud Zalaka — fast-breakNasser Maher — assistedOdeh Fakhoury — assistedAhmed Samy — cornerOdeh Fakhoury — assistedYoussef Obama — assistedattacking →VISION AI
● open play● set piece● penalty
Vision AI Model Insight
83% of goals are scored from inside the box (5 of 6); 1 are headers. A penalty-box team that lives on close-range finishes.
In possession · phase 3
Chance Creation

Chance Creation — the tactical board

The football question
How does Pyramids FC consistently create dangerous chances — from which zones, and who creates them?

Each flow line is one of their most-repeated creation patterns (key passes — the pass before a shot). Watch the lines brighten from blue to red as they converge on the danger zone, which glows and pulses where the ball arrives; width = how often, particles show direction. Toggle to isolate the side it comes from; hover any line and the sidebar names its creator.

Danger Funnel — which service carries threat

Every key pass pooled by where it was played FROM, then drawn with its arrow width set by total xT rather than by count. A zone that produces a lot of cheap balls shrinks; one that produces a few decisive ones dominates. Where this disagrees with the volume map, the volume map is the misleading one.

3 key passes1 key passes2 key passes1 key passes2 key passes3 key passes1 key passes1 key passes1 key passes1 key passes3 key passes2 key passes2 key passes2 key passes2 key passes2 key passesVISION AI
Low threatMidHigh threatArrow width = total xT, not count
DEFMIDATTattacking →RHSCRHSLHSLHSRW
9.7key passes / game
0.92xG / game
Chibitop creator
+3.2finishing vs xG
Selected route
RHS Att → C Att
CreatorChibi
Volume4 key passes
Usage33%
Avg threat0.000 xT
Avg distance9 m
Hover a flow line to explore · click to lock, click again to release. The line brightens toward where the danger lands.
colour = threat: blue → red toward the destinationwidth = how often (log)dashed = switchparticles show direction · toggle & hover

Who creates — volume × threat

9Chibi
3Maher
3Zalaka
3Fakhoury
2Obama
2Samy
2Hafez
29key passes #7 of 20
13.7box entries/game #6 of 20
34.7final-3rd entries/game #11 of 20
0.92xG/game #12 of 20
6goals #4 of 20
+3.2finishing vs xG #2 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Pyramids FC lean right45% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (13 of 29), most often from Chibi (8). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RHS att → C att (4 key passes, most often from Chibi). Chibi is the primary source overall. They generate 0.92 xG a game and finish it clinical — they beat their xG, led by Odeh Fakhoury (2G), Mahmoud Zalaka (1G), Nasser Maher (1G).

How Do They Score?

The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?

Every goal Pyramids FC scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.

By situation

Open play
5 · 83%
Set pieces
1 · 17%
Penalties
0 · 0%

By finish

Right foot
4 · 67%
Left foot
1 · 17%
Header
1 · 17%
Vision AI Model Insight
6 goals scored. 83% come in open play; set pieces add 17%. Open play is clearly their main route to goal.

Carries Map — progressive ball-carries, squad-wide

The question
Where does Pyramids FC actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?

88 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (22% of 396 tracked carries total), grouped into up to 4 spatial patterns by where each carry starts and ends together — not just its origin zone. Median 16m, longest 58m. Most active carrier: Chibi (12). Filter to one player below.

VISION AI
First (31)Second (24)Third (18)Fourth (15)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →

Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide

The question
How does Pyramids FC deliver into the box from wide areas?

11 crosses (4 completed) and 19 cutbacks (10 completed) this season across the whole squad — two separate wide-delivery patterns, each its own map with a completed/failed filter. Neither is a tagged event on this data source, so both are inferred from pass geometry — the intended end point of a failed attempt is still real data: a cross starts from a wide channel and is aimed into the box; a cutback starts almost on the byline but is squared back rather than driven forward, aimed centrally around the box.

Crosses — close-up on the final third
VISION AI
Cutbacks — close-up on the final third
VISION AI
completedfailed (dashed)own goal left, attacking →
Part 5

Out of Possession

How hard and how high they press, where they win the ball back, and where they concede it and get hurt.

Pressing — the full picture

The football question
How hard does Pyramids FC press, where, and does it actually work — beyond a single PPDA number?

A composite Pressing Index built from four event-derived dimensions, each ranked against the league. Not one metric — intensity, height, effectiveness and opponent disruption together. The pitch shows every defensive action (the only five events this data records); the white line is the average height that feeds the score. Toggle by action type below, hover any dot for the player.

20
Pressing Index
/100 · passive
Intensity12
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height20
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness2
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption58
opponent completion & progression allowed

Every defensive action & where it happens

Ball recovery — Karim Hafez (won)Ball recovery — Karim Hafez (won)Ball recovery — Karim Hafez (won)Ball recovery — Karim Hafez (won)Ball recovery — Walid El Karti (won)Ball recovery — Walid El Karti (won)Ball recovery — Walid El Karti (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Mostafa Fathy (won)Ball recovery — Ewerton (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Marei (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Marei (won)Ball recovery — Nasser Maher (won)Ball recovery — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Ball recovery — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed Samy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed Samy (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Saber (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Saber (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Zalaka (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Zalaka (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Zalaka (won)Ball recovery — Karim Hafez (won)Ball recovery — Karim Hafez (won)Ball recovery — Karim Hafez (won)Ball recovery — Walid El Karti (won)Ball recovery — Walid El Karti (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Mostafa Fathy (won)Ball recovery — Mostafa Fathy (won)Ball recovery — Osama Galal (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Marei (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Marei (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Marei (won)Ball recovery — Nasser Maher (won)Ball recovery — Youssef Obama (won)Ball recovery — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Ball recovery — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed Abdelkader (won)Ball recovery — Hamed Hemdan (won)Ball recovery — Hamed Hemdan (won)Ball recovery — Hamed Hemdan (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Zalaka (won)Ball recovery — Walid El Karti (won)Ball recovery — Walid El Karti (won)Ball recovery — Walid El Karti (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Marei (won)Ball recovery — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Mohamed Chibi (won)Ball recovery — Hamed Hemdan (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Saber (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Saber (won)Ball recovery — Mahmoud Saber (won)Clearance — Karim Hafez (won)Clearance — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Mohamed Chibi (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Zalaka (won)Clearance — Karim Hafez (won)Clearance — Karim Hafez (won)Clearance — Karim Hafez (won)Clearance — Walid El Karti (won)Clearance — Walid El Karti (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Nasser Maher (won)Clearance — Youssef Obama (won)Clearance — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Clearance — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Clearance — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Mohamed Chibi (won)Clearance — Hamed Hemdan (won)Clearance — Karim Hafez (won)Clearance — Ahmed El-Shenawy (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Mahmoud Marei (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Ahmed Samy (won)Clearance — Hamed Hemdan (won)Block — Mahmoud Marei (won)Block — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Block — Ahmed Samy (won)Block — Ahmed Atef (won)Interception — Mostafa Fathy (won)Interception — Mahmoud Marei (won)Interception — Ahmed Samy (won)Interception — Ahmed Samy (won)Interception — Mohamed Chibi (won)Interception — Mohamed Chibi (won)Interception — Mohamed Chibi (won)Interception — Karim Hafez (won)Interception — Walid El Karti (won)Interception — Mostafa Fathy (won)Interception — Mostafa Fathy (won)Interception — Mahmoud Marei (won)Interception — Mahmoud Marei (won)Interception — Youssef Obama (won)Interception — Youssef Obama (won)Interception — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Interception — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Interception — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Interception — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Interception — Mohamed Chibi (won)Interception — Ahmed Atef (won)Interception — Karim Hafez (won)Interception — Mahmoud Marei (won)Interception — Youssef Obama (won)Tackle — Karim Hafez (won)Tackle — Karim HafezTackle — Youssef Obama (won)Tackle — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Tackle — Ahmed Samy (won)Tackle — Mohamed Chibi (won)Tackle — Mahmoud Zalaka (won)Tackle — Mahmoud Zalaka (won)Tackle — Karim Hafez (won)Tackle — Walid El Karti (won)Tackle — Osama GalalTackle — Mahmoud Marei (won)Tackle — Nasser Maher (won)Tackle — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Tackle — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Tackle — Mohanad LasheenTackle — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Tackle — Mohanad Lasheen (won)Tackle — Ahmed Samy (won)Tackle — Ahmed AbdelkaderTackle — Hamed Hemdan (won)Tackle — Hamed Hemdan (won)Tackle — Karim Hafez (won)Tackle — Mahmoud Marei (won)Tackle — Mahmoud Marei (won)Tackle — Mohamed Chibi (won)Tackle — Hamed Hemdan (won)Tackle — Mahmoud Saber (won)Tackle — Mahmoud SaberTackle — Mahmoud Zalakaavg height 27← own goalDEFMIDATT
● Ball recovery● Clearance● Tackle● Interception● Block

Where they win the ball back — by lane

RW
10%
RHS
26%
C
29%
LHS
22%
LW
13%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 69%
Mid 27%
Att 4%
Read
Ranked #18 of 20 for press intensity, this is a low block. 31% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 27. Of recoveries, 37% are won high up the pitch.

Every pressing metric, ranked in the league

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)#18/20lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game64#20/20
High-press share10%#15/20def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)27.4#16/20avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game10.7#20/20ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share37%#19/20share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed74%#9/20lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed11.2%#8/20of opp passes, lower = better
Honest limit — no transition timing
This source has no cross-event clock or possession sequences, so genuine transition metrics — 5-second counterpress, time-to-recover, press→shot within 10s, and xG/xT generated after a high regain — cannot be computed and are deliberately left out rather than estimated. Every number above is a direct read of recorded defensive actions and opponent passes.

Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them

The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Pyramids FC? 111 opponent progressive passes and 19 shots faced (1.0 xG against) across the season.

Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Pyramids FC)

Right wing
28%
Right half-space
19%
Central
22%
Left half-space
16%
Left wing
15%
Exploit here. Opponents generate the most threat through the right wing (28% of the danger they concede). That is the seam to attack: isolate their right full-back one-v-one, overload the flank and get in behind.

Ball-Loss Map — where attacks die

Every turnover has a location and a cause. This is a rate, not a raw count — the share of pass attempts from each zone that end in a turnover, so a zone they simply play through more often doesn't automatically look riskier. Grey cells are real zones with too few attempts to trust a rate.

Loss rate by zone

6 of 33 pass attempts lost here (18%).18%6/33Marei15 of 98 pass attempts lost here (15%).15%15/98Marei28 of 144 pass attempts lost here (19%).19%28/144El-Shenawy11 of 91 pass attempts lost here (12%).12%11/91Hafez9 of 42 pass attempts lost here (21%).21%9/42Hafez11 of 60 pass attempts lost here (18%).18%11/60Chibi21 of 214 pass attempts lost here (10%).10%21/214Chibi22 of 213 pass attempts lost here (10%).10%22/213Lasheen17 of 178 pass attempts lost here (10%).10%17/178Lasheen13 of 82 pass attempts lost here (16%).16%13/82Hafez16 of 39 pass attempts lost here (41%).41%16/39Chibi13 of 56 pass attempts lost here (23%).23%13/56Chibi11 of 34 pass attempts lost here (32%).32%11/34Obama7 of 27 pass attempts lost here (26%).26%7/27Saber13 of 47 pass attempts lost here (28%).28%13/47Hafezattacking →VISION AI

How they lose it

Incomplete pass — attacking third
60
Failed forward pass
41
Failed take-on
14
Lost in build-up (def third)
69
Their weakest zone is the right wing in the attacking third: 41% of 39 pass attempts there are lost (16 times). Separately, 28% of all losses happen in the attacking third — a fair share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Premium
Tactical Phase Read
The tactical idea behind each phase of this team's play, written from the same numbers shown above — what they do in build-up, how they progress, where they create, and how they defend it.
Subscribe
Part 6

Style

Their playstyle fingerprint, and where they sit stylistically among the league.

Set-Piece Threat

How much of the goal threat is manufactured from dead balls — a route to goal that bypasses their open-play mechanism entirely.

Open play
5 g · 2.4 xG
Set pieces
1 g · 0.4 xG
Penalties
0 g
17% of goals come from set pieces (1 of 6), worth 0.4 xG from 5 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.

Where do our own corners go?

10 corners taken this season, split by which flag they were taken from — arrows from the flag, dots at the delivery point, shaded by % of that side's corners landing in each zone (same treatment as the concede map below). No swing-direction (inswinger/outswinger) data exists in this event feed, only a start and end point per pass, which cannot show how the ball curved — so this shows what is genuinely knowable: where it lands, and short vs actually delivered. Tap or hover a dot for who took it and the match; filter to one match below and the shading recomputes for just that game.

Right side (6)

33%17%17%17%VISION AI
Delivered into the box 83%Short 17%

Where they attack us from set pieces

2 opponent corners faced, 0 conceded — gold = goal, arrows drawn from the flag. Red shading behind the shots is the same zone-grid distribution as the corners map above — % of these shots per zone. Tap or hover any shot for the scorer/attempter, minute and match; filter to one match below and the shading recomputes for just that game.

50%50%← our goalVISION AI

Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths (top-third vs league)
  • xG conceded /game — 0.32 (95th pct)
  • pass retention % — 84.32 (95th pct)
  • box entries /game — 13.67 (70th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
  • press intensity (PPDA) — 19.00 (10th pct)
  • progression /game — 40.67 (25th pct)

Style Archetype & Similar Teams

Team archetype: Reactive low-block counter. Their closest stylistic matches in the league (cosine similarity on style metrics) — sides that play a similar way.

Al-Ittihad Alexandria
58%
ZED FC
55%
Modern Sport FC
45%
Al-Masry
39%
Al Ahly FC
36%
Part 7

Players

The individuals driving the numbers — output, creation, defensive work, and the full squad ledger.

Top Performers

Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 81 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.

Top Creators

Chance creation leaders — key passes /90 and box entries.

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Mohamed ChibiD2703.00125.2
Mahmoud SaberM1560.5863.7
Mahmoud ZalakaM1801.5040.6
Youssef ObamaF2390.7540.3
Odeh FakhouryM1811.4930.6
Nasser MaherM1012.6710.7
Mohanad LasheenM2510.3635.1
Walid El KartiM1740.0041.6

Wide Delivery Leaders

Crosses and cutbacks — wingers and full-backs only (by real average position, not the raw D/M position code), ranked by combined volume.

playerposmincrosses (completed)cutbacks (completed)
Mohamed ChibiFB2705 (60%)4 (25%)
Karim HafezFB2702 (0%)1 (100%)

Defensive Volume Leaders

Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
Mahmoud MareiD27027346
Ahmed El-ShenawyG270270025
Ahmed SamyD27022222
Mohanad LasheenM25120645
Mohamed ChibiD270202412
Karim HafezD27018427
Walid El KartiM17412118
Hamed HemdanM1059304

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (14 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Karim HafezD327000.1213183.5
Ahmed El-ShenawyG327000.006272.0
Mahmoud MareiD327000.0116275.0
Ahmed SamyD327010.1215224.1
Mohamed ChibiD327000.1921205.2
Mohanad LasheenM325100.0116205.1
Youssef ObamaF323910.62260.3
Odeh FakhouryM318120.53300.6
Mahmoud ZalakaM318010.33280.6
Walid El KartiM317400.004121.6
Mahmoud SaberM215600.311373.7
Hamed HemdanM310500.10190.4
Mostafa FathyM310400.11360.8
Nasser MaherM310110.53240.7

Recruitment Intelligence — profiles to sign

The question
If you were sporting director, which player profiles would move the needle most?

Each recruitment target is derived directly from the team's weakest areas vs the league — the gap, why it shows in the data, and the profile that closes it.

Need — bottom-third: press intensity (PPDA) (10th pct)
Sign a high-energy presser to lift defensive intensity. The data flags this because the press is passive (19.00, 10th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: progression /game (25th pct)
Sign a progressive passer / ball-carrier to break lines. The data flags this because progression is limited (40.67, 25th percentile vs the league).
Need — below-average: xG created /game (40th pct)
Sign a higher-volume goalscorer or chance creator. The data flags this because the attack under-produces xG (0.92, 40th percentile vs the league).

Scouting Summary — How to Play Them

How to play them. Pyramids FC are balanced-territory with a passive / low-block. They sit off, so patience and width are needed to break them down; their attack runs at 0.92 xG/game — containable, and they concede 0.32/game (solid). Deny the box entries through their strongest channel and force them wide. [Event-data based — no tracking, so off-ball structure and marking scheme need video.]

Player Role Architecture

The question
Who does what — and what tactical job does each key player actually perform?

The nine most-used players (450+ minutes), each with the role their event fingerprint points to — not just their listed position.

Karim Hafez
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes270
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /904.3
key passes /900.67
def actions /906.0
pass accuracy83%
Ahmed El-Shenawy
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes270
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /902.0
key passes /900.00
def actions /909.0
pass accuracy78%
Mahmoud Marei
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes270
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /905.3
key passes /900.33
def actions /909.0
pass accuracy91%
Ahmed Samy
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes270
goals · xG1 · 0.1
prog passes /905.0
key passes /900.67
def actions /907.3
pass accuracy91%
Mohamed Chibi
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes270
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /907.0
key passes /903.00
def actions /906.7
pass accuracy77%
Mohanad Lasheen
Box-to-box midfielder · Midfielder
minutes251
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /905.7
key passes /900.36
def actions /907.2
pass accuracy90%
Youssef Obama
Box-to-box midfielder · Midfielder
minutes239
goals · xG1 · 0.6
prog passes /900.8
key passes /900.75
def actions /902.3
pass accuracy69%
Odeh Fakhoury
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes181
goals · xG2 · 0.5
prog passes /901.5
key passes /901.49
def actions /900.0
pass accuracy75%
Mahmoud Zalaka
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes180
goals · xG1 · 0.3
prog passes /901.0
key passes /901.50
def actions /904.0
pass accuracy69%