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.
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.
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.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
1
Pyramids FC
4
4
0
0
7
0
+7
12
2
Zamalek SC
4
3
1
0
7
1
+6
10
3
Al Ahly FC
4
3
1
0
7
3
+4
10
4
Cleopatra FC
4
3
0
1
8
3
+5
9
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)
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
◆ 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.
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.
● 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.
Low threatMidHigh threatArrow width = total xT, not count
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 right — 45% 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#18/20
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
64
#20/20
High-press share
10%
#15/20
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
27.4
#16/20
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
10.7
#20/20
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
37%
#19/20
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
74%
#9/20
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
11.2%
#8/20
of 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
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.
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)
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.
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.
player
pos
min
key P /90
box entries
xT
Mohamed Chibi
D
270
3.00
12
5.2
Mahmoud Saber
M
156
0.58
6
3.7
Mahmoud Zalaka
M
180
1.50
4
0.6
Youssef Obama
F
239
0.75
4
0.3
Odeh Fakhoury
M
181
1.49
3
0.6
Nasser Maher
M
101
2.67
1
0.7
Mohanad Lasheen
M
251
0.36
3
5.1
Walid El Karti
M
174
0.00
4
1.6
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.
player
pos
min
crosses (completed)
cutbacks (completed)
Mohamed Chibi
FB
270
5 (60%)
4 (25%)
Karim Hafez
FB
270
2 (0%)
1 (100%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Mahmoud Marei
D
270
27
3
4
6
Ahmed El-Shenawy
G
270
27
0
0
25
Ahmed Samy
D
270
22
2
2
2
Mohanad Lasheen
M
251
20
6
4
5
Mohamed Chibi
D
270
20
2
4
12
Karim Hafez
D
270
18
4
2
7
Walid El Karti
M
174
12
1
1
8
Hamed Hemdan
M
105
9
3
0
4
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (14 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Karim Hafez
D
3
270
0
0.1
2
13
18
3.5
Ahmed El-Shenawy
G
3
270
0
0.0
0
6
27
2.0
Mahmoud Marei
D
3
270
0
0.0
1
16
27
5.0
Ahmed Samy
D
3
270
1
0.1
2
15
22
4.1
Mohamed Chibi
D
3
270
0
0.1
9
21
20
5.2
Mohanad Lasheen
M
3
251
0
0.0
1
16
20
5.1
Youssef Obama
F
3
239
1
0.6
2
2
6
0.3
Odeh Fakhoury
M
3
181
2
0.5
3
3
0
0.6
Mahmoud Zalaka
M
3
180
1
0.3
3
2
8
0.6
Walid El Karti
M
3
174
0
0.0
0
4
12
1.6
Mahmoud Saber
M
2
156
0
0.3
1
13
7
3.7
Hamed Hemdan
M
3
105
0
0.1
0
1
9
0.4
Mostafa Fathy
M
3
104
0
0.1
1
3
6
0.8
Nasser Maher
M
3
101
1
0.5
3
2
4
0.7
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.