Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team Intelligence Report · Egyptian Premier League 2026
ZED FC
A balanced-territory side, passive / low-block out of possession, with a moderate attack. Currently #15 of 20 on 4 points (1-1-2, 2:4). Tactical profile below is built from 4 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.
Who ZED 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 ZED FC and how good was the season?
Read. ZED FC currently sit #15 of 20 on 4 points (1W-1D-2L, 1.00 pts/game), scoring 2 and conceding 4 for a goal difference of -2.
On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (51% field tilt, #9 in the league); off it they defend with a passive / low-block (#11 of 20 for press intensity).
Across the 4 matches of event data, they create 1.11 xG/game (#9) and concede 1.12 (#15), a net of -0.02 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did ZED FC actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on ZED FC.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
12
Petrojet
4
1
1
2
6
7
-1
4
13
Arab Contractors FC
4
1
1
2
4
5
-1
4
14
ENPPI
4
1
1
2
5
7
-2
4
15
ZED FC
4
1
1
2
2
4
-2
4
16
Abu Qir Fertilizers SC
4
1
0
3
1
6
-5
3
17
El Gouna FC
4
0
2
2
2
4
-2
2
18
Asyut Petroleum
4
0
2
2
1
3
-2
2
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does ZED 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
ZED FC tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG -0.30, second-half +0.24. Their strongest period is 46-60' (net +0.89 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 76-90+' (net -0.50 xG against them).
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is ZED 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.
62
Build-Up
possession control from the back
40
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
55
Creation
manufacturing chances
50
Press
winning the ball high & hard
25
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
ZED FC are defined most by their Build-Up DNA (62/100 · average at possession control from the back), and least by their Solidity DNA (25/100). 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
75%
Possession
58%
Field tilt
42%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
42%
Dribble tendency
54%
Progressive passes
54%
Finish
Final-third patience
17%
Shot quality
75%
Open-play xG
75%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
8%
High regains
17%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
29%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
25%
High line ~proxy
42%
PAdj defensive actions
29%
ZED FC is defined most by Possess (58% in the league) and weakest on Press (18%). 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 ZED FC actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across ZED 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; ZED FC highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
ZED FC post 51% field tilt, ranking #9 of 20 in the league — comfortably above the league mid-point for territorial control, and their 1.00 points/game sits below the league-average return — a real disconnect: their territorial control isn't showing up on the scoreboard the way it should.
Which Zones Do They Attack Through?
The question
Across the whole pitch, where does ZED FC actually do its on-ball work?
Every pass and carry ZED 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 left half-space of the middle third (10.9% of all actions). 66% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 34% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 32% defensive, 48% middle, 20% attacking.
Build-Up — the tactical board
The football question
How does ZED 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
ZED FC build predominantly down the right, with El-Saghiri as the fulcrum (144 build-up passes). Only 26% 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 LW mid → LHS mid (34×) — 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. 175 progressive passes across 4 matches (43.8/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
24%
Right half-space
23%
Central
11%
Left half-space
19%
Left wing
23%
Progression is right-dominant: 47% right side · 11% central · 42% left.
Who generates it
Mostafa Saad
34 · 19%
Mohamed Rabia
23 · 13%
Ahmed El-Saghiri
22 · 13%
Mohamed Hussein
17 · 10%
Mohamed Ibrahim
16 · 9%
Top two — Mostafa Saad & Mohamed Rabia — account for 33% of all progression. Concentrated, therefore stoppable.
PROGRESSION
43.8 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
37% reach final third
23% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 63% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
Cause → effect. They move the ball well, but only 37% 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 33% 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
1%
Neutral / sideways
47%
Safe / backward
34%
18% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 82% 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
46 shots for 4.4 xG (1.11/game, #9 in the league). Size = shot xG · gold = goal. Hover a shot for the player, or filter to one below.
Moderate attack. 11.5 shots/game at 0.096 xG/shot. Box entries 13/game (#8). Threat created 10.7 xT/game (#11).
Goal Map — where the goals go in from
The question
Physically, from where on the pitch does ZED FC score — and how?
All 2 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
50% of goals are scored from inside the box (1 of 2); 0 are headers. They score a notable share from distance — a shooting threat from range.
In possession · phase 3
Chance Creation
Chance Creation — the tactical board
The football question
How does ZED 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
10.0key passes / game
1.11xG / game
Saadtop creator
-2.4finishing vs xG
Selected route
LHS Att → C Att
CreatorIbrahim
Volume7 key passes
Usage32%
Avg threat0.039 xT
Avg distance13 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
10Saad
6Ibrahim
4El-Saghiri
4Hajij
3Ouka
3Banouby
3Rabia
40key passes #6 of 20
13.2box entries/game #8 of 20
36.0final-3rd entries/game #8 of 20
1.11xG/game #9 of 20
2goals #15 of 20
-2.4finishing vs xG #20 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
ZED FC lean left — 45% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (18 of 40), most often from Hajij (4). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via LHS att → C att (7 key passes, most often from Ibrahim). Saad is the primary source overall. They generate 1.11 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Wajdi Nabhan (1G), Omar Khedr (1G).
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal ZED FC scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
2 · 100%
Set pieces
0 · 0%
Penalties
0 · 0%
By finish
Right foot
1 · 50%
Left foot
1 · 50%
Header
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
2 goals scored. 100% come in open play; set pieces add 0%. Open play is clearly their main route to goal.
Where does ZED FC actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
89 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (16% of 568 tracked carries total), grouped into up to 4 spatial patterns by where each carry starts and ends together — not just its origin zone. Median 14m, longest 38m. Most active carrier: Bakri (11). Filter to one player below.
First (31)Second (21)Third (20)Fourth (17)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does ZED FC deliver into the box from wide areas?
26 crosses (7 completed) and 23 cutbacks (12 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 ZED 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 #11 of 20 for press intensity, this is a low block. 34% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 28. Of recoveries, 41% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#11/20
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
82
#14/20
High-press share
11%
#7/20
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
28.1
#12/20
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
15.8
#17/20
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
41%
#13/20
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
78%
#16/20
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
10.0%
#1/20
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 ZED FC? 150 opponent progressive passes and 50 shots faced (4.5 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into ZED FC)
Right wing
28%
Right half-space
20%
Central
23%
Left half-space
17%
Left wing
12%
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.
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against ZED FC actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal ZED FC conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in ZED FC's own matches — plus every individual opponent key pass faced, each drawn as its own real arrow (not zone-clustered) with the % share of each zone behind it.
Where the goals go in
Every opponent key pass against them (30 total)
By situation
Open play
2 · 50%
Set pieces
1 · 25%
Penalties
1 · 25%
Vision AI Model Insight
4 goals conceded. 50% come in open play, and 25% from set pieces — a genuine defensive frailty at dead balls to fix on the training ground. 25% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the right wing of the attacking third (23% of key passes faced) — that is the zone to shut off.
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
76
Failed forward pass
54
Failed take-on
24
Lost in build-up (def third)
141
Their weakest zone is the right wing in the defensive third: 44% of 57 pass attempts there are lost (25 times). Separately, 23% 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
2 g · 4.0 xG
Set pieces
0 g · 0.4 xG
Penalties
0 g
0% of goals come from set pieces (0 of 2), worth 0.4 xG from 9 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do our own corners go?
11 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.
Left side (9)
Delivered into the box 89%Short 11%
Where they attack us from set pieces
5 opponent corners faced, 1 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)
pass retention % — 78.82 (70th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
xG conceded /game — 1.12 (25th pct)
progression /game — 43.75 (35th 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.
Cleopatra FC
70%
Pyramids FC
55%
Zamalek SC
51%
Al Ahly FC
46%
National Bank of Egypt
43%
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 108 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
Mostafa Saad
M
360
2.50
15
6.0
Mohamed Ibrahim
M
203
2.66
6
3.8
Marwane Hajij
M
157
2.29
7
2.4
Ahmed El-Saghiri
M
360
1.00
5
5.8
Abdelrahman El Banouby
F
241
1.12
4
0.9
Mohamed Rabia
D
289
0.93
2
5.1
Mahmoud Ouka
M
316
0.85
1
1.5
Tarek Alaa
D
359
0.25
2
2.4
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)
Mostafa Saad
W
360
7 (43%)
6 (50%)
Tarek Alaa
FB
359
3 (0%)
1 (0%)
Wajdi Nabhan
W
79
2 (50%)
0
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Mohamed Rabia
D
289
48
7
8
22
Ahmed El-Saghiri
M
360
37
5
9
15
Mohamed Hussein
D
342
35
6
1
10
Ali Lotfi
G
360
30
0
0
28
Mostafa Saad
M
360
26
6
3
15
Tarek Alaa
D
359
25
1
6
10
Ahmed Adel
M
204
22
5
1
10
Mahmoud Ouka
M
316
22
8
4
7
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (14 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Ali Lotfi
G
4
360
0
0.0
0
5
30
2.4
Ahmed El-Saghiri
M
4
360
0
0.0
4
22
37
5.8
Mostafa Saad
M
4
360
0
0.9
10
34
26
6.0
Tarek Alaa
D
4
359
0
0.3
1
12
25
2.4
Mohamed Hussein
D
4
342
0
0.0
0
17
35
4.0
Mahmoud Ouka
M
4
316
0
0.4
3
5
22
1.5
Mohamed Rabia
D
4
289
0
0.4
3
23
48
5.1
Abdelrahman El Banouby
F
4
241
0
1.3
3
3
2
0.9
Abdallah Bakri
D
3
225
0
0.0
1
8
17
3.1
Ahmed Adel
M
4
204
0
0.0
1
3
22
0.5
Mohamed Ibrahim
M
3
203
0
0.0
6
16
16
3.8
Marwane Hajij
M
4
157
0
0.1
4
11
7
2.4
Mohamed Ezz
M
2
134
0
0.0
1
2
8
0.6
Moussa Mohamed
D
2
104
0
0.0
0
3
10
0.8
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: xG conceded /game (25th pct)
Sign a defensive organiser / shot-suppressing centre-back. The data flags this because too much xG is conceded (1.12, 25th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: progression /game (35th pct)
Sign a progressive passer / ball-carrier to break lines. The data flags this because progression is limited (43.75, 35th percentile vs the league).
Need — below-average: press intensity (PPDA) (45th pct)
Sign a high-energy presser to lift defensive intensity. The data flags this because the press is passive (14.12, 45th percentile vs the league).
Scouting Summary — How to Play Them
How to play them. ZED 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 1.11 xG/game — containable, and they concede 1.12/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.