Vision AI ← BACK TO SEARCHSeason681472025/262026 · this seasonAll seasons
Building the full report
Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportEgyptian Premier League 2026

Ghazl El Mahalla FC

A balanced-territory side, moderate-press out of possession, with a low-output attack. Currently #19 of 20 on 4 points (1-1-5, 3:11). Tactical profile below is built from 7 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.

balanced-territorymoderate-presslow-output attack
W
D
D
D
L
L
W
D
L
L
D
L
L
L
W
4
points
#19 of 20 · 7 games
3:11
goals
-8 GD
1-1-5
record
W-D-L
0.57
points/game
#19 in the league
0.69
xG for/game
rank #18
1.24
xG against/game
rank #13
#12
press rank
of 20 · most aggressive
49%
field tilt
#13
Ghazl El Mahalla FC
League average
Expected goals for / game
0.691.11
Expected goals against / game
1.241.11
Field tilt
49%50%
Pass retention
77%75%
Overview

The team

Who they are and how the season went.

Who Are They? — Identity

The question
In one read, what kind of team is Ghazl El Mahalla FC and how good was the season?
Read. Ghazl El Mahalla FC currently sit #19 of 20 on 4 points (1W-1D-5L, 0.57 pts/game), scoring 3 and conceding 11 for a goal difference of -8. On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (49% field tilt, #13 in the league); off it they defend with a moderate-press (#12 of 20 for press intensity). Across the 7 matches of event data, they create 0.69 xG/game (#18) and concede 1.24 (#13), a net of -0.55 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.

Season Context — the league table

The question
Where did Ghazl El Mahalla FC actually finish, and against whom?

The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Ghazl El Mahalla FC.

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
16Asyut Petroleum712437-45
17ENPPI7115815-74
18Abu Qir Fertilizers SC7115311-84
19Ghazl El Mahalla FC7115311-84
20El Gouna FC7025410-62

xG Race — the season, match by match

Expected goals piling up over 7 matches: Ghazl El Mahalla FC against what their opponents created. A line pulling away upwards is a side creating more than it gives away; the gap at the end is the season’s balance (-3.9 xG). Hover a point for that match.

03694.88.7Pyramids FC (H) 0-3 · xG 0.30 to 1.64Modern Sport FC (A) 0-2 · xG 0.82 to 1.88ENPPI (H) 0-0 · xG 0.70 to 0.52National Bank of Egypt (A) 1-3 · xG 0.73 to 1.54Zamalek SC (H) 0-1 · xG 0.67 to 1.26Smouha (A) 0-1 · xG 0.39 to 0.91Al-Ittihad Alexandria (H) 2-1 · xG 1.22 to 0.93M1M2M3M4M5M6M7
Ghazl El Mahalla FCOpponents against Ghazl El Mahalla FC

Tactical DNA

The football question
In five genes, what is Ghazl El Mahalla 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.

48
Build-Up
possession control from the back
78
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
32
Creation
manufacturing chances
38
Press
winning the ball high & hard
35
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Ghazl El Mahalla FC are defined most by their Progression DNA (78/100 · strong at moving the ball upfield with threat), and least by their Creation DNA (32/100). Percentiles vs the 20 teams in the league.

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).

Possess36Disrupt53Finish12Press36Defend24
Possess
Deep buildup
50%
Possession
42%
Field tilt
17%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
75%
Dribble tendency
71%
Progressive passes
12%
Finish
Final-third patience
4%
Shot quality
8%
Open-play xG
25%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
42%
High regains
8%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
58%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
42%
High line ~proxy
12%
PAdj defensive actions
17%
Ghazl El Mahalla FC is defined most by Disrupt (53% in the league) and weakest on Finish (12%). Percentiles vs the 24 teams in the league this season.
In possession

In possession

How they keep the ball, build up, progress, create and finish, and where their attacks die.

Keeping the ball5 sections

Field Tilt — Territorial Control

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

Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Ghazl El Mahalla 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; Ghazl El Mahalla FC highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.

Pyramids FC: 57% tilt, 3.00 pts/gAl Ahly FC: 62% tilt, 2.43 pts/gZamalek SC: 53% tilt, 2.29 pts/gCleopatra FC: 56% tilt, 2.14 pts/gAl-Ittihad Alexandria: 47% tilt, 1.86 pts/gModern Sport FC: 46% tilt, 1.86 pts/gArab Contractors FC: 41% tilt, 1.57 pts/gZED FC: 50% tilt, 1.57 pts/gNational Bank of Egypt: 57% tilt, 1.43 pts/gSmouha: 51% tilt, 1.43 pts/gCanal SC: 38% tilt, 1.14 pts/gAl-Masry: 61% tilt, 1.14 pts/gPetrojet: 58% tilt, 1.14 pts/gWadi Degla: 51% tilt, 1.00 pts/gTala'ea El-Gaish: 46% tilt, 1.00 pts/gAsyut Petroleum: 37% tilt, 0.71 pts/gAbu Qir Fertilizers SC: 39% tilt, 0.57 pts/gENPPI: 49% tilt, 0.57 pts/gGhazl El Mahalla FC: 49% tilt, 0.57 pts/gEl Gouna FC: 50% tilt, 0.29 pts/gGhazl El Mahalla FC37%46%54%62%0.31.22.13.0FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
Vision AI Model Insight
Ghazl El Mahalla FC post 49% field tilt, ranking #13 of 20 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 0.57 points/game sits below the league-average return — territory is genuinely converting into results.

Passing Network

The question
Who actually plays with whom — the real on-pitch connections, not just average positions?

Every pass linked to its likely receiver (the next same-team touch), aggregated into player-pair combinations at each player's average position. Line width = how often the pair combines; colour = threat generated per pass (blue low → red high). Hover a line for the pair, or click a player to isolate their connections.

Fares Nechat Djabri ↔ Ahmed El Aash: 113 passes, 4.0 combined xTYehia Zakaria ↔ Mory Touré: 67 passes, 1.3 combined xTAhmed El Aash ↔ Yehia Zakaria: 49 passes, 1.0 combined xTAhmed Shousha ↔ Abdel Rahman Shika: 47 passes, 1.4 combined xTAbdo Yehia ↔ Ahmed El Aash: 38 passes, 2.1 combined xTFares Nechat Djabri ↔ Yehia Zakaria: 37 passes, 0.9 combined xTAbdel Rahman Shika ↔ Abdo Yehia: 35 passes, 0.5 combined xTAmer Mohamed ↔ Ahmed Shousha: 33 passes, 1.2 combined xTAbdel Rahman Shika ↔ Mory Touré: 33 passes, -0.1 combined xTAbdo Yehia ↔ Yehia Zakaria: 30 passes, 1.0 combined xTAbdo Yehia ↔ Fares Nechat Djabri: 24 passes, 0.5 combined xTAbdel Rahman Shika ↔ Ahmed El Aash: 24 passes, 1.3 combined xTAhmed El Aash ↔ Mory Touré: 23 passes, 0.3 combined xTAbdel Rahman Shika ↔ Fares Nechat Djabri: 23 passes, 0.3 combined xTAbdel Rahman Shika ↔ Yehia Zakaria: 22 passes, 0.5 combined xTAhmed Shousha ↔ Ahmed El Aash: 21 passes, 1.1 combined xTAhmed El Aash ↔ Mohamed Ashraf: 18 passes, 0.7 combined xTFares Nechat Djabri ↔ Mory Touré: 15 passes, 0.7 combined xTAmer Mohamed ↔ Ahmed El Aash: 12 passes, 0.2 combined xTAmr Amr Gomaa ↔ Mory Touré: 11 passes, 0.6 combined xTMohamed Ashraf ↔ Moaz Abdel Salam: 9 passes, 0.2 combined xTFares Nechat Djabri ↔ Mohamed Ashraf: 8 passes, 0.4 combined xTRached Arfaoui ↔ Amer Mohamed: 7 passes, -0.0 combined xTAhmed Shousha ↔ Abdo Yehia: 6 passes, 0.1 combined xTAmer Mohamed — isolate this player's connectionsMohamedAhmed Shousha — isolate this player's connectionsShoushaAbdel Rahman Shika — isolate this player's connectionsShikaOssama Fathy — isolate this player's connectionsFathyAbdo Yehia — isolate this player's connectionsYehiaFares Nechat Djabri — isolate this player's connectionsDjabriAhmed El Aash — isolate this player's connectionsAashEmad Mayhoub — isolate this player's connectionsMayhoubYehia Zakaria — isolate this player's connectionsZakariaMory Touré — isolate this player's connectionsTouréHazem Abou Sena — isolate this player's connectionsSenaMoaz Abdel Salam — isolate this player's connectionsSalamAmr Amr Gomaa — isolate this player's connectionsGomaaMohamed Ashraf — isolate this player's connectionsAshrafHossam Greisha — isolate this player's connectionsGreishaRached Arfaoui — isolate this player's connectionsArfaoui
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high

Top 10 combinations

Djabri ↔ Aash
113p · 4.0xT
Zakaria ↔ Touré
67p · 1.3xT
Aash ↔ Zakaria
49p · 1.0xT
Shousha ↔ Shika
47p · 1.4xT
Yehia ↔ Aash
38p · 2.1xT
Djabri ↔ Zakaria
37p · 0.9xT
Shika ↔ Yehia
35p · 0.5xT
Mohamed ↔ Shousha
33p · 1.2xT
Shika ↔ Touré
33p · -0.1xT
Yehia ↔ Zakaria
30p · 1.0xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Fares Nechat Djabri ↔ Ahmed El Aash (113 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Abdo Yehia ↔ Ahmed El Aash (0.05 xT/pass over 38 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.

Touch Density — where Ghazl El Mahalla FC had the ball

Every touch across 70 matches. Brighter means more touches.

Which Zones Do They Attack Through?

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

Passes on one map, carries (the ball travelling with a player) on the other. Each is binned into the 15 pitch zones (three thirds × five vertical lanes) and shaded by its share of that kind of action; the arrows are the real actions.

Passes
the ball moved by a pass
2735
ACTIONS
4%7%10%7%5%7%11%10%11%8%6%3%2%4%5%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
914
ACTIONS
4%6%9%6%4%10%10%9%10%8%7%4%3%4%7%CARRIES
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the left half-space of the middle third (10.7% of all actions). 65% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 35% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 32% defensive, 47% middle, 21% attacking.

Attack Sides

Which channel they attacked through this season: the share of every action made in the opponent’s half, down the left, through the middle and down the right. Ghazl El Mahalla FC leaned on their right (41%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.

38%Left side21%Middle41%Right sideATTACKING →
Ghazl El Mahalla FC
38%21%41%
League
38%24%38%

Final-Third Entries

Every completed pass or carry that took the ball from outside the final third into it, by the channel it arrived in. Ghazl El Mahalla FC made 310 this season (44.3 a match); 27% came into the right wing. Longer, bolder arrows mean more entries. Entries by carrying the ball in count as well as completed passes; dribbles are not counted.

Left wing: 82 entries (26%)8226%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 56 entries (18%)5618%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 37 entries (12%)3712%CENTRERight half-space: 51 entries (16%)5116%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 84 entries (27%)8427%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing8211.726%27%
Left half-space568.018%17%
Centre375.312%15%
Right half-space517.316%16%
Right wing8412.027%26%
Build-up2 sections

Build-Up — the pass map

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

Build-up passes grouped into 5 real categories — not the old zone grid, not raw individual lines: CB (passer is a centre-back), Wide→FB, Central, Long Wide, Long Central. Each gets its own panel below, so nothing competes for attention. Arrow width = volume, labelled with the exact count; hover for the top passer.

910build-up passes attempted
76%completed
36%reach the middle third
5%go long into the final third

Pass types

311CB · 45%
54Long Wide · 8%
6Long Central · 1%
247Wide → FB · 36%
77Central · 11%
CB311 · 45%
left: 159 passes, most from Shousha159right: 152 passes, most from Aash152
Long Wide54 · 8%
left: 30 passes, most from Mohamed30right: 24 passes, most from Mohamed24
Long Central6 · 1%
right: 5 passes, most from Mohamed5
Wide → FB247 · 36%
left: 137 passes, most from Zakaria137right: 110 passes, most from Djabri110
Central77 · 11%
left: 41 passes, most from Zakaria41right: 36 passes, most from Touré36
◆ Vision AI Insight
Ghazl El Mahalla FC build predominantly down the right, with Aash as the fulcrum (145 build-up passes). Only 41% 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 def → C def (49×).

Pass Explorer

Every pass of Ghazl El Mahalla FC’s last 7 matches as an arrow, theirs first and the opponents’ with other team, each side attacking left to right (solid = completed, dashed grey = failed). Eight families per team — click any map to open it wide, then filter by channel or third, from one to another (or click a cell of the flow grids), by outcome, half, minute and passer. Channels: right wing, right half-space, centre, left half-space, left wing.

Progression4 sections

How They Progress — the mechanism

Not just how many progressive passes, but where they start, who plays them, and whether they actually penetrate. 351 progressive passes across 7 matches (50.1/game).

Origin lane

Right wing
21%
Right half-space
21%
Central
17%
Left half-space
20%
Left wing
21%
Progression is right-dominant: 42% right side · 17% central · 41% left.

Who generates it

Yehia Zakaria
48 · 14%
Ahmed Shousha
44 · 13%
Fares Nechat Djabri
42 · 12%
Abdel Rahman Shika
39 · 11%
Ahmed El Aash
37 · 11%
Top two — Yehia Zakaria & Ahmed Shousha — account for 26% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
50.1 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
37% reach final third
19% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 63% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it. 37% of progressive passes reached the final third and 19% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 26% of the progression ran through two players, mostly down the right side.

Which lanes actually create the threat

Share of passes played from each lane against its share of the threat (xT) they add. Efficient = more threat than volume, sterile = lots of the ball, little damage.

Per lane — volume vs threat
Right wingbalanced
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralbalanced
Left half-spacebalanced
Left wingbalanced

Progression — the pass map

The football question
Once Ghazl El Mahalla FC have the ball in midfield, how do they actually break into the final third — and who carries that job?

Progression passes grouped into 5 real categories: CB, Wide→FB, Central, Long Wide, Long Central. Each gets its own panel below, so nothing competes for attention. Arrow width = volume, labelled with the exact count; hover for the top passer.

1279progression passes attempted
81%completed
22%break into the final third
15%go backward into the defensive third

Pass types

216CB · 21%
80Long Wide · 8%
12Long Central · 1%
585Wide → FB · 56%
148Central · 14%
CB216 · 21%
left: 119 passes, most from Shousha119right: 97 passes, most from Aash97
Long Wide80 · 8%
left: 43 passes, most from Shika43right: 37 passes, most from Shika37
Long Central12 · 1%
right: 7 passes, most from Touré7left: 5 passes, most from Armoosha5
Wide → FB585 · 56%
right: 301 passes, most from Djabri301left: 284 passes, most from Zakaria284
Central148 · 14%
left: 76 passes, most from Touré76right: 72 passes, most from Touré72
◆ Vision AI Insight
Ghazl El Mahalla FC progress predominantly down the left, with Touré the busiest midfield outlet (184 progression passes). Only 22% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (63%) is recycled back into midfield or (15%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is LW mid → LHS mid (58×) — press that lane and midfield progression stalls.

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)
20%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
46%
Safe / backward
33%
21% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 79% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.

Carries Map — progressive ball-carries, squad-wide

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

183 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (20% of 914 tracked carries total), grouped into up to 4 spatial patterns by where each carry starts and ends together — not just its origin zone. Median 15m, longest 51m. Most active carrier: Aash (21). Filter to one player below.

First (50)Second (47)Third (45)Fourth (41)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Chance creation1 section

Chance Creation — the pass map

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

Key passes (the pass immediately before a shot) grouped into 5 real categories: CB, Wide→FB, Central, Long Wide, Long Central. Each gets its own panel below, so nothing competes for attention. Arrow width = volume, labelled with the exact count; hover for the top creator.

Pass types

2CB · 4%
8Long Wide · 14%
9Long Central · 16%
14Wide → FB · 25%
24Central · 42%

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.

0 key passes shown● low threat● mid● high threatarrow width = total xT, not count
CB2 · 4%
left: 2 passes, most from Aash2
Long Wide8 · 14%
left: 5 passes, most from Touré5right: 3 passes, most from Saïdi3
Long Central9 · 16%
left: 7 passes, most from Yehia7right: 2 passes, most from Shika2
Wide → FB14 · 25%
right: 9 passes, most from Yehia9left: 5 passes, most from Zakaria5
Central24 · 42%
right: 15 passes, most from Arfaoui15left: 9 passes, most from Shika9

Who creates — volume × threat

11Shika
9Djabri
7Yehia
5Zakaria
5Touré
5Arfaoui
4Ashraf
57key passes #11 of 20
11.0box entries/game #10 of 20
37.0final-3rd entries/game #8 of 20
0.69xG/game #18 of 20
3goals #18 of 20
-1.8finishing vs xG #17 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Ghazl El Mahalla FC lean right — 44% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (25 of 57), most often from Djabri (9). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RW att → C att (10 key passes, most often from Djabri). Shika is the primary source overall. They generate 0.69 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Abdo Yehia (1G), Amr Gomaa (1G), Abdel Fattah Sheta (1G).
Finishing2 sections

Shot Map

77 shots for 4.8 xG (0.69/game, #18 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.

Low-output attack. 11.0 shots/game at 0.063 xG/shot. Box entries 11/game (#10). Threat created 11.8 xT/game (#6).

How Do They Score?

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

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

By situation

Open play
2 · 67%
Set pieces
1 · 33%
Penalties
0 · 0%

By finish

Right foot
1 · 33%
Left foot
0 · 0%
Header
2 · 67%
Vision AI Model Insight
3 goals scored. 67% come in open play, but 33% from set pieces — a genuine dead-ball weapon that bypasses the open-play build-up.
When they lose it1 section

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

28 of 101 pass attempts lost here (28%).28%28/101Aash42 of 203 pass attempts lost here (21%).21%42/203Aash69 of 287 pass attempts lost here (24%).24%69/287Mohamed42 of 189 pass attempts lost here (22%).22%42/189Shousha34 of 130 pass attempts lost here (26%).26%34/130Zakaria47 of 200 pass attempts lost here (24%).24%47/200Djabri49 of 295 pass attempts lost here (17%).17%49/295Aash50 of 278 pass attempts lost here (18%).18%50/278Shika51 of 297 pass attempts lost here (17%).17%51/297Shika41 of 209 pass attempts lost here (20%).20%41/209Zakaria65 of 158 pass attempts lost here (41%).41%65/158Djabri32 of 92 pass attempts lost here (35%).35%32/92Djabri13 of 61 pass attempts lost here (21%).21%13/61Yehia28 of 103 pass attempts lost here (27%).27%28/103Yehia50 of 134 pass attempts lost here (37%).37%50/134Shikaattacking →

How they lose it

Incomplete pass — attacking third
188
Failed forward pass
126
Failed take-on
47
Lost in the defensive third
215
Their weakest zone is the right wing in the attacking third: 41% of 158 pass attempts there are lost (65 times). Separately, 29% of all losses happen in the attacking third — a fair share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Out of possession

Out of possession

How they press, where they win the ball back, and how they concede.

Pressing1 section

Pressing — the full picture

The football question
How hard does Ghazl El Mahalla 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.

51
Pressing Index
/100 · average
Intensity27
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height70
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness78
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption28
opponent completion & progression allowed

Every defensive action & where it happens

Where they win the ball back — by lane

RW
17%
RHS
21%
C
30%
LHS
19%
LW
13%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 60%
Mid 34%
Att 6%
Read
Ranked #12 of 20 for press intensity, this is a low block. 40% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 30. Of recoveries, 49% are won high up the pitch.

Every pressing metric, ranked in the league

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)—#12/20lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game90#8/20
High-press share9%#17/20def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)30.0#6/20avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game22.1#4/20ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share49%#5/20share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed81%#20/20lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed11.1%#9/20of 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.
Defending the box2 sections

Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them

The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Ghazl El Mahalla FC? 355 opponent progressive passes and 83 shots faced (8.7 xG against) across the season.

Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Ghazl El Mahalla FC)

Right wing
27%
Right half-space
18%
Central
18%
Left half-space
14%
Left wing
23%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (27% of the danger conceded).

How Do They Concede?

The question
Where do the goals against Ghazl El Mahalla FC actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?

Every goal Ghazl El Mahalla FC conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Ghazl El Mahalla 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

← opponent shot at own goal

Every opponent key pass against them (68 total)

1%7%4%6%9%1%13%18%19%7%13%Youssef ObamaAhmed SamyMohamed ChibiMohamed ChibiMohamed ChibiMohamed ChibiMohamed ChibiMahmoud SaberMahmoud ZalakaOdeh FakhouryAli FawziAli FawziAli FawziAli FawziAhmed YoussefAhmed YoussefGhanam MohamedArnold EbaArnold EbaArnold EbaWalid MostafaMahmoud MamdouhMahmoud MamdouhMichael EphsonTitoMohamed SherifMohamed SherifZiad KamalMarwan DawoudMohamed EssamMohamed HamdiAhmed MadbouliAhmed MadbouliYaw AnnorOsama FaisalOsama FaisalOsama FaisalRashad MetwalyAhmed MetebAhmed MetebAhmed MetebAli HamdyAli HamdyAli HamdyDao CyrilleAbdallah El-SaidAhmed FatouhOday DabbaghChico BanzaHossam AshrafAhmed SherifAdam KaiedMahmoud BentaygKhaled El GhandourKhaled El GhandourSamir FekriSamir FekriMohamed AdelAbdelghani MohamedAli GamalPape BadjiMohamed KoneMohamed ToniMohamed FakhryMahmoud EmadMomen AwadPascal PhiriKhaled Mosaad← own goal

By situation

Open play
9 · 82%
Set pieces
1 · 9%
Penalties
1 · 9%
Vision AI Model Insight
11 goals conceded. 82% come in open play; set pieces account for only 9%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 27% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the centre of the attacking third (19% of key passes faced) — that is the zone to shut off.
Context

Shape and tactics

Set pieces, strengths and weaknesses, and who they resemble.

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 →

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 · 3.8 xG
Set pieces
1 g · 1.0 xG
Penalties
0 g
33% of goals come from set pieces (1 of 3), worth 1.0 xG from 18 shots. A genuine set-piece weapon — defend the box seriously.

Where do Ghazl El Mahalla FC's corners go?

27 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 is recorded here, 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 (16)

6%12%31%19%6%12%12%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Left side (11)

9%18%27%9%18%9%
Delivered into the box 91%Short 9%

Where opponents attack Ghazl El Mahalla FC from set pieces

9 shots from opponent corners against Ghazl El Mahalla FC, 0 conceded, split by the flag the corner came from — arrows from the flag, dots where the shot was taken (gold = goal), shaded by the % of that flag's shots in each zone. Tap or hover a shot for who took it, the minute and the match; filter to one match and the shading recomputes for just that game.

Right flag (6)

17%17%67%
Shot 6Goals 0

Left flag (3)

67%33%
Shot 3Goals 0

Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths (top-third vs league)
  • progression /game — 50.14 (85th pct)
  • threat created /game — 11.83 (70th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
  • xG created /game — 0.69 (10th pct)
  • xG conceded /game — 1.24 (35th pct)
  • field tilt % — 49.33 (35th pct)
  • shots /game — 11.00 (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.

Zamalek SC
66%
Smouha
57%
Asyut Petroleum
32%
National Bank of Egypt
14%
El Gouna FC
11%

Performance vs Opponent Styles

The question
Not just how Ghazl El Mahalla FC results against a high press or a low block — how does their own play actually change?

Every match split into three tiers by how hard that specific opponent pressed (opponent PPDA — lower means a more aggressive press), matching Ghazl El Mahalla FC's own passing behaviour to the result.

Results

opponent typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)1.001.001.50
vs mid-block opponents (2m)0.000.500.50
vs low-block opponents (3m)0.332.670.00

Behaviour — how Ghazl El Mahalla FC actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents74%21%4810.712.5
vs mid-block opponents73%19%4611.98.5
vs low-block opponents79%19%5412.611.7
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 74% vs 79% against a low block (5pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 21% when pressed vs 19% against a low block — their passing style barely changes regardless of how the opponent sets up, for better or worse.

Scouting Summary — the team in brief

In brief. Ghazl El Mahalla FC are balanced-territory with a moderate-press. Their attack creates 0.69 xG a game and they concede 1.24 a game. [Event-data based — no tracking, so off-ball structure and marking scheme need video.]
Squad

Players

Who drives the numbers.

Set Pieces by Player

Who delivers Ghazl El Mahalla FC’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 27 corners taken, most by Abdel Rahman Shika (10); 11 shots from corners and free kicks, 0 goals. “Into the box” counts corners that landed inside the penalty area; free-kick takers are the players who shot from one, because this feed does not mark who delivers the others.

PlayerCorners takenInto the boxSet-piece shotsGoalsxGFree-kick shotsPenalties
Ahmed Shousha——5—0.20——
Abdel Rahman Shika109 (90%)——0.00——
Mohamed Ashraf76 (86%)——0.00——
Abdo Yehia——2—0.061—
Yehia Zakaria22 (100%)1—0.02——
Ahmed Etman33 (100%)——0.00——
Fares Nechat Djabri33 (100%)——0.00——
Ahmed El Aash——1—0.02——
Kibou Saïdi——1—0.01——
Hazem Mohamed——1—0.08——
Rached Arfaoui21 (50%)——0.00——

Top Performers

Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 189 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.

playerposminVision AI Scorecapability blocks
Ahmed El AashCB6307.5Aerial & Box Defending 63%Ball-Winning 62%Progression 62%Ball-Carrying 44%
Abdel Rahman ShikaCM5807.3Chance Creation 84%Progression 82%Ball-Carrying 66%Successful Dribble 60%
Ahmed ShoushaCB5256.6Progression 64%Aerial & Box Defending 51%Ball-Winning 36%Ball-Carrying 32%
Fares Nechat DjabriFB6305.4Ball-Carrying 89%Ball-Winning 74%
Yehia ZakariaFB5704.5Ball-Winning 56%Ball-Carrying 42%
Abdo YehiaST4963.5Aerial Threat 46%Finishing 36%Ball-Carrying 32%Box Threat 27%
Mory TouréCM6242.4Successful Dribble 42%Ball-Carrying 24%Progression 22%Chance Creation 8%

Top Creators

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

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Abdo YehiaF4961.27164.5
Fares Nechat DjabriD6301.29139.0
Abdel Rahman ShikaM5801.7189.8
Yehia ZakariaD5700.7958.1
Mory TouréM6240.7259.4
Ahmed El AashD6300.29510.6
Mohamed AshrafM3451.0432.8
Kibou SaïdiM2940.6141.9

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)
Fares Nechat DjabriFB63013 (46%)8 (25%)
Yehia ZakariaFB5704 (75%)6 (17%)
Kibou SaïdiW2942 (0%)5 (60%)
Ahmed EtmanW1472 (50%)1 (100%)

Defensive Volume Leaders

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

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
Fares Nechat DjabriD63078151033
Mory TouréM6247722441
Ahmed El AashD6307611728
Abdel Rahman ShikaM5806512536
Amer MohamedG630510046
Ahmed ShoushaD525513617
Yehia ZakariaD5705111723
Abdo YehiaF496225115

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (18 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Amer MohamedG763000.0021514.3
Ahmed El AashD763000.12377610.6
Fares Nechat DjabriD763000.1942789.0
Mory TouréM762400.2537779.4
Abdel Rahman ShikaM758000.21139659.8
Yehia ZakariaD757000.0548518.1
Ahmed ShoushaD752500.20445111.0
Abdo YehiaF749611.0717224.5
Mohamed AshrafM634500.3412122.8
Hazem MohamedF429500.715150.8
Kibou SaïdiM529400.428211.9
Moaz Abdel SalamM725500.102181.2
Amr GomaaF617810.41380.8
Ahmed EtmanM414700.329161.8
Rached ArfaouiF514400.157131.1
Ahmed YasserM313000.202200.7
Mohamed Salem EkbadF311300.11450.8
Abdel Rahman EmadM310600.113121.0

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.

Amer Mohamed
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes630
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /903.0
key passes /900.00
def actions /907.3
pass accuracy67%
Ahmed El Aash
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes630
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /905.3
key passes /900.29
def actions /9010.9
pass accuracy79%
Fares Nechat Djabri
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes630
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /906.0
key passes /901.29
def actions /9011.1
pass accuracy76%
Mory Touré
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes624
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /905.3
key passes /900.72
def actions /9011.1
pass accuracy86%
Abdel Rahman Shika
Deep-lying playmaker · Midfielder
minutes580
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /906.1
key passes /901.71
def actions /9010.1
pass accuracy79%
Yehia Zakaria
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes570
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /907.6
key passes /900.79
def actions /908.1
pass accuracy79%
Ahmed Shousha
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes525
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /907.5
key passes /900.00
def actions /908.7
pass accuracy81%
Abdo Yehia
Box-to-box midfielder · Midfielder
minutes496
goals · xG1 · 1.0
prog passes /903.1
key passes /901.27
def actions /904.0
pass accuracy63%
Mohamed Ashraf
Box-to-box midfielder · Midfielder
minutes345
goals · xG0 · 0.3
prog passes /903.1
key passes /901.04
def actions /903.1
pass accuracy63%

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 created /game (10th pct)
Sign a higher-volume goalscorer or chance creator. The data flags this because the attack under-produces xG (0.69, 10th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: xG conceded /game (35th pct)
Sign a defensive organiser / shot-suppressing centre-back. The data flags this because too much xG is conceded (1.24, 35th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: field tilt % (35th pct)
Sign a possession-controlling midfielder to win the territorial battle. The data flags this because they get pinned back (49.33, 35th percentile vs the league).
Vision AI · building report