Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportSerie A 2026
Como
A possession-dominant side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a high-volume attack. Currently #5 of 20 on 17 points (5-2-1, 14:7). Tactical profile below is built from 8 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.
In one read, what kind of team is Como and how good was the season?
Read. Como currently sit #5 of 20 on 17 points (5W-2D-1L, 2.12 pts/game), scoring 14 and conceding 7 for a goal difference of +7.
On the ball they are a possession-dominant team (60% field tilt, #4 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#5 of 20 for press intensity).
Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 1.82 xG/game (#4) and concede 1.32 (#9), a net of +0.50 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Como actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Como.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
2
Lazio
8
7
1
0
16
5
+11
22
3
Roma
8
5
3
0
19
6
+13
18
4
AC Milan
8
5
3
0
16
7
+9
18
5
Como
8
5
2
1
14
7
+7
17
6
Frosinone
8
4
2
2
17
13
+4
14
7
Juventus
8
4
2
2
11
8
+3
14
8
Torino
8
4
1
3
13
11
+2
13
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Como 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.
dominant (net xG for)conceding (net xG against)
Vision AI Model Insight
Como tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG -0.00, second-half +4.02. Their strongest period is 76-90+' (net +1.86 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 0-15' (net -0.53 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Como 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 (+4.0 xG). Hover a point for that match.
ComoOpponents against Como
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Como'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.
85
Build-Up
possession control from the back
80
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
82
Creation
manufacturing chances
78
Press
winning the ball high & hard
55
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Como are defined most by their Build-Up DNA (85/100 · elite at possession control from the back), and least by their Solidity DNA (55/100). 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).
Possess
Deep buildup
83%
Possession
96%
Field tilt
87%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
96%
Dribble tendency
22%
Progressive passes
61%
Finish
Final-third patience
48%
Shot quality
61%
Open-play xG
83%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
87%
High regains
57%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
70%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
83%
High line ~proxy
87%
PAdj defensive actions
91%
Como is defined most by Possess (88% in the league) and weakest on Disrupt (59%). Percentiles vs the 23 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.
How much of the pitch does Como actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Como'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; Como highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Como post 60% field tilt, ranking #4 of 20 in the league — a genuinely territory-dominant side, and their 2.12 points/game sits above the league-average return — territory is genuinely converting into results.
Where the time goes — how long each phase lasts
The question
When Como has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Como's time on the ball spent in each phase of play, in the order the phases happen. A phase is where the ball is on the pitch (own third, middle third, final third); a transition or a set piece skips the build-up and is counted on its own.
Phase
Share of the time
Build-up
26.3%
Progression
45.6%
Chance creation
27.0%
Attacking transition
1.1%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Como spends most of its time on the ball (46% of its time on the ball).
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.
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high
Top 10 combinations
Couto ↔ Ramón
131p · -0.6xT
Perrone ↔ Ramón
121p · 0.9xT
Butez ↔ Chalobah
97p · -0.2xT
Chalobah ↔ Cunha
87p · -0.4xT
Couto ↔ Paz
87p · 0.7xT
Cunha ↔ Perrone
82p · 1.2xT
Couto ↔ Diao
81p · 0.4xT
Milla ↔ Cunha
79p · 0.7xT
Chalobah ↔ Ramón
79p · -0.2xT
Paz ↔ Diao
67p · 1.6xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Yan Couto ↔ Jacobo Ramón (131 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Nico Paz ↔ Assane Diao (0.02 xT/pass over 67 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Como had the ball
Every touch across 80 matches. Brighter means more touches.
Which Zones Do They Attack Through?
The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Como 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
5049
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
1099
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the middle third (14.3% of all actions). 68% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 32% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 27% defensive, 49% middle, 24% 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. Como leaned on their right (42%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Como
29%29%42%
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. Como made 468 this season (58.5 a match); 32% 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.
Channel
Entries
Per match
Share
League share
Left wing
92
11.5
20%
28%
Left half-space
62
7.8
13%
15%
Centre
88
11.0
19%
13%
Right half-space
78
9.8
17%
16%
Right wing
148
18.5
32%
28%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Como 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.
1368build-up passes attempted
87%completed
26%reach the middle third
1%go long into the final third
Pass types
495CB · 42%
54Long Wide · 5%
15Long Central · 1%
445Wide → FB · 37%
179Central · 15%
Sequence success — build-up
107build-up sequences this season
13%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
36%turned over with nothing to show
CB495 · 42%
Long Wide54 · 5%
Long Central15 · 1%
Wide → FB445 · 37%
Central179 · 15%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Como build predominantly down the right, with Butez as the fulcrum (226 build-up passes). Only 27% 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 C def → LHS def (89×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Como’s last 8 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.
From channel
To channel
From third
To third
Outcome
Minutes
Channel to channel · click a cell
Third to third · click a cell
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. 382 progressive passes across 8 matches (47.8/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
31%
Right half-space
20%
Central
17%
Left half-space
12%
Left wing
20%
Progression is right-dominant: 51% right side · 17% central · 32% left.
Who generates it
Nico Paz
44 · 12%
Yan Couto
41 · 11%
Jacobo Ramón
35 · 9%
Luis Milla
33 · 9%
Lucas da Cunha
32 · 8%
Top two — Nico Paz & Yan Couto — account for 22% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
47.8 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
26% reach final third
24% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 74% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.26% of progressive passes reached the final third and 24% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 22% 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 wingefficient
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralbalanced
Left half-spacesterile
Left wingbalanced
Progression — the pass map
The football question
Once Como 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.
2452progression passes attempted
93%completed
16%break into the final third
8%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
656CB · 29%
61Long Wide · 3%
7Long Central · 0%
1118Wide → FB · 49%
430Central · 19%
Sequence success — progression
187progression sequences this season
36%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
31%turned over with nothing to show
CB656 · 29%
Long Wide61 · 3%
Long Central7 · 0%
Wide → FB1118 · 49%
Central430 · 19%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Como progress predominantly down the right, with Ramón the busiest midfield outlet (279 progression passes). Only 16% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (76%) is recycled back into midfield or (8%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is RHS mid → C mid (157×) — 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)
12%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
48%
Safe / backward
39%
13% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 87% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.
Where does Como actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
210 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (20% of 1074 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 52m. Most active carrier: Ramón (28). Filter to one player below.
First (63)Second (55)Third (54)Fourth (38)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Chance creation4 sections
Chance creation — how the shots come
The question
Where do Como's chances actually come from?
Every shot sorted twice. First by the kind of attack: an attacking transition (the shot came within 15 seconds of winning the ball), a settled attack (open play after the team had the ball), or a set piece. Then by how it was set up: a cross, a cut-back, a long ball, a pass into the box, or no pass at all (the player created it himself). So a cut-back from an attacking transition is counted apart from a cut-back in a settled attack.
165shots
14.6xG
0.09xG per shot
4big chances (0.3+ xG)
14goals
#3key passes / game in the league
#5box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition21% of shots
35
5
2.92
0.08
Cross
3
0
0.36
0.12
Cut-back
2
1
0.26
0.13
Long ball
3
0
0.27
0.09
Pass into the box / short pass
16
3
1.42
0.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
11
1
0.60
0.05
Settled attack59% of shots
97
7
8.44
0.09
Cross
7
1
0.75
0.11
Cut-back
15
1
1.63
0.11
Pass into the box / short pass
51
3
4.00
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
24
2
2.06
0.09
Set piece20% of shots
33
2
3.24
0.10
Corner
32
2
3.22
0.10
Free kick
1
0
0.03
0.03
Every attempt to create — and what came of it
Every pass into the box, every cut-back and every pass before a shot. Red led to a shot, gold to a goal; grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball. Filter by outcome, type or player; tap an arrow for the detail.
Who sets the shots up
Player
Set-ups
xG created
Goals
Assane Diao
15
1.43
1
Maxence Caqueret
10
1.39
2
Yan Couto
12
0.94
1
Jacobo Ramón
6
0.83
0
Kaiki
6
0.77
1
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Tasos Douvikas
23
3.34
5
Nico Paz
35
2.70
2
Jacobo Ramón
8
1.20
1
Kaiki
7
0.91
1
Martin Baturina
14
0.82
2
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Como's chances, by xG, is settled attack (8.4 of 14.6 xG, 97 of 165 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 35 of the 165 shots (21%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 33 of the 165 shots came from set pieces; 14 goals from 14.6 xG (-0.6).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Como 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
7CB · 6%
3Long Wide · 3%
12Long Central · 10%
44Wide → FB · 38%
49Central · 43%
Sequence success — final-third
151final-third sequences this season
36%succeed — produce a shot
25%turned over with nothing to show
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
CB7 · 6%
Long Wide3 · 3%
Long Central12 · 10%
Wide → FB44 · 38%
Central49 · 43%
Who creates — volume × threat
15Diao
12Couto
11Milla
11Caqueret
11Cunha
9Perrone
9Paz
115key passes #3 of 20
16.2box entries/game #5 of 20
47.5final-3rd entries/game #3 of 20
1.82xG/game #4 of 20
14goals #7 of 20
-0.6finishing vs xG #12 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Como lean right — 49% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (56 of 115), most often from Couto (12). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RHS att → C att (17 key passes, most often from Diao). Diao is the primary source overall. They generate 1.82 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Tasos Douvikas (5G), Martin Baturina (2G), Nico Paz (2G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Como deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
91 crosses: 39 found a team-mate (43%), 11 led to a shot (12%). 42 cut-backs: 25 found a team-mate (60%), 17 led to a shot (40%). A cross starts wide and is aimed into the box; a cut-back starts near the byline and is squared back. Grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball.
Crosses by Territory
The question
Which part of the final third does Como actually cross from?
91 crosses this season (the same crosses as the map above), split into fifteen territories — five channels (both wings, both half-spaces and the centre) by three depths from the halfway line to the byline. 30% come from one territory, the advanced right wing; 4 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
advanced · right wing
27
30%
0
byline · right wing
22
24%
4
advanced · left wing
15
16%
5
byline · left wing
15
16%
1
deep · right wing
4
4%
0
deep · left wing
4
4%
0
byline · right half-space
3
3%
1
advanced · right half-space
1
1%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
165 shots for 14.6 xG (1.82/game, #4 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
High-volume attack. 20.6 shots/game at 0.088 xG/shot. Box entries 16/game (#5). Threat created 13.1 xT/game (#2).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Como’s 14 goals this season, from the moment they got the ball to the finish. Pick a goal from the list, then step through it or press Play: numbered circles are passes and touches, dotted lines are carries (the ball travelling with a player), dashed grey is a pass that was lost, the star is the shot.
Each goal’s possession, rebuilt from the raw event feed — 14 goals traced.
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal Como scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
12 · 86%
Set pieces
2 · 14%
Penalties
0 · 0%
By finish
Right foot
9 · 64%
Left foot
4 · 29%
Header
1 · 7%
Vision AI Model Insight
14 goals scored. 86% come in open play; set pieces add 14%. Open play is clearly their main route to goal.
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
How they lose it
Incomplete pass — attacking third
244
Failed forward pass
154
Failed take-on
86
Lost in the defensive third
180
Their weakest zone is the right half-space in the attacking third: 25% of 264 pass attempts there are lost (66 times). Separately, 40% 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.
How hard does Como 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
Intensity57
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height60
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness40
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption50
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
20%
RHS
21%
C
19%
LHS
23%
LW
17%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 47%
Mid 38%
Att 15%
Read
Ranked #5 of 20 for press intensity, this is a high press. 53% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 39. Of recoveries, 55% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#5/20
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
137
#17/20
High-press share
22%
#7/20
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
38.8
#8/20
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
20.0
#14/20
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
55%
#10/20
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
81%
#5/20
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
9.2%
#15/20
of opp passes, lower = better
Transition timing
This source carries per-event timestamps, so genuine transition metrics — counter-attack shots, press→shot conversions, time-to-recover — are measured; see the dedicated Transitions section below.
How long they keep it — passes and seconds until the ball is won
The question
Once the opponent has the ball, how many passes and how many seconds pass before Como win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 236 opposition possessions that Como ended with a tackle, interception, recovery or challenge. Fewer passes and seconds means the ball is won quickly (a press); more means the opponent is allowed to play before Como step in. Como win it after 3.7 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 3.8 after the hour mark (about the same).
PASSES THEY GET
4.1passes
median 3 · before Como win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
12sec
median 6s · 29.5 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
48%
27%
15%
10%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
3.4
11s
15–30′
4.1
12s
30–45+′
5.2
16s
45–60′
4.5
12s
60–75′
4.0
10s
75–90+′
3.6
11s
average passesaverage seconds
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Como does. This says
how: wide or central, short or long, patient or direct. Bars are standard deviations
from the league mean for passes played from that third; a solid bar marks a dimension
where Como are genuinely unusual, and a verdict is only written where something clears
0.85 sd — a side that is ordinary in a third is told so rather than given a label
for average play.
Build-up (own third) 1,368 passes
kept on the floor, safer, played inside
Width of use-0.7219.51
Wide-channel share-0.850.25
Side bias-0.27-0.84
Pass length-0.7320.05
Long-ball share-0.920.14
Forward gain per pass-0.638.72
Backward-pass share+0.320.21
Deep-pass share-0.820.21
Completion+0.860.87
Seconds between passes-0.333.12
Side used
left 25% · central 48% · right 28%
Progression (middle third) 2,452 passes
narrow, central, played inside, safer
Width of use-1.5922.20
Wide-channel share-1.490.30
Side bias-0.84-3.28
Pass length-1.2115.53
Long-ball share-1.280.05
Forward gain per pass-0.782.43
Backward-pass share+0.100.34
Deep-pass share-1.250.10
Completion+1.290.92
Seconds between passes-0.443.00
Side used
left 25% · central 40% · right 34%
Final third 1,229 passes
safer, more recycling, narrow, central
Width of use-1.1428.79
Wide-channel share-1.120.49
Side bias-0.95-7.20
Pass length-0.1915.18
Long-ball share-0.360.08
Forward gain per pass-0.81-0.04
Backward-pass share+1.210.47
Deep-pass share-0.300.08
Completion+1.220.80
Seconds between passes-0.363.12
Side used
left 30% · central 21% · right 48%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Como's own league. The means
behave as football should: width of use grows 21.0 → 25.6 → 31.6 going forward,
pass length shrinks 22.7 → 17.2 → 15.5 m, and completion is hardest in the
final third. Tempo is integer-resolution because the feed records whole seconds.
Transitions1 section
Transitions — attacking & defensive
The question
When Como win or lose the ball, what actually happens in the seconds after?
Reconstructed from the full timestamped event stream: real possession spells (not zone-clustered), and shots that follow a regain within a fixed window. This phase of play needs ordered, per-event timestamps — which every match here carries.
Direct play share17%
#8 of 20 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share37%
#3 of 20 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)22.3s
#19 of 20 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession5.8
#3 of 20
Counter-attack shots /game1.09
#6 of 20 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.30
#4 of 20 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain14.5s
#19 of 20 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
11attacking transition sequences this season
27%succeed — produce a shot
45%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
43defensive transition sequences this season
81%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
2%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Como are a patient build-up side: 17% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#8 of 20), against 37% built patiently over 6+ passes (#3 of 20). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.09 times a game (#6), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.30 times a game (#4 of 20) — a genuine transition weapon.
Defending the box2 sections
Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them
The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Como? 311 opponent progressive passes and 110 shots faced (10.6 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Como)
Right wing
30%
Right half-space
12%
Central
14%
Left half-space
12%
Left wing
32%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the left wing (32% of the danger conceded).
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against Como actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Como conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Como'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 (82 total)
By situation
Open play
6 · 86%
Set pieces
1 · 14%
Penalties
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
7 goals conceded. 86% come in open play; set pieces account for only 14%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 0% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the left half-space of the attacking third (21% of key passes faced) — that is the zone to shut off.
Context
Shape and tactics
Set pieces, strengths and weaknesses, and who they resemble.
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.
How much of the goal threat is manufactured from dead balls — a route to goal that bypasses their open-play mechanism entirely.
Open play
12 g · 11.4 xG
Set pieces
2 g · 3.2 xG
Penalties
0 g
14% of goals come from set pieces (2 of 14), worth 3.2 xG from 33 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Como's corners go?
57 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 (37)
Delivered into the box 95%Short 5%
Left side (20)
Delivered into the box 90%Short 10%
Where opponents attack Como from set pieces
20 shots from opponent corners against Como, 1 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 (7)
Shot 7Goals 0
Left flag (13)
Shot 13Goals 1
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
threat created /game — 13.11 (90th pct)
pass retention % — 88.04 (90th pct)
shots /game — 20.62 (90th pct)
xG created /game — 1.82 (80th pct)
field tilt % — 59.83 (80th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
none stand out
Style Archetype & Similar Teams
Team archetype: High-press possession side. Their closest stylistic matches in the league (cosine similarity on style metrics) — sides that play a similar way.
AC Milan
82%
Inter
82%
Napoli
71%
Roma
71%
Juventus
60%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Como 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 Como's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)
1.50
1.50
1.50
vs mid-block opponents (2m)
0.50
0.50
1.00
vs low-block opponents (4m)
2.50
0.75
3.00
Behaviour — how Como actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
86%
10%
36
9.8
14.5
vs mid-block opponents
88%
7%
42
13.4
15.5
vs low-block opponents
89%
7%
57
14.6
17.5
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 86% vs 89% against a low block (3pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 10% when pressed vs 7% against a low block — a mild adjustment, not a wholesale change.
Scouting Summary — the team in brief
In brief. Como are possession-dominant with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.82 xG a game and they concede 1.32 a game.
[Event-data based — no tracking, so off-ball structure and marking scheme need video.]
For each of ten match numbers, the one match this season that departed furthest from Como’s own average, the eight biggest swings first. Bar right of centre means more than usual, left means less. It shows how much the way they play moves from game to game, and which opponent moved it.
Como
across 8 matches this season
Expected goalsvs Parma Calcio 1913 · 2-1 · 2026-09-143.20avg 1.82
Threat from passingvs Parma Calcio 1913 · 2-1 · 2026-09-1411.37avg 6.30
Field tiltat Fiorentina · 3-1 · 2026-10-1831%avg 60%
Every pass, carry, take-on, shot and ball win is worth the change it made to the chance of scoring minus the chance of conceding in the next 10 seconds. This is Como’s last 8 matches added up: where the value came from, who produced it, and the six biggest single moves. OBV only measures what a player does with the ball: it shows who added the most on-ball value, not who was the most important player (defending off the ball, positioning and pressing are not in it).
+16.0on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes5049 actions+5.55
Carries1074 actions+1.23
Dribbles162 actions-0.02
Shots165 actions+6.48
Ball wins448 actions+2.80
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Jacobo Ramón
692
+2.05
+0.30
Nico Paz
558
+1.91
+0.34
Maxence Caqueret
258
+1.60
+0.62
Assane Diao
330
+1.51
+0.46
Lucas da Cunha
652
+1.43
+0.22
Kaiki
252
+1.34
+0.53
Martin Baturina
308
+1.12
+0.36
Tasos Douvikas
132
+0.84
+0.64
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Tasos Douvikas · shot
+0.603
2 Jacobo Ramón · shot
+0.548
3 Kaiki · pass
+0.544
4 Luis Milla · pass
+0.452
5 Maxence Caqueret · pass
+0.420
6 Maxence Caqueret · shot
+0.343
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Como’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 57 corners taken, most by Luis Milla (29); 33 shots from corners and free kicks, 2 goals, led by Jacobo Ramón (1 goals, 0.96 xG). “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.
Player
Corners taken
Into the box
Set-piece shots
Goals
xG
Free-kick shots
Penalties
Luis Milla
29
26 (90%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Nico Paz
3
3 (100%)
7
—
0.27
1
—
Tasos Douvikas
—
—
5
1
0.81
—
—
Lucas da Cunha
14
8 (57%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Jacobo Ramón
—
—
4
1
0.96
—
—
Jesús Rodríguez
2
0 (0%)
3
—
0.18
—
—
Martin Baturina
4
2 (50%)
2
—
0.08
—
—
Álex Valle
—
—
2
—
0.09
—
—
Assane Diao
—
—
2
—
0.11
—
—
Marc Oliver Kempf
—
—
2
—
0.09
—
—
Kaiki
—
—
2
—
0.26
—
—
Samuele Ricci
5
4 (80%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Yan Couto
—
—
1
—
0.02
—
—
Trevoh Chalobah
—
—
1
—
0.07
—
—
Top Performers
Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 216 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.