Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportSerie A 2025/26
Como
A possession-dominant side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a high-volume attack. Finished #3 of 23 on 91 points (26-13-8, 82:37). Tactical profile below is built from 47 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 finished #3 of 23 on 91 points (26W-13D-8L, 1.94 pts/game), scoring 82 and conceding 37 for a goal difference of +45.
On the ball they are a possession-dominant team (62% field tilt, #3 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#3 of 23 for press intensity).
Across the 47 matches of event data, they create 1.58 xG/game (#3) and concede 0.96 (#3), a net of +0.62 xG/game — the underlying performance diverges from 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
1
Inter
47
35
7
5
114
45
+69
112
2
Roma
47
29
7
11
82
39
+43
94
3
Como
47
26
13
8
82
37
+45
91
4
Napoli
47
27
9
11
75
47
+28
90
5
AC Milan
47
25
13
9
71
46
+25
88
6
Juventus
47
23
14
10
72
44
+28
83
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 +11.97, second-half +17.24. Their strongest period is 61-75' (net +7.14 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 0-15' (net +1.79 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 47 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 (+29.2 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.
91
Build-Up
possession control from the back
72
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
80
Creation
manufacturing chances
87
Press
winning the ball high & hard
87
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Como are defined most by their Build-Up DNA (91/100 · elite at possession control from the back), and least by their Progression DNA (72/100). Percentiles vs the 23 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
65%
Open-play xG
83%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
87%
High regains
57%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
70%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
87%
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 62% field tilt, ranking #3 of 23 in the league — a genuinely territory-dominant side, and their 1.94 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
28.5%
Progression
49.5%
Chance creation
20.1%
Attacking transition
1.9%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Como spends most of its time on the ball (49% 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
Perrone ↔ Ramón
505p · 14.6xT
Cunha ↔ Perrone
481p · 12.5xT
Kempf ↔ Butez
453p · 17.6xT
Perrone ↔ Paz
439p · 18.7xT
Butez ↔ Ramón
419p · 19.3xT
Kempf ↔ Ramón
379p · 6.8xT
Kempf ↔ Cunha
357p · 12.2xT
Carlos ↔ Butez
332p · 9.3xT
Cunha ↔ Ramón
326p · 12.3xT
Ramón ↔ Smolcic
321p · 9.1xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Máximo Perrone ↔ Jacobo Ramón (505 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Jean Butez ↔ Máximo Perrone (0.09 xT/pass over 190 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 468 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
27343
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
7551
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the middle third (13.4% 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: 28% defensive, 51% 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. Como leaned on their right (39%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Como
33%28%39%
League
38%23%39%
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 2311 this season (49.2 a match); 28% 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
564
12.0
24%
28%
Left half-space
322
6.9
14%
15%
Centre
402
8.6
17%
13%
Right half-space
377
8.0
16%
15%
Right wing
646
13.7
28%
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.
7347build-up passes attempted
87%completed
27%reach the middle third
1%go long into the final third
Pass types
2503CB · 39%
371Long Wide · 6%
68Long Central · 1%
2531Wide → FB · 39%
940Central · 15%
Sequence success — build-up
1096build-up sequences this season
11%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
40%turned over with nothing to show
CB2503 · 39%
Long Wide371 · 6%
Long Central68 · 1%
Wide → FB2531 · 39%
Central940 · 15%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Como build predominantly down the left, with Butez as the fulcrum (1475 build-up passes). Only 28% 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 (430×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Como’s last 10 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. 2115 progressive passes across 47 matches (45.0/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
31%
Right half-space
16%
Central
14%
Left half-space
13%
Left wing
26%
Progression is right-dominant: 47% right side · 14% central · 39% left.
Who generates it
Lucas da Cunha
207 · 10%
Jacobo Ramón
196 · 9%
Nico Paz
188 · 9%
Jean Butez
150 · 7%
Martin Baturina
143 · 7%
Top two — Lucas da Cunha & Jacobo Ramón — account for 19% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
45.0 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
27% reach final third
21% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 73% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.27% of progressive passes reached the final third and 21% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 19% 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 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.
14075progression passes attempted
90%completed
14%break into the final third
9%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
3524CB · 28%
337Long Wide · 3%
57Long Central · 0%
6459Wide → FB · 51%
2267Central · 18%
Sequence success — progression
2057progression sequences this season
27%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
36%turned over with nothing to show
CB3524 · 28%
Long Wide337 · 3%
Long Central57 · 0%
Wide → FB6459 · 51%
Central2267 · 18%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Como progress predominantly down the right, with Perrone the busiest midfield outlet (1641 progression passes). Only 14% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (77%) is recycled back into midfield or (9%) 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 (754×) — 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
49%
Safe / backward
38%
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?
1468 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (22% of 6604 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 56m. Most active carrier: Butez (176). Filter to one player below.
First (485)Second (371)Third (369)Fourth (243)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.
732shots
74.2xG
0.10xG per shot
41big chances (0.3+ xG)
81goals
#4key passes / game in the league
#7box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition23% of shots
169
25
17.70
0.10
Cross
17
1
1.72
0.10
Cut-back
10
3
1.35
0.14
Long ball
6
0
0.69
0.12
Pass into the box / short pass
91
14
10.42
0.11
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
45
7
3.52
0.08
Settled attack57% of shots
418
42
38.66
0.09
Cross
52
5
4.67
0.09
Cut-back
37
4
4.20
0.11
Long ball
12
4
0.98
0.08
Pass into the box / short pass
225
22
20.97
0.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
92
7
7.85
0.09
Set piece20% of shots
145
14
17.88
0.12
Corner
117
8
11.02
0.09
Free kick
20
1
0.50
0.03
Penalty
8
5
6.35
0.79
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
Nico Paz
56
6.51
6
Martin Baturina
51
5.13
4
Jesús Rodríguez
33
4.70
9
Lucas da Cunha
37
3.58
4
Maxence Caqueret
28
2.77
6
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Tasos Douvikas
91
14.76
19
Nico Paz
162
12.18
15
Lucas da Cunha
55
7.17
6
Jacobo Ramón
50
5.90
4
Álvaro Morata
23
4.37
0
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Como's chances, by xG, is settled attack (38.7 of 74.2 xG, 418 of 732 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 169 of the 732 shots (23%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 145 of the 732 shots came from set pieces; 81 goals from 74.2 xG (+6.8).
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
28CB · 5%
19Long Wide · 4%
50Long Central · 10%
169Wide → FB · 32%
257Central · 49%
Sequence success — final-third
1506final-third sequences this season
25%succeed — produce a shot
33%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
CB28 · 5%
Long Wide19 · 4%
Long Central50 · 10%
Wide → FB169 · 32%
Central257 · 49%
Who creates — volume × threat
67Baturina
61Paz
57Cunha
39Perrone
36Rodríguez
34Caqueret
29Vojvoda
523key passes #4 of 23
13.7box entries/game #7 of 23
38.8final-3rd entries/game #3 of 23
1.58xG/game #3 of 23
81goals #2 of 23
+6.8finishing vs xG #3 of 23
◆ Vision AI Insight
Como lean right — 41% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (216 of 523), most often from Paz (30). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RW att → C att (69 key passes, most often from Cunha). Baturina is the primary source overall. They generate 1.58 xG a game and finish it clinical — they beat their xG, led by Tasos Douvikas (19G), Nico Paz (15G), Martin Baturina (9G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Como deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
599 crosses: 208 found a team-mate (35%), 84 led to a shot (14%). 145 cut-backs: 81 found a team-mate (56%), 54 led to a shot (37%). 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?
599 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. 25% come from one territory, the advanced right wing; 28 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
advanced · right wing
147
25%
19
byline · right wing
141
24%
24
advanced · left wing
119
20%
18
byline · left wing
116
19%
18
deep · left wing
25
4%
1
deep · right wing
23
4%
0
byline · right half-space
10
2%
2
advanced · left half-space
8
1%
1
advanced · right half-space
7
1%
1
byline · left half-space
2
0%
0
deep · left half-space
1
0%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
732 shots for 74.2 xG (1.58/game, #3 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
High-volume attack. 15.6 shots/game at 0.101 xG/shot. Box entries 14/game (#7). Threat created 11.9 xT/game (#4).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Como’s 82 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 — 82 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
67 · 83%
Set pieces
9 · 11%
Penalties
5 · 6%
By finish
Right foot
36 · 44%
Left foot
32 · 40%
Header
13 · 16%
Vision AI Model Insight
81 goals scored. 83% come in open play; set pieces add 11%. 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
1384
Failed forward pass
949
Failed take-on
517
Lost in the defensive third
934
Their weakest zone is the left wing in the attacking third: 26% of 1231 pass attempts there are lost (318 times). Separately, 37% 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.
75
Pressing Index /100 · strong
Intensity72
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height87
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness65
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption80
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
18%
RHS
21%
C
23%
LHS
20%
LW
19%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 46%
Mid 39%
Att 15%
Read
Ranked #3 of 23 for press intensity, this is a high press. 54% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 39. Of recoveries, 57% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#3/23
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
123
#18/23
High-press share
22%
#5/23
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
39.2
#3/23
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
21.6
#9/23
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
57%
#7/23
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
78%
#2/23
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
8.7%
#7/23
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 1411 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 4.1 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 3.3 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
3.8passes
median 2 · before Como win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
11sec
median 5s · 30.0 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
53%
26%
11%
9%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
3.8
11s
15–30′
4.3
12s
30–45+′
4.6
13s
45–60′
3.4
9s
60–75′
3.2
9s
75–90+′
3.4
10s
average passesaverage seconds
Phases of play
Every moment of the match read twice — what Como were doing with the
ball, and what the opposition were doing about it at that exact moment. Built from the
real action sequence in time order, so one possession is split across the phases it
genuinely passed through rather than labelled once by where it began.
7,118phase segments analysed
13.0smedian time before the opposition engage
2.0their passes per defensive action when pressed
#1of 20 for share of defending spent pressing high
High press 12.9%Mid block 13.2%Low block 42.3%Unopposed 31.6%
What opponents do against Como
The mirror image, and the part no other section can show: whether teams come
out to press Como or sit in and invite them on. A side that is always faced with a low
block is playing a different sport from one that is pressed every week.
High press 5.4%Mid block 12.2%Low block 49.3%Unopposed 33.1%
Which phases actually produce
Phase
Segments
Avg length
Avg actions
Ends in shot
Turned over
Build-up
2,068
7.0s
3.7
0.0%
41.1%
Progression
3,060
8.3s
4.9
0.5%
43.1%
Chance creation
1,857
5.5s
3.3
26.4%
51.2%
Attacking transition
133
7.2s
4.6
3.0%
33.8%
Most common routes through the phases
How a possession actually travelled, in order. The chain is the tactical signature — a move that climbs all three thirds is a different thing from one that never leaves the first.
Route
Times
Ends in shot
progression
676
0.1%
build_up
653
0.0%
chance_creation
408
39.5%
progression → chance_creation
365
29.3%
build_up → progression
345
0.0%
build_up → progression → chance_creation
252
30.2%
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) 7,347 passes
safer
Width of use-0.4420.09
Wide-channel share-0.480.28
Side bias-0.14-0.37
Pass length-0.6520.34
Long-ball share-0.770.15
Forward gain per pass-0.778.11
Backward-pass share+0.660.23
Deep-pass share-0.710.22
Completion+0.910.87
Seconds between passes-0.053.30
Side used
left 26% · central 47% · right 27%
Progression (middle third) 14,075 passes
playing short, kept on the floor, narrow, central
Width of use-0.8923.69
Wide-channel share-0.780.35
Side bias-0.12-0.40
Pass length-0.8216.09
Long-ball share-0.910.07
Forward gain per pass-0.522.82
Backward-pass share+0.010.33
Deep-pass share-0.950.11
Completion+0.760.89
Seconds between passes-0.492.98
Side used
left 32% · central 36% · right 33%
Final third 5,921 passes
narrow, central
Width of use-0.9229.34
Wide-channel share-0.780.52
Side bias-0.50-4.00
Pass length-0.3314.96
Long-ball share-0.470.08
Forward gain per pass-0.280.67
Backward-pass share+0.270.40
Deep-pass share-0.250.08
Completion+0.730.76
Seconds between passes-0.133.30
Side used
left 34% · central 21% · right 44%
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%
#10 of 23 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share37%
#3 of 23 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)22.4s
#22 of 23 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession5.8
#3 of 23
Counter-attack shots /game1.06
#8 of 23 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.34
#3 of 23 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain14.5s
#21 of 23 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
105attacking transition sequences this season
19%succeed — produce a shot
32%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
459defensive transition sequences this season
64%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
8%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 (#10 of 23), against 37% built patiently over 6+ passes (#3 of 23). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.06 times a game (#8), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.34 times a game (#3 of 23) — 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? 1505 opponent progressive passes and 462 shots faced (45.0 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Como)
Right wing
29%
Right half-space
10%
Central
18%
Left half-space
13%
Left wing
29%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the left wing (29% 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 (306 total)
By situation
Open play
29 · 78%
Set pieces
3 · 8%
Penalties
5 · 14%
Vision AI Model Insight
37 goals conceded. 78% come in open play; set pieces account for only 8%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 11% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the left wing 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.
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
67 g · 56.4 xG
Set pieces
9 g · 11.5 xG
Penalties
5 g
11% of goals come from set pieces (9 of 81), worth 11.5 xG from 137 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Como's corners go?
233 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 (129)
Delivered into the box 92%Short 8%
Left side (104)
Delivered into the box 90%Short 10%
Where opponents attack Como from set pieces
73 shots from opponent corners against Como, 3 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 (35)
Shot 35Goals 1
Left flag (38)
Shot 38Goals 2
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
pass retention % — 86.29 (96th pct)
xG created /game — 1.58 (87th pct)
xG conceded /game — 0.96 (87th pct)
press intensity (PPDA) — 5.41 (87th pct)
field tilt % — 62.29 (87th 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.
Napoli
94%
Juventus
83%
Roma
81%
Inter
77%
Atalanta
73%
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 (15m)
1.53
0.60
2.07
vs mid-block opponents (15m)
1.87
0.67
2.13
vs low-block opponents (17m)
1.82
1.06
1.65
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
84%
10%
39
10.3
11.8
vs mid-block opponents
86%
9%
45
12.2
15.5
vs low-block opponents
88%
8%
51
13.0
13.8
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 84% vs 88% against a low block (4pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 10% when pressed vs 8% 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 1.58 xG a game and they concede 0.96 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.
Threat from passingvs Parma Calcio 1913 · 2-1 · 2026-09-1411.37avg 5.94
Pass accuracyat Roma · 0-1 · 2025-12-1577%avg 86%
Passesvs Atalanta · 0-0 · 2026-02-01818avg 582
Field tiltat Fiorentina · 3-1 · 2026-10-1831%avg 62%
On-Ball Value — who moved the game
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 12 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).
+22.4on-ball value, 12 matches
Where the value came from
Passes7399 actions+8.83
Carries1603 actions-0.22
Dribbles238 actions+0.00
Shots232 actions+9.80
Ball wins656 actions+3.96
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Martin Baturina
524
+2.68
+0.51
Lucas da Cunha
1054
+2.55
+0.24
Assane Diao
478
+2.29
+0.48
Nico Paz
699
+2.26
+0.32
Maxence Caqueret
413
+2.02
+0.49
Jacobo Ramón
1003
+2.01
+0.20
Tasos Douvikas
184
+1.39
+0.75
Kaiki
272
+1.27
+0.47
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Lucas da Cunha · shot
+0.819
2 Tasos Douvikas · shot
+0.603
3 Jesús Rodríguez · pass
+0.583
4 Jacobo Ramón · shot
+0.548
5 Kaiki · pass
+0.544
6 Luis Milla · pass
+0.452
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Como’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 233 corners taken, most by Lucas da Cunha (70); 137 shots from corners and free kicks, 9 goals, led by Jacobo Ramón (3 goals, 2.95 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
Nico Paz
27
18 (67%)
29
1
0.96
14
0/2
Lucas da Cunha
70
46 (66%)
3
—
0.10
2
4/4
Jacobo Ramón
—
—
25
3
2.95
—
—
Martin Baturina
49
39 (80%)
5
—
0.19
2
—
Marc Oliver Kempf
—
—
15
2
1.56
—
—
Maxence Caqueret
19
13 (68%)
8
—
0.34
1
—
Luis Milla
34
31 (91%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Jesús Rodríguez
10
7 (70%)
7
—
0.33
—
—
Tasos Douvikas
—
—
9
2
1.29
—
1/1
Ivan Smolcic
—
—
7
—
0.40
—
—
Mërgim Vojvoda
14
12 (86%)
2
—
0.09
—
—
Diego Carlos
—
—
6
1
0.69
—
—
Álvaro Morata
—
—
4
—
0.95
1
0/1
Assane Diao
—
—
4
—
0.27
—
—
Top Performers
Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 300 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.
← BACK TO SEARCHSeason
