A territorially-dominated side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Currently #12 of 20 on 10 points (3-1-4, 12:16). 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 Ipswich and how good was the season?
Read. Ipswich currently sit #12 of 20 on 10 points (3W-1D-4L, 1.25 pts/game), scoring 12 and conceding 16 for a goal difference of -4.
On the ball they are a territorially-dominated team (43% field tilt, #18 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#8 of 23 for press intensity).
Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 1.11 xG/game (#17) and concede 1.70 (#22), a net of -0.58 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Ipswich actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Ipswich.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
9
Aston Villa
8
3
2
3
9
12
-3
11
10
Hull City
8
2
4
2
9
8
+1
10
11
Everton
8
2
4
2
8
9
-1
10
12
Ipswich
8
3
1
4
12
16
-4
10
13
Bournemouth
8
2
3
3
12
13
-1
9
14
Tottenham
8
2
3
3
8
10
-2
9
15
Fulham
8
2
2
4
8
10
-2
8
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Ipswich 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
Ipswich tend to fade after a strong start — first-half net xG -1.02, second-half -3.65. Their strongest period is 16-30' (net +0.44 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 61-75' (net -2.45 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Ipswich 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 (-4.7 xG). Hover a point for that match.
IpswichOpponents against Ipswich
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Ipswich'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.
37
Build-Up
possession control from the back
26
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
17
Creation
manufacturing chances
43
Press
winning the ball high & hard
4
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Ipswich are defined most by their Press DNA (43/100 · average at winning the ball high & hard), and least by their Solidity DNA (4/100). 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
9%
Possession
22%
Field tilt
22%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
83%
Dribble tendency
78%
Progressive passes
30%
Finish
Final-third patience
65%
Shot quality
43%
Open-play xG
35%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
65%
High regains
61%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
52%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
52%
High line ~proxy
83%
PAdj defensive actions
22%
Ipswich is defined most by Disrupt (64% in the league) and weakest on Possess (17%). 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 Ipswich actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Ipswich'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; Ipswich highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Ipswich post 43% field tilt, ranking #18 of 23 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 1.25 points/game sits below the league-average return — territory is genuinely converting into results.
Where the time goes — how long each phase lasts
The question
When Ipswich has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Ipswich'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
28.7%
Progression
46.5%
Chance creation
22.0%
Attacking transition
2.8%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Ipswich spends most of its time on the ball (47% 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
Diop ↔ O'Shea
106p · -1.0xT
Diop ↔ Ouattara
89p · -0.5xT
Amissah ↔ O'Shea
80p · -0.4xT
Amissah ↔ Diop
74p · 0.1xT
Davis ↔ Greaves
69p · -0.1xT
Palacios ↔ Diop
68p · -0.0xT
Amissah ↔ Palacios
66p · 0.0xT
Palacios ↔ Davis
63p · -0.3xT
Palacios ↔ Enciso
59p · 0.7xT
Amissah ↔ Greaves
55p · -0.3xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Issa Diop ↔ Dara O'Shea (106 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Dara O'Shea ↔ Abdul Fatawu (0.04 xT/pass over 39 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Ipswich had the ball
Every touch across 460 matches. Brighter means more touches.
Which Zones Do They Attack Through?
The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Ipswich 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
3581
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
1401
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (12.5% 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: 31% defensive, 49% middle, 20% 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. Ipswich leaned on their left (42%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Ipswich
42%24%34%
League
39%23%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. Ipswich made 317 this season (39.6 a match); 28% came into the left 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
90
11.2
28%
29%
Left half-space
65
8.1
21%
16%
Centre
41
5.1
13%
12%
Right half-space
41
5.1
13%
14%
Right wing
80
10.0
25%
29%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Ipswich 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.
1170build-up passes attempted
78%completed
26%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third
Pass types
461CB · 50%
74Long Wide · 8%
9Long Central · 1%
289Wide → FB · 32%
84Central · 9%
CB461 · 50%
Long Wide74 · 8%
Long Central9 · 1%
Wide → FB289 · 32%
Central84 · 9%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Ipswich build predominantly down the right, with Diop as the fulcrum (193 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 RHS def → C def (60×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Ipswich’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. 311 progressive passes across 8 matches (38.9/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
23%
Right half-space
15%
Central
21%
Left half-space
14%
Left wing
27%
Progression is left-dominant: 39% right side · 21% central · 41% left.
Who generates it
Leif Davis
44 · 14%
Dara O'Shea
37 · 12%
Christian Walton
33 · 11%
Abdul Fatawu
21 · 7%
Issa Diop
21 · 7%
Top two — Leif Davis & Dara O'Shea — account for 26% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
38.9 prog passes/game
mostly left
→
PENETRATION
30% reach final third
19% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 70% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.30% 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 left 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-spacebalanced
Left wingbalanced
Progression — the pass map
The football question
Once Ipswich 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.
1679progression passes attempted
85%completed
16%break into the final third
11%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
541CB · 38%
39Long Wide · 3%
6Long Central · 0%
641Wide → FB · 45%
208Central · 14%
CB541 · 38%
Long Wide39 · 3%
Long Central6 · 0%
Wide → FB641 · 45%
Central208 · 14%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Ipswich progress predominantly down the left, with Palacios the busiest midfield outlet (208 progression passes). Only 16% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (73%) is recycled back into midfield or (11%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is LHS mid → LW mid (86×) — 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)
13%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
48%
Safe / backward
38%
14% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 86% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.
Where does Ipswich actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
204 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (24% of 844 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 58m. Most active carrier: Enciso (25). Filter to one player below.
First (59)Second (55)Third (45)Fourth (45)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 Ipswich'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.
84shots
8.9xG
0.11xG per shot
5big chances (0.3+ xG)
12goals
#16key passes / game in the league
#19box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition35% of shots
29
4
2.44
0.08
Cross
1
0
0.06
0.06
Cut-back
2
1
0.38
0.19
Pass into the box / short pass
18
2
1.38
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
8
1
0.61
0.08
Settled attack54% of shots
45
7
5.26
0.12
Cross
10
4
1.71
0.17
Cut-back
5
1
0.64
0.13
Long ball
4
0
0.52
0.13
Pass into the box / short pass
17
1
1.76
0.10
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
9
1
0.63
0.07
Set piece12% of shots
10
1
1.20
0.12
Corner
7
0
0.36
0.05
Free kick
2
0
0.05
0.03
Penalty
1
1
0.79
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
Julio Enciso
8
1.29
3
Abdul Fatawu
7
1.18
1
Samuel Amissah
8
0.95
1
Leif Davis
4
0.58
1
Jack Clarke
5
0.57
1
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Julio Enciso
23
1.71
1
Zian Flemming
7
1.65
2
Emersonn
14
1.55
2
Leif Davis
7
0.97
2
Daizen Maeda
4
0.75
1
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Ipswich's chances, by xG, is settled attack (5.3 of 8.9 xG, 45 of 84 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 29 of the 84 shots (35%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 10 of the 84 shots came from set pieces; 12 goals from 8.9 xG (+3.1).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Ipswich 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
11CB · 18%
3Long Wide · 5%
2Long Central · 3%
17Wide → FB · 28%
27Central · 45%
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
CB11 · 18%
Long Wide3 · 5%
Long Central2 · 3%
Wide → FB17 · 28%
Central27 · 45%
Who creates — volume × threat
8Fatawu
7Enciso
7Amissah
6Palacios
6Davis
5Clarke
4O'Shea
60key passes #16 of 23
10.1box entries/game #19 of 23
30.8final-3rd entries/game #11 of 23
1.11xG/game #17 of 23
12goals #21 of 23
+3.1finishing vs xG #10 of 23
◆ Vision AI Insight
Ipswich lean right — 43% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (26 of 60), most often from Fatawu (8). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RHS att → C att (10 key passes, most often from Enciso). Fatawu is the primary source overall. They generate 1.11 xG a game and finish it clinical — they beat their xG, led by Zian Flemming (2G), Leif Davis (2G), Emersonn (2G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Ipswich deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
77 crosses: 26 found a team-mate (34%), 11 led to a shot (14%). 26 cut-backs: 12 found a team-mate (46%), 7 led to a shot (27%). 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 Ipswich actually cross from?
77 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. 23% come from one territory, the advanced left wing; 5 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
advanced · left wing
18
23%
1
advanced · right wing
16
21%
3
byline · right wing
14
18%
3
byline · left wing
14
18%
3
deep · left wing
7
9%
0
deep · right wing
3
4%
1
byline · right half-space
2
3%
0
advanced · right half-space
1
1%
0
advanced · left half-space
1
1%
0
byline · left half-space
1
1%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
84 shots for 8.9 xG (1.11/game, #17 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Moderate attack. 10.5 shots/game at 0.106 xG/shot. Box entries 10/game (#19). Threat created 9.3 xT/game (#18).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Ipswich’s 12 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 — 12 goals traced.
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal Ipswich scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
11 · 92%
Set pieces
0 · 0%
Penalties
1 · 8%
By finish
Right foot
5 · 42%
Left foot
4 · 33%
Header
3 · 25%
Vision AI Model Insight
12 goals scored. 92% come in open play; set pieces add 0%. 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
209
Failed forward pass
142
Failed take-on
92
Lost in the defensive third
253
Their weakest zone is the right wing in the attacking third: 33% of 132 pass attempts there are lost (44 times). Separately, 30% 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 Ipswich 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.
64
Pressing Index /100 · strong
Intensity71
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height83
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness57
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption46
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
16%
RHS
20%
C
29%
LHS
19%
LW
16%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 46%
Mid 39%
Att 15%
Read
Ranked #8 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, 54% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#8/23
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
153
#8/23
High-press share
22%
#7/23
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
38.8
#4/23
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
22.5
#9/23
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
54%
#11/23
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
84%
#21/23
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
8.3%
#4/23
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 Ipswich win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 267 opposition possessions that Ipswich 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 Ipswich step in. Ipswich win it after 6.8 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 6.0 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
6.4passes
median 4 · before Ipswich win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
19sec
median 10s · 33.4 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
35%
24%
16%
24%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
7.5
24s
15–30′
6.1
18s
30–45+′
7.4
22s
45–60′
5.8
17s
60–75′
4.9
13s
75–90+′
6.8
19s
average passesaverage seconds
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Ipswich 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 Ipswich 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) 1,170 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.5119.95
Wide-channel share-0.520.27
Side bias-0.28-0.88
Pass length+0.2223.49
Long-ball share+0.260.25
Forward gain per pass+0.2712.64
Backward-pass share+0.180.21
Deep-pass share+0.140.30
Completion-0.210.78
Seconds between passes-0.543.00
Side used
left 25% · central 47% · right 28%
Progression (middle third) 1,679 passes
played inside
Width of use-0.6824.13
Wide-channel share-0.910.34
Side bias-0.02-0.00
Pass length-0.4716.56
Long-ball share-0.500.08
Forward gain per pass-0.462.92
Backward-pass share+0.260.35
Deep-pass share-0.540.13
Completion+0.140.85
Seconds between passes-0.163.12
Side used
left 35% · central 32% · right 33%
Final third 732 passes
left-sided
Width of use-0.4230.58
Wide-channel share-0.650.53
Side bias+1.067.03
Pass length-0.2315.11
Long-ball share-0.360.08
Forward gain per pass-0.360.56
Backward-pass share+0.310.41
Deep-pass share+0.070.09
Completion+0.170.71
Seconds between passes+0.143.50
Side used
left 51% · central 16% · right 32%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Ipswich'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 Ipswich 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%
#13 of 23 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share24%
#12 of 23 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)15.7s
#5 of 23 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.2
#11 of 23
Counter-attack shots /game1.00
#13 of 23 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game2.75
#16 of 23 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain13.3s
#16 of 23 · lower = faster break
Vision AI Model Insight
Ipswich are balanced between tempo and patience: 17% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#13 of 23), against 24% built patiently over 6+ passes (#12 of 23). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.00 times a game (#13), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 2.75 times a game (#16 of 23) — not yet a major source of chances.
Defending the box2 sections
Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them
The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Ipswich? 381 opponent progressive passes and 135 shots faced (13.6 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Ipswich)
Right wing
27%
Right half-space
15%
Central
14%
Left half-space
17%
Left wing
27%
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 Ipswich actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Ipswich conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Ipswich'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 (92 total)
By situation
Open play
12 · 80%
Set pieces
2 · 13%
Penalties
1 · 7%
Vision AI Model Insight
15 goals conceded. 80% come in open play; set pieces account for only 13%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 7% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the centre of the attacking third (22% 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
11 g · 7.7 xG
Set pieces
0 g · 0.4 xG
Penalties
1 g
0% of goals come from set pieces (0 of 12), worth 0.4 xG from 9 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Ipswich's corners go?
23 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 (11)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Left side (12)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Where opponents attack Ipswich from set pieces
17 shots from opponent corners against Ipswich, 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 (10)
Shot 10Goals 1
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
press intensity (PPDA) — 5.65 (65th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
xG conceded /game — 1.70 (4th pct)
shots /game — 10.50 (9th pct)
box entries /game — 10.12 (17th pct)
field tilt % — 42.97 (22th pct)
threat created /game — 9.32 (22th pct)
Style Archetype & Similar Teams
Team archetype: Direct / counter high-press. Their closest stylistic matches in the league (cosine similarity on style metrics) — sides that play a similar way.
Burnley
76%
Sunderland
53%
Coventry
51%
Wolves
40%
West Ham
38%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Ipswich 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 Ipswich's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)
2.00
2.00
1.50
vs mid-block opponents (2m)
2.50
3.50
1.50
vs low-block opponents (4m)
0.75
1.25
1.00
Behaviour — how Ipswich actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
78%
18%
41
7.7
9.0
vs mid-block opponents
81%
12%
34
8.9
11.0
vs low-block opponents
81%
12%
40
10.3
10.2
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 78% vs 81% against a low block (3pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 18% when pressed vs 12% against a low block — a real style switch: they go noticeably more direct when pressed rather than trying to play through it.
Scouting Summary — the team in brief
In brief. Ipswich are territorially-dominated with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.11 xG a game and they concede 1.70 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 Ipswich’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.
Progressive carriesat Man City · 2-3 · 2026-10-1721avg 39
Defensive actionsat Man City · 2-3 · 2026-10-17177avg 153
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 Ipswich’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).
+12.0on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes3581 actions+3.99
Carries844 actions+0.21
Dribbles147 actions-0.20
Shots84 actions+5.48
Ball wins479 actions+2.53
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Julio Enciso
376
+3.20
+0.85
Zian Flemming
54
+1.58
+2.92
Abdul Fatawu
255
+1.12
+0.44
Dara O'Shea
509
+0.87
+0.17
Issa Diop
576
+0.84
+0.15
Jack Clarke
177
+0.75
+0.42
Christian Walton
208
+0.71
+0.34
Emersonn
118
+0.52
+0.44
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Zian Flemming · shot
+0.865
2 Abdul Fatawu · pass
+0.526
3 Julio Enciso · pass
+0.497
4 Julio Enciso · shot
+0.352
5 Dara O'Shea · shot
+0.298
6 Christian Walton · pass_fail
+0.291
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Ipswich’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 23 corners taken, most by Samuel Amissah (9); 9 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.
Player
Corners taken
Into the box
Set-piece shots
Goals
xG
Free-kick shots
Penalties
Samuel Amissah
9
9 (100%)
1
—
0.04
—
—
Abdul Fatawu
8
8 (100%)
1
—
0.02
—
—
Zian Flemming
—
—
1
—
0.12
—
1/1
Leif Davis
2
2 (100%)
1
—
0.03
1
—
Marcelino Núñez
1
1 (100%)
1
—
0.04
—
—
Julio Enciso
—
—
1
—
0.03
1
—
Jacob Greaves
—
—
1
—
0.04
—
—
Emersonn
—
—
1
—
0.06
—
—
Dara O'Shea
—
—
1
—
0.02
—
—
Jaden Philogene
2
1 (50%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Exequiel Palacios
1
0 (0%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
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.
Chance creation leaders — key passes /90 and box entries.
player
pos
min
key P /90
box entries
xT
Julio Enciso
M
663
0.95
16
4.8
Abdul Fatawu
M
488
1.48
11
4.2
Leif Davis
D
776
0.70
11
7.8
Dara O'Shea
D
776
0.46
9
9.9
Jack Clarke
M
265
1.70
6
3.2
Samuel Amissah
M
505
1.25
4
5.6
Emersonn
F
523
0.69
5
0.8
Abdoul Ouattara
D
461
0.59
6
4.2
Wide Delivery Leaders
Crosses and cutbacks — wingers and full-backs only (by real average position, not the raw D/M position code), ranked by combined volume.
player
pos
min
crosses (completed)
cutbacks (completed)
Leif Davis
FB
776
8 (25%)
9 (22%)
Abdul Fatawu
W
488
9 (22%)
4 (25%)
Jack Clarke
W
265
4 (25%)
2 (0%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Dara O'Shea
D
776
159
14
12
32
Issa Diop
D
776
126
8
16
38
Exequiel Palacios
M
523
107
18
8
50
Emersonn
F
523
85
4
1
7
Leif Davis
D
776
77
6
6
17
Julio Enciso
M
663
77
5
4
36
Samuel Amissah
M
505
75
11
7
19
Abdoul Ouattara
D
461
73
6
6
28
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (19 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Leif Davis
D
8
776
2
1.0
6
44
77
7.8
Dara O'Shea
D
8
776
1
0.2
4
37
159
9.9
Issa Diop
D
8
776
1
0.3
2
21
126
6.6
Julio Enciso
M
8
663
1
1.7
7
18
77
4.8
Emersonn
F
8
523
2
1.6
4
5
85
0.8
Exequiel Palacios
M
7
523
0
0.0
6
19
107
5.8
Samuel Amissah
M
6
505
1
2.2
7
17
75
5.6
Abdul Fatawu
M
7
488
0
0.2
8
21
68
4.2
Jacob Greaves
D
5
464
0
0.0
2
11
73
3.2
Abdoul Ouattara
D
8
461
1
0.1
3
11
73
4.2
Daizen Maeda
M
8
450
1
0.8
1
4
64
0.5
Christian Walton
G
4
394
0
0.0
1
33
11
7.1
Kjell Scherpen
G
4
382
0
0.0
0
19
15
4.4
Jack Clarke
M
7
265
1
0.4
5
17
31
3.2
Florentino
M
5
261
0
0.8
2
11
48
2.5
Jaden Philogene
M
4
189
0
0.2
0
4
24
0.6
Zian Flemming
F
6
171
13
8.6
1
3
27
0.7
Chuba Akpom
F
6
164
1
0.7
0
0
30
0.1
Marcelino Núñez
M
2
140
0
0.0
1
10
25
1.5
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.
Issa Diop
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes776
goals · xG1 · 0.3
prog passes /902.4
key passes /900.23
def actions /9014.6
pass accuracy92%
Leif Davis
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes776
goals · xG2 · 1.0
prog passes /905.1
key passes /900.70
def actions /908.9
pass accuracy76%
Dara O'Shea
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes776
goals · xG1 · 0.2
prog passes /904.3
key passes /900.46
def actions /9018.4
pass accuracy78%
Julio Enciso
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes663
goals · xG1 · 1.7
prog passes /902.4
key passes /900.95
def actions /9010.5
pass accuracy79%
Exequiel Palacios
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes523
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /903.3
key passes /901.03
def actions /9018.4
pass accuracy90%
Emersonn
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes523
goals · xG2 · 1.6
prog passes /900.9
key passes /900.69
def actions /9014.6
pass accuracy70%
Samuel Amissah
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes505
goals · xG1 · 2.2
prog passes /903.0
key passes /901.25
def actions /9013.4
pass accuracy87%
Abdul Fatawu
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes488
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /903.9
key passes /901.48
def actions /9012.5
pass accuracy60%
Jacob Greaves
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes464
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /902.1
key passes /900.39
def actions /9014.2
pass accuracy89%
Recruitment Intelligence — profiles to sign
The question
If you were sporting director, which player profiles would move the needle most?
Each recruitment target is derived directly from the team's weakest areas vs the league — the gap, why it shows in the data, and the profile that closes it.
Need — bottom-third: xG conceded /game (4th pct)
Sign a defensive organiser / shot-suppressing centre-back. The data flags this because too much xG is conceded (1.70, 4th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: shots /game (9th pct)
Sign a shot-taking forward to raise shot volume. The data flags this because shot volume is low (10.50, 9th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: box entries /game (17th pct)
Sign a penetrative wide player or runner to create box entries. The data flags this because few entries into the box (10.12, 17th percentile vs the league).