A territorially-dominated side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a low-output attack. Currently #19 of 20 on 6 points (2-0-6, 6:15). 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 Coventry and how good was the season?
Read. Coventry currently sit #19 of 20 on 6 points (2W-0D-6L, 0.75 pts/game), scoring 6 and conceding 15 for a goal difference of -9.
On the ball they are a territorially-dominated team (39% field tilt, #22 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#14 of 23 for press intensity).
Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 0.97 xG/game (#21) and concede 1.44 (#19), a net of -0.47 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Coventry actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Coventry.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
16
Man Utd
8
1
4
3
10
13
-3
7
17
Crystal Palace
8
2
1
5
9
19
-10
7
18
Nottingham Forest
8
1
3
4
6
10
-4
6
19
Coventry
8
2
0
6
6
15
-9
6
20
Sunderland
8
1
2
5
6
14
-8
5
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Coventry 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
Coventry tend to fade after a strong start — first-half net xG -0.89, second-half -2.90. Their strongest period is 0-15' (net +0.41 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 76-90+' (net -1.31 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Coventry against what their opponents created. A line pulling away upwards is a side creating more than it gives away; the gap at the end is the season’s balance (-3.8 xG). Hover a point for that match.
CoventryOpponents against Coventry
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Coventry'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.
4
Build-Up
possession control from the back
9
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
10
Creation
manufacturing chances
22
Press
winning the ball high & hard
17
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Coventry are defined most by their Press DNA (22/100 · limited at winning the ball high & hard), and least by their Build-Up 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
4%
Possession
4%
Field tilt
4%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
30%
Dribble tendency
48%
Progressive passes
13%
Finish
Final-third patience
17%
Shot quality
0%
Open-play xG
17%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
39%
High regains
0%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
39%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
17%
High line ~proxy
70%
PAdj defensive actions
13%
Coventry is defined most by Defend (33% in the league) and weakest on Possess (4%). 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 Coventry actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Coventry'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; Coventry highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Coventry post 39% field tilt, ranking #22 of 23 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 0.75 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 Coventry has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Coventry'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
25.6%
Progression
46.2%
Chance creation
26.0%
Attacking transition
2.2%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Coventry 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
Grimes ↔ Dasilva
110p · 0.1xT
Thomas ↔ Rushworth
94p · 0.3xT
Grimes ↔ Thomas
76p · -0.3xT
Grimes ↔ Rushworth
66p · -1.8xT
Dasilva ↔ Rudoni
65p · 0.8xT
Ewijk ↔ Thomas
57p · 1.1xT
Grimes ↔ Amenda
51p · 0.1xT
Grimes ↔ Yirenkyi
46p · -0.3xT
Grimes ↔ Ewijk
43p · -0.2xT
Grimes ↔ Pinnock
42p · -0.5xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Matt Grimes ↔ Jay Dasilva (110 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Ephron Mason-Clark ↔ Jack Rudoni (0.04 xT/pass over 27 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Coventry 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 Coventry 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
2883
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
849
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (12.7% of all actions). 58% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 42% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 30% defensive, 46% 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. Coventry leaned on their left (42%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Coventry
42%20%38%
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. Coventry made 265 this season (33.1 a match); 34% 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
91
11.4
34%
29%
Left half-space
36
4.5
14%
16%
Centre
34
4.2
13%
12%
Right half-space
34
4.2
13%
14%
Right wing
70
8.8
26%
29%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Coventry 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.
864build-up passes attempted
69%completed
32%reach the middle third
5%go long into the final third
Pass types
182CB · 31%
96Long Wide · 16%
15Long Central · 3%
231Wide → FB · 39%
72Central · 12%
CB182 · 31%
Long Wide96 · 16%
Long Central15 · 3%
Wide → FB231 · 39%
Central72 · 12%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Coventry build predominantly down the right, with Rushworth as the fulcrum (203 build-up passes). Only 36% 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 → RHS def (42×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Coventry’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. 294 progressive passes across 8 matches (36.8/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
21%
Right half-space
13%
Central
21%
Left half-space
13%
Left wing
32%
Progression is left-dominant: 34% right side · 21% central · 45% left.
Who generates it
Carl Rushworth
72 · 24%
Jay Dasilva
43 · 15%
Milan van Ewijk
37 · 13%
Jack Rudoni
27 · 9%
Matt Grimes
26 · 9%
Top two — Carl Rushworth & Jay Dasilva — account for 39% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
36.8 prog passes/game
mostly left
→
PENETRATION
33% reach final third
20% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 67% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.33% of progressive passes reached the final third and 20% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 39% 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 wingbalanced
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralbalanced
Left half-spacebalanced
Left wingbalanced
Progression — the pass map
The football question
Once Coventry 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.
1331progression passes attempted
82%completed
18%break into the final third
16%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
286CB · 26%
48Long Wide · 4%
13Long Central · 1%
606Wide → FB · 56%
133Central · 12%
CB286 · 26%
Long Wide48 · 4%
Long Central13 · 1%
Wide → FB606 · 56%
Central133 · 12%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Coventry progress predominantly down the left, with Grimes the busiest midfield outlet (221 progression passes). Only 18% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (67%) is recycled back into midfield or (16%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is LW mid → LHS mid (65×) — 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)
15%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
49%
Safe / backward
36%
16% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 84% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.
Where does Coventry actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
165 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (25% of 664 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 35m. Most active carrier: Grimes (26). Filter to one player below.
First (49)Second (42)Third (39)Fourth (35)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 Coventry'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.
85shots
7.7xG
0.09xG per shot
3big chances (0.3+ xG)
6goals
#23key passes / game in the league
#21box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition15% of shots
13
1
1.39
0.11
Cross
1
0
0.10
0.10
Cut-back
1
0
0.09
0.09
Pass into the box / short pass
5
1
0.49
0.10
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
6
0
0.71
0.12
Settled attack69% of shots
59
4
4.96
0.08
Cross
18
0
1.27
0.07
Cut-back
1
0
0.12
0.12
Long ball
1
1
0.17
0.17
Pass into the box / short pass
20
1
1.97
0.10
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
19
2
1.44
0.08
Set piece15% of shots
13
1
1.39
0.11
Corner
11
0
0.57
0.05
Free kick
1
0
0.03
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
Jack Rudoni
9
1.13
0
Jay Dasilva
7
0.62
1
Caleb Yirenkyi
5
0.51
1
Ephron Mason-Clark
5
0.45
0
Milan van Ewijk
6
0.42
0
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Jack Rudoni
10
1.72
2
Taiwo Awoniyi
9
1.41
0
Ephron Mason-Clark
4
0.78
0
Bobby Thomas
14
0.71
0
Brandon Thomas-Asante
11
0.68
0
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Coventry's chances, by xG, is settled attack (5.0 of 7.7 xG, 59 of 85 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 13 of the 85 shots (15%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 13 of the 85 shots came from set pieces; 6 goals from 7.7 xG (-1.7).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Coventry consistently create dangerous chances — from which zones, and who creates them?
Key passes (the pass immediately before a shot) grouped into 5 real categories: CB, Wide→FB, Central, Long Wide, Long Central. Each gets its own panel below, so nothing competes for attention. Arrow width = volume, labelled with the exact count; hover for the top creator.
Pass types
2CB · 4%
1Long Wide · 2%
12Long Central · 24%
12Wide → FB · 24%
24Central · 47%
Danger Funnel — which service carries threat
Every key pass pooled by where it was played FROM, then drawn with its arrow width set by total xT rather than by count. A zone that produces a lot of cheap balls shrinks; one that produces a few decisive ones dominates. Where this disagrees with the volume map, the volume map is the misleading one.
0 key passes shown● low threat● mid● high threatarrow width = total xT, not count
CB2 · 4%
Long Wide1 · 2%
Long Central12 · 24%
Wide → FB12 · 24%
Central24 · 47%
Who creates — volume × threat
12Rudoni
7Dasilva
6Ewijk
5Mason-Clark
4Yirenkyi
3Tchaouna
3Grimes
51key passes #23 of 23
9.9box entries/game #21 of 23
27.5final-3rd entries/game #22 of 23
0.97xG/game #21 of 23
6goals #23 of 23
-1.7finishing vs xG #17 of 23
◆ Vision AI Insight
Coventry lean left — 55% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (28 of 51), most often from Rudoni (9). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via LW att → C att (18 key passes, most often from Dasilva). Rudoni is the primary source overall. They generate 0.97 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Jack Rudoni (2G), Jay Dasilva (1G), Ellis Simms (1G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Coventry deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
117 crosses: 35 found a team-mate (30%), 22 led to a shot (19%). 14 cut-backs: 7 found a team-mate (50%), 2 led to a shot (14%). 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 Coventry actually cross from?
117 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. 24% come from one territory, the byline left wing; 8 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
byline · left wing
28
24%
10
advanced · right wing
24
21%
2
byline · right wing
23
20%
2
advanced · left wing
21
18%
5
deep · left wing
7
6%
1
deep · right wing
6
5%
0
advanced · right half-space
2
2%
0
advanced · left half-space
2
2%
1
byline · right half-space
2
2%
0
deep · right half-space
1
1%
1
byline · left half-space
1
1%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
85 shots for 7.7 xG (0.97/game, #21 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Low-output attack. 10.6 shots/game at 0.091 xG/shot. Box entries 10/game (#21). Threat created 8.7 xT/game (#22).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Coventry’s 6 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 — 6 goals traced.
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal Coventry scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
5 · 83%
Set pieces
0 · 0%
Penalties
1 · 17%
By finish
Right foot
3 · 50%
Left foot
3 · 50%
Header
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
6 goals scored. 83% 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
233
Failed forward pass
166
Failed take-on
69
Lost in the defensive third
268
Their weakest zone is the right half-space in the attacking third: 43% of 102 pass attempts there are lost (44 times). Separately, 31% 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 Coventry 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
Intensity71
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height70
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness20
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption48
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
20%
RHS
21%
C
21%
LHS
20%
LW
19%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 49%
Mid 35%
Att 16%
Read
Ranked #14 of 23 for press intensity, this is a high press. 51% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 38. Of recoveries, 51% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#14/23
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
155
#4/23
High-press share
24%
#4/23
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
38.3
#7/23
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
17.5
#23/23
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
51%
#14/23
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
86%
#23/23
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
7.6%
#1/23
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 Coventry win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 209 opposition possessions that Coventry 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 Coventry step in. Coventry win it after 6.8 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 6.7 after the hour mark (about the same).
PASSES THEY GET
6.7passes
median 3 · before Coventry win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
20sec
median 9s · 26.1 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
42%
22%
10%
27%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
6.4
19s
15–30′
7.2
25s
30–45+′
7.7
24s
45–60′
5.8
17s
60–75′
6.1
17s
75–90+′
6.9
20s
average passesaverage seconds
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Coventry 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 Coventry 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) 864 passes
longer passing, attacking the next line, more direct
Width of use-0.7819.39
Wide-channel share-0.680.26
Side bias-0.45-1.52
Pass length+2.1130.30
Long-ball share+2.010.43
Forward gain per pass+2.0220.19
Backward-pass share-0.260.19
Deep-pass share+1.970.48
Completion-1.460.67
Seconds between passes+0.913.88
Side used
left 22% · central 50% · right 28%
Progression (middle third) 1,331 passes
more direct, played in the channels
Width of use+0.6827.00
Wide-channel share+0.890.47
Side bias-0.21-0.79
Pass length+0.6218.09
Long-ball share+1.170.15
Forward gain per pass-0.033.57
Backward-pass share+0.790.37
Deep-pass share+0.640.19
Completion-0.700.80
Seconds between passes+0.693.50
Side used
left 35% · central 26% · right 39%
Final third 688 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.1331.28
Wide-channel share-0.040.58
Side bias+0.422.46
Pass length+0.0815.59
Long-ball share+0.530.12
Forward gain per pass+0.762.05
Backward-pass share-0.550.35
Deep-pass share+0.330.10
Completion-0.600.65
Seconds between passes-0.363.12
Side used
left 45% · central 17% · right 37%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Coventry'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 Coventry 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 share19%
#2 of 23 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share18%
#22 of 23 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)15.6s
#3 of 23 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession3.6
#22 of 23
Counter-attack shots /game0.38
#23 of 23 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game1.75
#23 of 23 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain14.1s
#21 of 23 · lower = faster break
Vision AI Model Insight
Coventry are a direct, fast-break side: 19% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#2 of 23), against 18% built patiently over 6+ passes (#22 of 23). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 0.38 times a game (#23), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 1.75 times a game (#23 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 Coventry? 372 opponent progressive passes and 134 shots faced (11.5 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Coventry)
Right wing
32%
Right half-space
13%
Central
13%
Left half-space
12%
Left wing
29%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (32% of the danger conceded).
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against Coventry actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Coventry conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Coventry'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 (97 total)
By situation
Open play
13 · 87%
Set pieces
1 · 7%
Penalties
1 · 7%
Vision AI Model Insight
15 goals conceded. 87% come in open play; set pieces account for only 7%, 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 right half-space of the attacking third (25% 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
5 g · 6.3 xG
Set pieces
0 g · 0.6 xG
Penalties
1 g
0% of goals come from set pieces (0 of 6), worth 0.6 xG from 12 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Coventry's corners go?
30 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 (14)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Left side (16)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Where opponents attack Coventry from set pieces
13 shots from opponent corners against Coventry, 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 (9)
Shot 9Goals 1
Left flag (4)
Shot 4Goals 0
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
none stand out
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
field tilt % — 38.69 (4th pct)
threat created /game — 8.71 (4th pct)
pass retention % — 74.12 (4th pct)
xG created /game — 0.97 (9th pct)
box entries /game — 9.88 (9th 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.
Sunderland
95%
Hull City
95%
Wolves
76%
Burnley
72%
Leeds
63%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Coventry 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 Coventry's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)
0.00
3.00
0.00
vs mid-block opponents (2m)
2.50
2.00
1.50
vs low-block opponents (4m)
0.25
1.25
0.75
Behaviour — how Coventry actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
66%
30%
36
7.8
12.0
vs mid-block opponents
71%
26%
38
9.2
12.0
vs low-block opponents
77%
17%
36
8.9
7.8
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 66% vs 77% against a low block (11pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 30% when pressed vs 17% 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. Coventry are territorially-dominated with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 0.97 xG a game and they concede 1.44 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 Coventry’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.
Coventry
across 8 matches this season
Progressive carriesvs Hull City · 0-1 · 2026-08-2995avg 33
Field tiltvs Hull City · 0-1 · 2026-08-2969%avg 39%
Passesvs Hull City · 0-1 · 2026-08-29646avg 360
Final-third entriesvs Hull City · 0-1 · 2026-08-2957avg 33
Threat from passingat Tottenham · 1-3 · 2026-10-196.98avg 4.92
Progressive passesat Man City · 0-1 · 2026-09-0527avg 37
Expected goalsat Arsenal · 0-3 · 2026-08-210.21avg 0.97
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 Coventry’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).
+8.4on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes2883 actions+2.12
Carries664 actions+0.25
Dribbles108 actions+0.13
Shots85 actions+4.05
Ball wins402 actions+1.88
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Jack Rudoni
319
+1.70
+0.53
Carl Rushworth
457
+0.99
+0.22
Milan van Ewijk
356
+0.75
+0.21
Jay Dasilva
376
+0.62
+0.17
Taiwo Awoniyi
89
+0.57
+0.64
Sidiki Cherif
48
+0.52
+1.09
Ethan Pinnock
207
+0.47
+0.23
Ephron Mason-Clark
133
+0.32
+0.24
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Jack Rudoni · shot
+0.804
2 Ellis Simms · shot
+0.263
3 Sidiki Cherif · shot
+0.253
4 Taiwo Awoniyi · shot
+0.247
5 Taiwo Awoniyi · shot
+0.231
6 Milan van Ewijk · pass
+0.178
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Coventry’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 30 corners taken, most by Jack Rudoni (11); 12 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
Jack Rudoni
11
10 (91%)
1
—
0.03
1
1/1
Bobby Thomas
—
—
5
—
0.23
—
—
Matt Grimes
9
8 (89%)
1
—
0.03
—
—
Stephen Mfuni
—
—
3
—
0.24
—
—
Ethan Pinnock
—
—
2
—
0.07
—
—
Loum Tchaouna
3
3 (100%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Gustavo Hamer
2
2 (100%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Victor Torp
2
2 (100%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Brandon Thomas-Asante
1
0 (0%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Ephron Mason-Clark
1
0 (0%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Tatsuhiro Sakamoto
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
Jack Rudoni
M
565
1.91
18
6.4
Milan van Ewijk
D
667
0.81
14
8.3
Jay Dasilva
D
752
0.84
10
7.5
Ephron Mason-Clark
M
341
1.32
4
0.8
Matt Grimes
M
738
0.37
5
7.6
Loum Tchaouna
M
223
1.21
4
1.3
Bobby Thomas
D
709
0.25
4
5.4
Caleb Yirenkyi
M
480
0.75
2
2.5
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)
Milan van Ewijk
FB
667
12 (33%)
8 (50%)
Ephron Mason-Clark
W
341
4 (25%)
5 (40%)
Jay Dasilva
FB
752
2 (0%)
5 (40%)
Tatsuhiro Sakamoto
W
233
4 (0%)
1 (0%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Bobby Thomas
D
709
164
5
11
26
Milan van Ewijk
D
667
106
11
12
21
Ethan Pinnock
D
592
104
5
8
10
Brandon Thomas-Asante
M
489
100
7
13
18
Jack Rudoni
M
565
100
8
3
30
Caleb Yirenkyi
M
480
94
6
8
27
Matt Grimes
M
738
85
12
3
21
Jay Dasilva
D
752
76
9
6
18
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (18 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Carl Rushworth
G
8
763
0
0.0
1
72
19
15.1
Jay Dasilva
D
8
752
1
0.3
7
43
76
7.5
Matt Grimes
M
8
738
0
0.2
3
26
85
7.6
Bobby Thomas
D
8
709
0
0.7
2
17
164
5.4
Milan van Ewijk
D
7
667
0
0.0
6
37
106
8.3
Ethan Pinnock
D
7
592
0
0.2
0
10
104
2.7
Jack Rudoni
M
8
565
2
1.7
12
27
100
6.4
Brandon Thomas-Asante
M
8
489
0
0.7
0
6
100
1.4
Caleb Yirenkyi
M
8
480
0
0.1
4
12
94
2.5
Frank Onyeka
M
7
409
0
0.1
1
7
68
1.6
Aurèle Amenda
D
4
380
0
0.0
0
14
59
3.8
Taiwo Awoniyi
F
6
354
4
4.3
2
0
40
0.2
Ephron Mason-Clark
M
7
341
0
0.8
5
2
55
0.8
Sidiki Cherif
F
4
239
1
0.4
1
1
36
0.5
Tatsuhiro Sakamoto
M
4
233
0
0.2
0
4
38
1.0
Loum Tchaouna
M
4
223
2
1.6
3
4
27
1.3
Stephen Mfuni
D
3
144
1
0.3
0
3
28
0.9
Ellis Simms
F
4
134
1
0.3
1
0
16
0.0
Player Role Architecture
The question
Who does what — and what tactical job does each key player actually perform?
The nine most-used players (450+ minutes), each with the role their event fingerprint points to — not just their listed position.
Carl Rushworth
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes763
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /908.5
key passes /900.12
def actions /902.2
pass accuracy57%
Jay Dasilva
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes752
goals · xG1 · 0.3
prog passes /905.1
key passes /900.84
def actions /909.1
pass accuracy81%
Matt Grimes
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes738
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /903.2
key passes /900.37
def actions /9010.4
pass accuracy82%
Bobby Thomas
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes709
goals · xG0 · 0.7
prog passes /902.2
key passes /900.25
def actions /9020.8
pass accuracy79%
Milan van Ewijk
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes667
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /905.0
key passes /900.81
def actions /9014.3
pass accuracy75%
Ethan Pinnock
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes592
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /901.5
key passes /900.00
def actions /9015.8
pass accuracy78%
Jack Rudoni
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes565
goals · xG2 · 1.7
prog passes /904.3
key passes /901.91
def actions /9015.9
pass accuracy70%
Brandon Thomas-Asante
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes489
goals · xG0 · 0.7
prog passes /901.1
key passes /900.00
def actions /9018.4
pass accuracy56%
Caleb Yirenkyi
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes480
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /902.2
key passes /900.75
def actions /9017.6
pass accuracy84%
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: field tilt % (4th pct)
Sign a possession-controlling midfielder to win the territorial battle. The data flags this because they get pinned back (38.69, 4th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: threat created /game (4th pct)
Sign a threat-generating creator between the lines. The data flags this because little threat is manufactured (8.71, 4th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: pass retention % (4th pct)
Sign a secure ball-retaining midfielder. The data flags this because possession is turned over cheaply (74.12, 4th percentile vs the league).