Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportPremier League 2026
Fulham
A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Currently #15 of 20 on 8 points (2-2-4, 8:10). 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 Fulham and how good was the season?
Read. Fulham currently sit #15 of 20 on 8 points (2W-2D-4L, 1.00 pts/game), scoring 8 and conceding 10 for a goal difference of -2.
On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (54% field tilt, #7 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#14 of 20 for press intensity).
Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 1.33 xG/game (#10) and concede 1.13 (#6), a net of +0.20 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Fulham actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Fulham.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
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
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
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Fulham 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
Fulham tend to fade after a strong start — first-half net xG +0.98, second-half +0.60. Their strongest period is 46-60' (net +1.04 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 76-90+' (net -0.33 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Fulham 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 (+1.6 xG). Hover a point for that match.
FulhamOpponents against Fulham
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Fulham'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.
72
Build-Up
possession control from the back
72
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
65
Creation
manufacturing chances
48
Press
winning the ball high & hard
70
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Fulham are defined most by their Build-Up DNA (72/100 · strong at possession control from the back), and least by their Press DNA (48/100). Percentiles vs the 20 teams in the league.
The Playstyle Wheel
Fifteen style metrics across five domains — Possess, Disrupt, Finish, Press, Defend — each a percentile against the rest of the league. Metrics marked ~proxy use the closest available event-data signal where the standard definition needs data this feed doesn't carry (explicit pressure events, offside/keeper-sweep incidents).
Possess
Deep buildup
96%
Possession
74%
Field tilt
57%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
9%
Dribble tendency
4%
Progressive passes
74%
Finish
Final-third patience
30%
Shot quality
26%
Open-play xG
30%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
13%
High regains
9%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
35%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
48%
High line ~proxy
13%
PAdj defensive actions
30%
Fulham is defined most by Possess (75% in the league) and weakest on Press (19%). 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 Fulham actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Fulham'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; Fulham highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Fulham post 54% field tilt, ranking #7 of 20 in the league — comfortably above the league mid-point for territorial control, and their 1.00 points/game sits below the league-average return — a real disconnect: their territorial control isn't showing up on the scoreboard the way it should.
Where the time goes — how long each phase lasts
The question
When Fulham has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Fulham'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
30.9%
Progression
44.2%
Chance creation
24.0%
Attacking transition
0.9%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Fulham spends most of its time on the ball (44% 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
Leno ↔ Bassey
131p · -0.2xT
Lukic ↔ Robinson
118p · 1.8xT
Lukic ↔ Bassey
112p · 0.4xT
Robinson ↔ Bassey
107p · -0.3xT
Bassey ↔ Charles
91p · -0.7xT
Lukic ↔ Charles
84p · 1.1xT
Berge ↔ Bassey
80p · -0.4xT
Castagne ↔ Berge
78p · 0.3xT
Castagne ↔ King
73p · 1.2xT
Castagne ↔ Bobb
68p · 1.3xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Bernd Leno ↔ Calvin Bassey (131 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Saša Lukic ↔ Josh King (0.04 xT/pass over 35 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Fulham had the ball
Every touch across 80 matches. Brighter means more touches.
Which Zones Do They Attack Through?
The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Fulham 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
4916
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
1163
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (11.4% of all actions). 62% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 38% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 31% defensive, 47% middle, 21% attacking.
Attack Sides
Which channel they attacked through this season: the share of every action made in the opponent’s half, down the left, through the middle and down the right. Fulham leaned on their left (41%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Fulham
41%21%38%
League
39%24%37%
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. Fulham made 358 this season (44.8 a match); 36% 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
130
16.2
36%
31%
Left half-space
59
7.4
16%
16%
Centre
39
4.9
11%
13%
Right half-space
44
5.5
12%
14%
Right wing
86
10.8
24%
27%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Fulham 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.
1552build-up passes attempted
84%completed
21%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third
Pass types
529CB · 41%
32Long Wide · 2%
9Long Central · 1%
567Wide → FB · 44%
164Central · 13%
Sequence success — build-up
132build-up sequences this season
14%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
44%turned over with nothing to show
CB529 · 41%
Long Wide32 · 2%
Long Central9 · 1%
Wide → FB567 · 44%
Central164 · 13%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Fulham build predominantly down the right, with Leno as the fulcrum (291 build-up passes). Only 23% 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 (101×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Fulham’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. 367 progressive passes across 8 matches (45.9/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
32%
Right half-space
9%
Central
11%
Left half-space
10%
Left wing
38%
Progression is left-dominant: 41% right side · 11% central · 48% left.
Who generates it
Saša Lukic
70 · 19%
Antonee Robinson
53 · 14%
Timothy Castagne
42 · 11%
Oscar Bobb
34 · 9%
Calvin Bassey
31 · 8%
Top two — Saša Lukic & Antonee Robinson — account for 34% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
45.9 prog passes/game
mostly left
→
PENETRATION
23% reach final third
23% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 77% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.23% of progressive passes reached the final third and 23% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 34% 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-spacesterile
Centralsterile
Left half-spacebalanced
Left wingefficient
Progression — the pass map
The football question
Once Fulham 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.
2288progression passes attempted
89%completed
13%break into the final third
12%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
659CB · 32%
57Long Wide · 3%
13Long Central · 1%
1008Wide → FB · 49%
302Central · 15%
Sequence success — progression
215progression sequences this season
22%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
44%turned over with nothing to show
CB659 · 32%
Long Wide57 · 3%
Long Central13 · 1%
Wide → FB1008 · 49%
Central302 · 15%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Fulham progress predominantly down the left, with Bassey the busiest midfield outlet (293 progression passes). Only 13% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (75%) is recycled back into midfield or (12%) 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 (121×) — 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)
11%
Progressive
2%
Neutral / sideways
48%
Safe / backward
39%
13% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 87% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.
Where does Fulham actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
265 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (23% of 1163 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 49m. Most active carrier: Bassey (58). Filter to one player below.
First (77)Second (73)Third (61)Fourth (54)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 Fulham'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.
115shots
10.6xG
0.09xG per shot
1big chances (0.3+ xG)
7goals
#4key passes / game in the league
#3box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition22% of shots
25
1
2.40
0.10
Cross
2
0
0.22
0.11
Cut-back
6
0
0.91
0.15
Pass into the box / short pass
12
0
0.92
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
5
1
0.34
0.07
Settled attack60% of shots
69
4
6.78
0.10
Cross
10
0
0.69
0.07
Cut-back
11
0
1.43
0.13
Long ball
2
0
0.19
0.09
Pass into the box / short pass
38
2
3.39
0.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
8
2
1.08
0.13
Set piece18% of shots
21
2
1.48
0.07
Corner
19
2
1.42
0.07
Free kick
2
0
0.06
0.03
Every attempt to create — and what came of it
Every pass into the box, every cut-back and every pass before a shot. Red led to a shot, gold to a goal; grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball. Filter by outcome, type or player; tap an arrow for the detail.
Who sets the shots up
Player
Set-ups
xG created
Goals
Saša Lukic
13
1.43
0
Oscar Bobb
14
1.31
0
Gonzalo García
6
1.06
0
Josh King
7
0.91
0
Sander Berge
9
0.56
1
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Gonzalo García
21
2.62
1
Josh King
21
1.58
2
Saša Lukic
12
1.21
1
Oscar Bobb
11
1.07
1
César Palacios
8
1.01
1
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Fulham's chances, by xG, is settled attack (6.8 of 10.6 xG, 69 of 115 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 25 of the 115 shots (22%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 21 of the 115 shots came from set pieces; 7 goals from 10.6 xG (-3.6).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Fulham 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
9CB · 10%
5Long Central · 6%
37Wide → FB · 42%
38Central · 43%
Sequence success — final-third
166final-third sequences this season
24%succeed — produce a shot
34%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
CB9 · 10%
Long Central5 · 6%
Wide → FB37 · 42%
Central38 · 43%
Who creates — volume × threat
18Lukic
16Bobb
11King
9Berge
8Robinson
5García
4Charles
89key passes #4 of 20
17.0box entries/game #3 of 20
34.8final-3rd entries/game #8 of 20
1.33xG/game #10 of 20
7goals #15 of 20
-3.6finishing vs xG #17 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Fulham lean left — 37% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (33 of 89), most often from Lukic (14). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RHS att → C att (15 key passes, most often from Bobb). Lukic is the primary source overall. They generate 1.33 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Josh King (2G), César Palacios (1G), Oscar Bobb (1G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Fulham deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
131 crosses: 51 found a team-mate (39%), 15 led to a shot (11%). 29 cut-backs: 22 found a team-mate (76%), 16 led to a shot (55%). 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 Fulham actually cross from?
131 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. 26% come from one territory, the byline left wing; 11 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
byline · left wing
34
26%
2
advanced · left wing
25
19%
5
byline · right wing
25
19%
3
advanced · right wing
20
15%
3
deep · right wing
14
11%
0
byline · right half-space
4
3%
0
advanced · right half-space
3
2%
1
byline · left half-space
3
2%
0
deep · left wing
2
2%
1
advanced · left half-space
1
1%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
115 shots for 10.6 xG (1.33/game, #10 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Moderate attack. 14.4 shots/game at 0.093 xG/shot. Box entries 17/game (#3). Threat created 12.1 xT/game (#5).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Fulham’s 8 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 — 8 goals traced.
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal Fulham scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
5 · 71%
Set pieces
2 · 29%
Penalties
0 · 0%
By finish
Right foot
3 · 43%
Left foot
3 · 43%
Header
1 · 14%
Vision AI Model Insight
7 goals scored. 71% come in open play, but 29% from set pieces — a genuine dead-ball weapon that bypasses the open-play build-up.
When they lose it1 section
Ball-Loss Map — where attacks die
Every turnover has a location and a cause. This is a rate, not a raw count — the share of pass attempts from each zone that end in a turnover, so a zone they simply play through more often doesn't automatically look riskier. Grey cells are real zones with too few attempts to trust a rate.
Loss rate by zone
How they lose it
Incomplete pass — attacking third
234
Failed forward pass
144
Failed take-on
90
Lost in the defensive third
251
Their weakest zone is the right wing in the defensive third: 28% of 258 pass attempts there are lost (71 times). Separately, 32% 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 Fulham 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.
16
Pressing Index /100 · passive
Intensity18
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height10
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness10
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption30
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
15%
RHS
23%
C
20%
LHS
24%
LW
18%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 53%
Mid 34%
Att 13%
Read
Ranked #14 of 20 for press intensity, this is a high press. Note the tension: 53% of their raw defensive actions still occur in their own third — a possession effect, not a passive one. Dominating the ball (20% high-press share) means that when they do defend, it is often deep. Of recoveries, 47% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#14/20
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
143
#18/20
High-press share
20%
#16/20
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
36.7
#18/20
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
18.0
#17/20
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
47%
#19/20
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
80%
#12/20
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
9.6%
#16/20
of opp passes, lower = better
Transition timing
This source carries per-event timestamps, so genuine transition metrics — counter-attack shots, press→shot conversions, time-to-recover — are measured; see the dedicated Transitions section below.
How long they keep it — passes and seconds until the ball is won
The question
Once the opponent has the ball, how many passes and how many seconds pass before Fulham win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 242 opposition possessions that Fulham 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 Fulham step in. Fulham win it after 5.8 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 4.4 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
5.0passes
median 3 · before Fulham win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
14sec
median 7s · 30.2 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
43%
26%
16%
15%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
5.2
15s
15–30′
6.4
19s
30–45+′
4.8
16s
45–60′
5.0
14s
60–75′
4.9
13s
75–90+′
4.0
11s
average passesaverage seconds
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Fulham 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 Fulham 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) 1,552 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use+0.2621.54
Wide-channel share+0.350.33
Side bias-0.33-1.06
Pass length-0.4621.02
Long-ball share-0.730.16
Forward gain per pass-0.678.53
Backward-pass share+0.780.23
Deep-pass share-0.800.21
Completion+0.470.83
Seconds between passes-0.543.00
Side used
left 27% · central 43% · right 30%
Progression (middle third) 2,288 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.4624.60
Wide-channel share-0.640.36
Side bias+0.220.91
Pass length-0.2816.84
Long-ball share-0.610.08
Forward gain per pass-0.802.39
Backward-pass share+0.720.37
Deep-pass share-0.760.12
Completion+0.650.88
Seconds between passes-0.443.00
Side used
left 37% · central 31% · right 33%
Final third 1,076 passes
safer, more recycling, circulating
Width of use+0.2532.22
Wide-channel share+0.450.62
Side bias+0.311.74
Pass length-0.3214.97
Long-ball share-0.550.07
Forward gain per pass-0.85-0.09
Backward-pass share+0.960.45
Deep-pass share-0.680.06
Completion+1.040.78
Seconds between passes-0.203.25
Side used
left 45% · central 14% · right 41%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Fulham'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 Fulham 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 share15%
#20 of 20 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share32%
#3 of 20 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)19.0s
#15 of 20 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession5.1
#5 of 20
Counter-attack shots /game0.80
#16 of 20 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game2.89
#11 of 20 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain13.6s
#15 of 20 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
13attacking transition sequences this season
8%succeed — produce a shot
62%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
35defensive transition sequences this season
63%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
6%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Fulham are a patient build-up side: 15% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#20 of 20), against 32% built patiently over 6+ passes (#3 of 20). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 0.80 times a game (#16), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 2.89 times a game (#11 of 20) — 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 Fulham? 344 opponent progressive passes and 112 shots faced (9.1 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Fulham)
Right wing
26%
Right half-space
17%
Central
24%
Left half-space
12%
Left wing
21%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (26% of the danger conceded).
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against Fulham actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Fulham conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Fulham'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 (76 total)
By situation
Open play
10 · 100%
Set pieces
0 · 0%
Penalties
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
10 goals conceded. 100% come in open play; set pieces account for only 0%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 10% 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 (20% 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 · 9.2 xG
Set pieces
2 g · 1.5 xG
Penalties
0 g
29% of goals come from set pieces (2 of 7), worth 1.5 xG from 21 shots. A genuine set-piece weapon — defend the box seriously.
Where do Fulham's corners go?
49 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 (28)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Left side (21)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Where opponents attack Fulham from set pieces
22 shots from opponent corners against Fulham, 0 conceded, split by the flag the corner came from — arrows from the flag, dots where the shot was taken (gold = goal), shaded by the % of that flag's shots in each zone. Tap or hover a shot for who took it, the minute and the match; filter to one match and the shading recomputes for just that game.
Right flag (7)
Shot 7Goals 0
Left flag (15)
Shot 15Goals 0
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
box entries /game — 17.00 (85th pct)
pass retention % — 85.07 (80th pct)
threat created /game — 12.05 (75th pct)
xG conceded /game — 1.13 (70th pct)
progression /game — 45.88 (70th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
press intensity (PPDA) — 5.52 (30th 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.
Man Utd
79%
Arsenal
74%
Man City
66%
Tottenham
42%
Brighton
28%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Fulham 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 Fulham's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)
0.50
1.00
0.50
vs mid-block opponents (2m)
1.00
2.00
0.00
vs low-block opponents (4m)
1.25
1.00
1.75
Behaviour — how Fulham actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
78%
15%
38
9.6
14.0
vs mid-block opponents
84%
11%
40
11.1
11.0
vs low-block opponents
88%
8%
53
13.8
21.5
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 78% vs 88% against a low block (10pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 15% when pressed vs 8% 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. Fulham are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.33 xG a game and they concede 1.13 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 Fulham’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 Crystal Palace · 2-3 · 2026-09-058.12avg 5.28
Field tiltvs Hull City · 1-0 · 2026-10-1780%avg 54%
PPDAat Liverpool · 0-0 · 2026-09-128.1avg 5.5
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 Fulham’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).
+10.4on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes4916 actions+2.66
Carries1163 actions+1.36
Dribbles151 actions-0.01
Shots115 actions+4.36
Ball wins432 actions+2.00
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Saša Lukic
703
+2.25
+0.32
Gonzalo García
244
+1.83
+0.75
Josh King
470
+1.49
+0.32
Oscar Bobb
347
+1.13
+0.33
Bernd Leno
418
+0.69
+0.16
Timothy Castagne
523
+0.57
+0.11
Rodrigo Muniz
24
+0.42
+1.73
Calvin Bassey
824
+0.39
+0.05
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Gonzalo García · shot
+0.299
2 Rodrigo Muniz · shot
+0.297
3 Gonzalo García · shot
+0.273
4 Saša Lukic · pass
+0.271
5 Gonzalo García · shot
+0.240
6 César Palacios · shot
+0.236
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Fulham’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 49 corners taken, most by Oscar Bobb (24); 21 shots from corners and free kicks, 2 goals, led by Oscar Bobb (1 goals, 0.15 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
Oscar Bobb
24
21 (88%)
3
1
0.15
1
—
Saša Lukic
19
13 (68%)
2
—
0.05
—
—
Josh King
—
—
3
—
0.14
—
—
César Palacios
—
—
2
—
0.27
—
—
Gonzalo García
—
—
2
—
0.32
—
—
Shea Charles
—
—
2
—
0.09
—
—
Timothy Castagne
—
—
2
—
0.14
—
—
Calvin Bassey
—
—
2
—
0.17
—
—
Ryan Sessegnon
2
2 (100%)
1
1
0.03
—
—
Kevin
4
4 (100%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
David Affengruber
—
—
1
—
0.08
—
—
Sander Berge
—
—
1
—
0.03
1
—
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
Saša Lukić
M
671
2.41
35
16.2
Oscar Bobb
M
575
2.50
24
5.9
Josh King
M
669
1.48
14
4.1
Antonee Robinson
D
631
1.14
12
9.2
Gonzalo García
F
680
0.66
10
2.2
Shea Charles
M
581
0.62
10
6.9
Sander Berge
M
583
1.39
4
4.6
Timothy Castagne
D
610
0.59
6
7.6
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)
Saša Lukic
W
671
16 (75%)
5 (40%)
Antonee Robinson
FB
631
8 (38%)
11 (18%)
Timothy Castagne
FB
610
9 (22%)
6 (33%)
Oscar Bobb
W
575
4 (50%)
9 (78%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Calvin Bassey
D
756
136
15
6
28
Antonee Robinson
D
631
115
17
4
21
Timothy Castagne
D
610
112
13
5
26
Shea Charles
M
581
101
11
11
35
David Affengruber
D
474
85
8
5
15
Gonzalo García
F
680
85
2
1
12
Oscar Bobb
M
575
74
11
5
25
Josh King
M
669
64
8
1
24
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (18 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Bernd Leno
G
8
756
0
0.0
0
19
22
6.3
Calvin Bassey
D
8
756
0
0.3
0
31
136
12.3
Gonzalo García
F
8
680
1
2.6
5
7
85
2.2
Saša Lukić
M
8
671
1
1.2
18
70
59
16.2
Josh King
M
8
669
2
1.6
11
14
64
4.1
Antonee Robinson
D
7
631
0
0.2
8
53
115
9.2
Timothy Castagne
D
7
610
0
0.5
4
42
112
7.6
Sander Berge
M
8
583
0
0.3
9
5
57
4.6
Shea Charles
M
8
581
0
0.2
4
14
101
6.9
Oscar Bobb
M
8
575
1
1.1
16
34
74
5.9
David Affengruber
D
5
474
0
0.1
1
12
85
5.7
César Palacios
M
6
264
1
1.0
3
4
43
1.0
Joachim Andersen
D
3
202
0
0.0
3
9
49
3.5
Ryan Sessegnon
D
5
180
1
0.3
1
16
29
3.1
Kenny Tete
D
3
143
0
0.0
2
12
28
1.9
Hugo Larsson
M
5
123
0
0.3
0
6
13
1.2
Kevin
M
5
101
0
0.3
0
6
19
0.9
Rodrigo Muniz
F
6
100
0
0.4
1
1
23
0.1
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.
Bernd Leno
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes756
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /902.3
key passes /900.00
def actions /902.6
pass accuracy79%
Calvin Bassey
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes756
goals · xG0 · 0.3
prog passes /903.7
key passes /900.00
def actions /9016.2
pass accuracy91%
Gonzalo García
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes680
goals · xG1 · 2.6
prog passes /900.9
key passes /900.66
def actions /9011.2
pass accuracy75%
Saša Lukić
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes671
goals · xG1 · 1.2
prog passes /909.4
key passes /902.41
def actions /907.9
pass accuracy88%
Josh King
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes669
goals · xG2 · 1.6
prog passes /901.9
key passes /901.48
def actions /908.6
pass accuracy82%
Antonee Robinson
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes631
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /907.6
key passes /901.14
def actions /9016.4
pass accuracy77%
Timothy Castagne
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes610
goals · xG0 · 0.5
prog passes /906.2
key passes /900.59
def actions /9016.5
pass accuracy82%
Sander Berge
Box-to-box midfielder · Midfielder
minutes583
goals · xG0 · 0.3
prog passes /900.8
key passes /901.39
def actions /908.8
pass accuracy91%
Shea Charles
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes581
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /902.2
key passes /900.62
def actions /9015.6
pass accuracy91%
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: press intensity (PPDA) (30th pct)
Sign a high-energy presser to lift defensive intensity. The data flags this because the press is passive (5.52, 30th percentile vs the league).
Need — below-average: xG created /game (50th pct)
Sign a higher-volume goalscorer or chance creator. The data flags this because the attack under-produces xG (1.33, 50th percentile vs the league).