Vision AI ← BACK TO SEARCHSeason2025/262026 · this seasonAll seasons
Building the full report
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.

balanced-territoryaggressive high-pressmoderate attack
L
D
W
L
L
D
W
L
L
L
D
D
L
W
W
8
points
#15 of 20 · 8 games
8:10
goals
-2 GD
2-2-4
record
W-D-L
1.00
points/game
#15 in the league
1.33
xG for/game
rank #10
1.13
xG against/game
rank #6
#14
press rank
of 20 · most aggressive
54%
field tilt
#7
Fulham
League average
Expected goals for / game
1.331.33
Expected goals against / game
1.131.33
Field tilt
54%50%
Pass retention
85%80%
Overview

The team

Who they are and how the season went.

Who Are They? — Identity

The question
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.

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
12Ipswich83141216-410
13Bournemouth82331213-19
14Tottenham8233810-29
15Fulham8224810-28
16Man Utd81431013-37
17Crystal Palace8215919-107
18Nottingham Forest8134610-46

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)
even0-15'16-30'31-45'46-60'61-75'76-90+'+1.04-0.33
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.

0481210.69.1Chelsea (H) 2-3 · xG 1.25 to 1.85Sunderland (A) 0-1 · xG 0.89 to 1.28Crystal Palace (H) 2-3 · xG 3.16 to 1.06Liverpool (A) 0-0 · xG 0.74 to 1.11Man Utd (H) 1-1 · xG 1.47 to 1.91Ipswich (A) 1-2 · xG 1.15 to 1.07Hull City (H) 1-0 · xG 1.33 to 0.20Coventry (A) 1-0 · xG 0.66 to 0.58M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8
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).

Possess75Disrupt29Finish29Press19Defend30
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.

Keeping the ball6 sections

Field Tilt — Territorial Control

The question
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.

Arsenal: 64% tilt, 2.62 pts/gMan City: 66% tilt, 2.62 pts/gBrighton: 61% tilt, 2.00 pts/gLiverpool: 56% tilt, 1.88 pts/gChelsea: 47% tilt, 1.62 pts/gBrentford: 47% tilt, 1.38 pts/gNewcastle: 48% tilt, 1.38 pts/gLeeds: 43% tilt, 1.38 pts/gAston Villa: 40% tilt, 1.38 pts/gIpswich: 43% tilt, 1.25 pts/gHull City: 33% tilt, 1.25 pts/gEverton: 49% tilt, 1.25 pts/gTottenham: 62% tilt, 1.12 pts/gBournemouth: 50% tilt, 1.12 pts/gFulham: 54% tilt, 1.00 pts/gMan Utd: 60% tilt, 0.88 pts/gCrystal Palace: 39% tilt, 0.88 pts/gCoventry: 39% tilt, 0.75 pts/gNottingham Forest: 48% tilt, 0.75 pts/gSunderland: 48% tilt, 0.62 pts/gFulham33%44%55%66%0.61.32.02.6FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
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.

Build-up: 30.9% of the time on the ball31%Progression: 44.2% of the time on the ball44%Chance creation: 24.0% of the time on the ball24%Attacking transition: 0.9% of the time on the ball44%PROGRESSION
PhaseShare of the time
Build-up30.9%
Progression44.2%
Chance creation24.0%
Attacking transition0.9%
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.

Bernd Leno ↔ Calvin Bassey: 131 passes, -0.2 combined xTSaša Lukic ↔ Antonee Robinson: 118 passes, 1.8 combined xTSaša Lukic ↔ Calvin Bassey: 112 passes, 0.4 combined xTAntonee Robinson ↔ Calvin Bassey: 107 passes, -0.3 combined xTCalvin Bassey ↔ Shea Charles: 91 passes, -0.7 combined xTSaša Lukic ↔ Shea Charles: 84 passes, 1.1 combined xTSander Berge ↔ Calvin Bassey: 80 passes, -0.4 combined xTTimothy Castagne ↔ Sander Berge: 78 passes, 0.3 combined xTTimothy Castagne ↔ Josh King: 73 passes, 1.2 combined xTTimothy Castagne ↔ Oscar Bobb: 68 passes, 1.3 combined xTSander Berge ↔ Shea Charles: 57 passes, 0.1 combined xTSaša Lukic ↔ Sander Berge: 56 passes, 0.3 combined xTTimothy Castagne ↔ Shea Charles: 53 passes, 0.5 combined xTAntonee Robinson ↔ Shea Charles: 52 passes, 0.3 combined xTOscar Bobb ↔ Josh King: 47 passes, 0.5 combined xTBernd Leno ↔ Sander Berge: 44 passes, -0.4 combined xTSander Berge ↔ Oscar Bobb: 42 passes, 0.2 combined xTAntonee Robinson ↔ Gonzalo García: 40 passes, 1.4 combined xTSaša Lukic ↔ César Palacios: 38 passes, 0.3 combined xTSaša Lukic ↔ Gonzalo García: 37 passes, 0.8 combined xTSander Berge ↔ Josh King: 37 passes, 0.3 combined xTSaša Lukic ↔ Josh King: 35 passes, 1.4 combined xTCalvin Bassey ↔ Josh King: 34 passes, -0.0 combined xTTimothy Castagne ↔ Calvin Bassey: 33 passes, 0.3 combined xTBernd Leno — isolate this player's connectionsLenoSaša Lukic — isolate this player's connectionsLukicIssa Diop — isolate this player's connectionsDiopSander Berge — isolate this player's connectionsBergeCalvin Bassey — isolate this player's connectionsBasseyShea Charles — isolate this player's connectionsCharlesGonzalo García — isolate this player's connectionsGarcíaJosh King — isolate this player's connectionsKingOscar Bobb — isolate this player's connectionsBobbAntonee Robinson — isolate this player's connectionsRobinsonTimothy Castagne — isolate this player's connectionsCastagneSamuel Amissah — isolate this player's connectionsAmissahRodrigo Muniz — isolate this player's connectionsMunizHarry Wilson — isolate this player's connectionsWilsonCésar Palacios — isolate this player's connectionsPalaciosRyan Sessegnon — isolate this player's connectionsSessegnon
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
5%5%12%5%5%8%9%10%11%8%6%3%2%4%7%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
1163
ACTIONS
3%7%10%6%4%8%10%13%11%8%5%3%2%2%7%CARRIES
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.

41%Left side21%Middle38%Right sideATTACKING →
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.

Left wing: 130 entries (36%)13036%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 59 entries (16%)5916%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 39 entries (11%)3911%CENTRERight half-space: 44 entries (12%)4412%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 86 entries (24%)8624%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing13016.236%31%
Left half-space597.416%16%
Centre394.911%13%
Right half-space445.512%14%
Right wing8610.824%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%
left: 272 passes, most from Bassey272right: 257 passes, most from Affengruber257
Long Wide32 · 2%
left: 22 passes, most from Leno22right: 10 passes, most from Leno10
Long Central9 · 1%
left: 5 passes, most from Leno5right: 4 passes, most from Leno4
Wide → FB567 · 44%
right: 298 passes, most from Leno298left: 269 passes, most from Leno269
Central164 · 13%
left: 92 passes, most from Berge92right: 72 passes, most from Berge72
◆ 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.

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%
left: 355 passes, most from Bassey355right: 304 passes, most from Affengruber304
Long Wide57 · 3%
left: 31 passes, most from Robinson31right: 26 passes, most from Lukic26
Long Central13 · 1%
left: 7 passes, most from Berge7right: 6 passes, most from Lukic6
Wide → FB1008 · 49%
left: 526 passes, most from Lukic526right: 482 passes, most from Castagne482
Central302 · 15%
right: 157 passes, most from Berge157left: 145 passes, most from Charles145
◆ 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.

Carries Map — progressive ball-carries, squad-wide

The question
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
Attacking transition: 25 shots (22%)22%25Settled attack: 69 shots (60%)60%69Set piece: 21 shots (18%)18%21115SHOTS
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set upShotsGoalsxGxG / shot
Attacking transition 22% of shots2512.400.10
Cross200.220.11
Cut-back600.910.15
Pass into the box / short pass1200.920.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)510.340.07
Settled attack 60% of shots6946.780.10
Cross1000.690.07
Cut-back1101.430.13
Long ball200.190.09
Pass into the box / short pass3823.390.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)821.080.13
Set piece 18% of shots2121.480.07
Corner1921.420.07
Free kick200.060.03

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

PlayerSet-upsxG createdGoals
Saša Lukic131.430
Oscar Bobb141.310
Gonzalo García61.060
Josh King70.910
Sander Berge90.561

Who takes them

PlayerShotsxGGoals
Gonzalo García212.621
Josh King211.582
Saša Lukic121.211
Oscar Bobb111.071
César Palacios81.011
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%
left: 5 passes, most from Cuenca5right: 4 passes, most from Andersen4
Long Central5 · 6%
right: 4 passes, most from Lukic4
Wide → FB37 · 42%
right: 19 passes, most from Bobb19left: 18 passes, most from Robinson18
Central38 · 43%
right: 21 passes, most from Lukic21left: 17 passes, most from King17

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.

deep right wing: 14 crosses (11%)11%14deep right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep centre: 0 crosses (0%)deep left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep left wing: 2 crosses (2%)2%2advanced right wing: 20 crosses (15%)15%20advanced right half-space: 3 crosses (2%)2%3advanced centre: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1advanced left wing: 25 crosses (19%)19%25byline right wing: 25 crosses (19%)19%25byline right half-space: 4 crosses (3%)3%4byline centre: 0 crosses (0%)byline left half-space: 3 crosses (2%)2%3byline left wing: 34 crosses (26%)26%34
TerritoryCrossesShareLed to a shot
byline · left wing3426%2
advanced · left wing2519%5
byline · right wing2519%3
advanced · right wing2015%3
deep · right wing1411%0
byline · right half-space43%0
advanced · right half-space32%1
byline · left half-space32%0
deep · left wing22%1
advanced · left half-space11%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

71 of 258 pass attempts lost here (28%).28%71/258Affengrube29 of 250 pass attempts lost here (12%).12%29/250Leno82 of 579 pass attempts lost here (14%).14%82/579Leno19 of 239 pass attempts lost here (8%).8%19/239Leno50 of 226 pass attempts lost here (22%).22%50/226Robinson69 of 378 pass attempts lost here (18%).18%69/378Castagne36 of 467 pass attempts lost here (8%).8%36/467Bassey45 of 507 pass attempts lost here (9%).9%45/507Berge48 of 534 pass attempts lost here (9%).9%48/534Bassey51 of 402 pass attempts lost here (13%).13%51/402Robinson70 of 309 pass attempts lost here (23%).23%70/309Bobb45 of 168 pass attempts lost here (27%).27%45/168King18 of 105 pass attempts lost here (17%).17%18/105Bobb36 of 173 pass attempts lost here (21%).21%36/173Robinson65 of 321 pass attempts lost here (20%).20%65/321Robinsonattacking →

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.

Pressing2 sections

Pressing — the full picture

The football question
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

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)—#14/20lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game143#18/20
High-press share20%#16/20def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)36.7#18/20avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game18.0#17/20ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share47%#19/20share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed80%#12/20lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed9.6%#16/20of 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

← opponent shot at own goal

Every opponent key pass against them (76 total)

1%4%11%7%1%13%20%11%18%14%Morgan RogersCole PalmerJoão PedroReece JamesMaxence LacroixMorgan RogersRoméo LaviaRoméo LaviaJoão PedroCole PalmerCole PalmerMorgan RogersMorgan RogersEnzo FernándezNilson AnguloTrai HumeGranit XhakaGranit XhakaThomas MeunierEnzo Le FéeHabib DiarraGranit XhakaGranit XhakaAxel DisasiYéremy PinoTyrick MitchellYéremy PinoEddie NketiahDaichi KamadaYéremy PinoYouri TielemansMarcus RashfordBryan MbeumoBruno FernandesMatheus CunhaDiogo DalotMarcus RashfordKobbie MainooMarcus RashfordMatheus CunhaBruno FernandesMatheus CunhaDaizen MaedaSamuel AmissahEmersonnJulio EncisoFlorentinoSamuel AmissahJack ClarkeMarcus RashfordBruno FernandesBruno FernandesLisandro MartínezJoshua ZirkzeePatrick DorguHarry MaguireBryan MbeumoBradley BarcolaDominik SzoboszlaiFlorian WirtzDominik SzoboszlaiRyan GravenberchDominik SzoboszlaiFlorian WirtzAlexis Mac AllisterVirgil van DijkJeremie FrimpongAlexis Mac AllisterDominik SzoboszlaiJeremie FrimpongHidemasa MoritaJack RudoniMatt GrimesJack RudoniJack RudoniJay Dasilva← own goal

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.

Premium
Tactical Phase Read
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.
Subscribe →

Set-Piece Threat

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)

11%11%14%11%18%32%4%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Left side (21)

5%29%5%5%33%19%5%
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)

29%29%14%29%
Shot 7Goals 0

Left flag (15)

20%20%13%20%7%20%
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 typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)0.501.000.50
vs mid-block opponents (2m)1.002.000.00
vs low-block opponents (4m)1.251.001.75

Behaviour — how Fulham actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents78%15%389.614.0
vs mid-block opponents84%11%4011.111.0
vs low-block opponents88%8%5313.821.5
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.]
Squad

Players

Who drives the numbers.

Against Their Own Norm

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.

Fulham
across 8 matches this season
Expected goalsvs Crystal Palace · 2-3 · 2026-09-053.16avg 1.33
Pass accuracyat Liverpool · 0-0 · 2026-09-1274%avg 84%
Progressive passesvs Hull City · 1-0 · 2026-10-1774avg 46
Defensive actionsat Coventry · 1-0 · 2026-10-24157avg 143
Final-third entriesvs Crystal Palace · 2-3 · 2026-09-0562avg 45
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)ActionsOBVper 100
Saša Lukic703+2.25+0.32
Gonzalo García244+1.83+0.75
Josh King470+1.49+0.32
Oscar Bobb347+1.13+0.33
Bernd Leno418+0.69+0.16
Timothy Castagne523+0.57+0.11
Rodrigo Muniz24+0.42+1.73
Calvin Bassey824+0.39+0.05
123456
Biggest single movesOBV
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.

PlayerCorners takenInto the boxSet-piece shotsGoalsxGFree-kick shotsPenalties
Oscar Bobb2421 (88%)310.151—
Saša Lukic1913 (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 Sessegnon22 (100%)110.03——
Kevin44 (100%)——0.00——
David Affengruber——1—0.08——
Sander Berge——1—0.031—

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.

playerposminVision AI Scorecapability blocks
Bernd LenoGK7566.9Shot-Stopping 69%
Saša LukićW6716.3Ball-Carrying 74%Box Threat 67%Chance Creation 66%Wide Delivery 46%
Antonee RobinsonFB6316.0Ball-Carrying 88%Ball-Winning 77%Wide Delivery 40%
David AffengruberCB4745.3Ball-Carrying 86%Ball-Winning 78%Progression 62%Aerial & Box Defending 26%
Shea CharlesCM5814.8Ball-Carrying 61%Successful Dribble 54%Chance Creation 42%Progression 36%
Calvin BasseyCB7564.2Ball-Carrying 92%Progression 58%Ball-Winning 53%Aerial & Box Defending 11%
Timothy CastagneFB6104.0Ball-Winning 58%Ball-Carrying 40%Wide Delivery 16%
Oscar BobbW5753.4Ball-Carrying 48%Chance Creation 47%Wide Delivery 40%Box Threat 3%
Sander BergeCM5833.0Ball-Carrying 56%Progression 32%Successful Dribble 26%Chance Creation 11%
Josh KingAM6692.6Ball-Carrying 57%Box Threat 54%Chance Creation 12%

Top Creators

Chance creation leaders — key passes /90 and box entries.

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Saša LukićM6712.413516.2
Oscar BobbM5752.50245.9
Josh KingM6691.48144.1
Antonee RobinsonD6311.14129.2
Gonzalo GarcíaF6800.66102.2
Shea CharlesM5810.62106.9
Sander BergeM5831.3944.6
Timothy CastagneD6100.5967.6

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.

playerposmincrosses (completed)cutbacks (completed)
Saša LukicW67116 (75%)5 (40%)
Antonee RobinsonFB6318 (38%)11 (18%)
Timothy CastagneFB6109 (22%)6 (33%)
Oscar BobbW5754 (50%)9 (78%)

Defensive Volume Leaders

Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
Calvin BasseyD75613615628
Antonee RobinsonD63111517421
Timothy CastagneD61011213526
Shea CharlesM581101111135
David AffengruberD474858515
Gonzalo GarcíaF680852112
Oscar BobbM5757411525
Josh KingM669648124

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (18 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Bernd LenoG875600.0019226.3
Calvin BasseyD875600.303113612.3
Gonzalo GarcíaF868012.657852.2
Saša LukićM867111.218705916.2
Josh KingM866921.61114644.1
Antonee RobinsonD763100.28531159.2
Timothy CastagneD761000.54421127.6
Sander BergeM858300.395574.6
Shea CharlesM858100.24141016.9
Oscar BobbM857511.11634745.9
David AffengruberD547400.1112855.7
César PalaciosM626411.034431.0
Joachim AndersenD320200.039493.5
Ryan SessegnonD518010.3116293.1
Kenny TeteD314300.0212281.9
Hugo LarssonM512300.306131.2
KevinM510100.306190.9
Rodrigo MunizF610000.411230.1

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).
Vision AI · building report