Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportPremier League 2025/26
Fulham
A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Finished #11 of 20 on 52 points (15-7-16, 47:51). Tactical profile below is built from 38 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 finished #11 of 20 on 52 points (15W-7D-16L, 1.37 pts/game), scoring 47 and conceding 51 for a goal difference of -4.
On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (49% field tilt, #11 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#18 of 20 for press intensity).
Across the 38 matches of event data, they create 1.26 xG/game (#13) and concede 1.33 (#9), a net of -0.07 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
8
Brighton
38
14
11
13
52
46
+6
53
9
Brentford
38
14
11
13
55
52
+3
53
10
Chelsea
38
14
10
14
58
52
+6
52
11
Fulham
38
15
7
16
47
51
-4
52
12
Newcastle
38
14
7
17
53
55
-2
49
13
Everton
38
13
10
15
47
50
-3
49
14
Leeds
38
11
14
13
49
56
-7
47
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 come alive after the break — first-half net xG -2.52, second-half -0.11. Their strongest period is 76-90+' (net +5.31 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 46-60' (net -2.87 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 38 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 (-2.6 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.
55
Build-Up
possession control from the back
65
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
53
Creation
manufacturing chances
28
Press
winning the ball high & hard
55
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Fulham are defined most by their Progression DNA (65/100 · average at moving the ball upfield with threat), and least by their Press DNA (28/100). 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 49% field tilt, ranking #11 of 20 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 1.37 points/game sits above 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
32.0%
Progression
45.5%
Chance creation
20.7%
Attacking transition
1.8%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Fulham spends most of its time on the ball (45% 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
Andersen ↔ Bassey
595p · 9.0xT
Leno ↔ Andersen
564p · 19.3xT
Andersen ↔ Berge
468p · 14.2xT
Leno ↔ Bassey
465p · 17.4xT
Lukic ↔ Berge
338p · 12.5xT
Castagne ↔ Andersen
315p · 12.0xT
Lukic ↔ Bassey
309p · 17.2xT
Berge ↔ Bassey
276p · 6.6xT
Lukic ↔ Andersen
237p · 11.7xT
Lukic ↔ Sessegnon
232p · 13.1xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Joachim Andersen ↔ Calvin Bassey (595 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Joachim Andersen ↔ Harry Wilson (0.09 xT/pass over 159 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 380 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
19614
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
5087
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (11.8% 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: 32% 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 (44%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Fulham
44%22%34%
League
39%23%38%
Final-Third Entries
Every completed pass or carry that took the ball from outside the final third into it, by the channel it arrived in. Fulham made 1566 this season (41.2 a match); 35% 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
552
14.5
35%
29%
Left half-space
278
7.3
18%
16%
Centre
153
4.0
10%
12%
Right half-space
190
5.0
12%
14%
Right wing
393
10.3
25%
29%
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.
6458build-up passes attempted
82%completed
25%reach the middle third
1%go long into the final third
Pass types
2078CB · 39%
264Long Wide · 5%
57Long Central · 1%
2253Wide → FB · 42%
674Central · 13%
Sequence success — build-up
1169build-up sequences this season
10%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
44%turned over with nothing to show
CB2078 · 39%
Long Wide264 · 5%
Long Central57 · 1%
Wide → FB2253 · 42%
Central674 · 13%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Fulham build predominantly down the left, with Leno as the fulcrum (1243 build-up passes). Only 26% 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 (396×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Fulham’s last 10 matches as an arrow, theirs first and the opponents’ with other team, each side attacking left to right (solid = completed, dashed grey = failed). Eight families per team — click any map to open it wide, then filter by channel or third, from one to another (or click a cell of the flow grids), by outcome, half, minute and passer. Channels: right wing, right half-space, centre, left half-space, left wing.
From channel
To channel
From third
To third
Outcome
Minutes
Channel to channel · click a cell
Third to third · click a cell
Progression4 sections
How They Progress — the mechanism
Not just how many progressive passes, but where they start, who plays them, and whether they actually penetrate. 1658 progressive passes across 38 matches (43.6/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
27%
Right half-space
13%
Central
12%
Left half-space
12%
Left wing
36%
Progression is left-dominant: 39% right side · 12% central · 48% left.
Who generates it
Saša Lukic
189 · 11%
Joachim Andersen
169 · 10%
Antonee Robinson
169 · 10%
Kenny Tete
130 · 8%
Bernd Leno
114 · 7%
Top two — Saša Lukic & Joachim Andersen — account for 22% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
43.6 prog passes/game
mostly left
→
PENETRATION
25% reach final third
22% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 75% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.25% of progressive passes reached the final third and 22% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 22% 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
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.
9081progression passes attempted
86%completed
15%break into the final third
12%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
2298CB · 29%
240Long Wide · 3%
70Long Central · 1%
4029Wide → FB · 52%
1179Central · 15%
Sequence success — progression
1837progression sequences this season
25%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
43%turned over with nothing to show
CB2298 · 29%
Long Wide240 · 3%
Long Central70 · 1%
Wide → FB4029 · 52%
Central1179 · 15%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Fulham progress predominantly down the left, with Andersen the busiest midfield outlet (1042 progression passes). Only 15% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (73%) 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 (411×) — press that lane and midfield progression stalls.
Decision Quality — not all completed passes are equal
A 90% pass completion can hide a sideways habit. Grading every pass by the threat it adds separates value creation from safe circulation.
Excellent (high xT gain)
12%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
49%
Safe / backward
37%
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?
1251 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (25% of 5018 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 52m. Most active carrier: Bassey (165). Filter to one player below.
First (428)Second (296)Third (294)Fourth (233)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.
484shots
47.7xG
0.10xG per shot
26big chances (0.3+ xG)
43goals
#9key passes / game in the league
#6box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition19% of shots
94
3
7.74
0.08
Cross
5
0
0.67
0.13
Cut-back
16
0
1.97
0.12
Long ball
3
0
0.26
0.09
Pass into the box / short pass
51
3
3.63
0.07
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
19
0
1.21
0.06
Settled attack59% of shots
284
26
26.65
0.09
Cross
52
3
5.62
0.11
Cut-back
25
1
2.58
0.10
Long ball
8
1
0.47
0.06
Pass into the box / short pass
134
15
11.83
0.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
65
6
6.15
0.09
Set piece22% of shots
106
14
13.33
0.13
Corner
88
8
8.93
0.10
Free kick
13
1
0.43
0.03
Penalty
5
5
3.97
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
Saša Lukic
33
3.38
2
Samuel Chukwueze
23
2.80
4
Harry Wilson
24
2.32
3
Ryan Sessegnon
14
1.94
1
Kevin
15
1.82
1
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Raúl Jiménez
74
10.85
9
Harry Wilson
78
5.27
10
Emile Smith Rowe
36
4.16
3
Josh King
26
3.47
1
Rodrigo Muniz
32
3.25
1
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Fulham's chances, by xG, is settled attack (26.6 of 47.7 xG, 284 of 484 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 94 of the 484 shots (19%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 106 of the 484 shots came from set pieces; 43 goals from 47.7 xG (-4.7).
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
17CB · 5%
11Long Wide · 3%
27Long Central · 8%
115Wide → FB · 35%
163Central · 49%
Sequence success — final-third
1162final-third sequences this season
26%succeed — produce a shot
38%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
CB17 · 5%
Long Wide11 · 3%
Long Central27 · 8%
Wide → FB115 · 35%
Central163 · 49%
Who creates — volume × threat
43Lukic
39Wilson
27Amissah
23Chukwueze
22Jiménez
22Robinson
21Berge
333key passes #9 of 20
14.3box entries/game #6 of 20
32.0final-3rd entries/game #9 of 20
1.26xG/game #13 of 20
43goals #14 of 20
-4.7finishing vs xG #12 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Fulham lean left — 45% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (149 of 333), most often from Lukic (26). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via LW att → C att (50 key passes, most often from Lukic). Lukic is the primary source overall. They generate 1.26 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Harry Wilson (10G), Raúl Jiménez (9G), Saša Lukic (4G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Fulham deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
557 crosses: 210 found a team-mate (38%), 61 led to a shot (11%). 153 cut-backs: 71 found a team-mate (46%), 39 led to a shot (25%). 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?
557 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. 33% come from one territory, the byline left wing; 23 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
byline · left wing
185
33%
23
advanced · left wing
114
20%
12
byline · right wing
101
18%
12
advanced · right wing
77
14%
9
deep · left wing
35
6%
1
deep · right wing
22
4%
2
byline · left half-space
8
1%
0
byline · right half-space
5
1%
2
advanced · right half-space
4
1%
0
advanced · left half-space
4
1%
0
deep · right half-space
2
0%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
484 shots for 47.7 xG (1.26/game, #13 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Moderate attack. 12.7 shots/game at 0.099 xG/shot. Box entries 14/game (#6). Threat created 10.6 xT/game (#9).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Fulham’s 47 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 — 47 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
29 · 67%
Set pieces
9 · 21%
Penalties
5 · 12%
By finish
Right foot
15 · 35%
Left foot
20 · 47%
Header
8 · 19%
Vision AI Model Insight
43 goals scored. 67% come in open play; set pieces add 21%. 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
1155
Failed forward pass
727
Failed take-on
339
Lost in the defensive third
1132
Their weakest zone is the left half-space in the attacking third: 31% of 776 pass attempts there are lost (242 times). Separately, 33% 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.
18
Pressing Index /100 · passive
Intensity3
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height5
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness28
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption40
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
16%
RHS
20%
C
21%
LHS
19%
LW
24%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 54%
Mid 35%
Att 11%
Read
Ranked #18 of 20 for press intensity, this is a high press. Note the tension: 54% of their raw defensive actions still occur in their own third — a possession effect, not a passive one. Dominating the ball (18% high-press share) means that when they do defend, it is often deep. Of recoveries, 52% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#18/20
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
132
#15/20
High-press share
18%
#20/20
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
35.2
#19/20
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
20.1
#15/20
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
52%
#14/20
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
81%
#15/20
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
8.5%
#9/20
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 1163 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 3.7 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
4.5passes
median 3 · before Fulham win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
13sec
median 6s · 30.6 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
48%
26%
13%
13%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
5.7
16s
15–30′
5.8
18s
30–45+′
5.0
14s
45–60′
4.0
11s
60–75′
4.0
11s
75–90+′
3.5
10s
average passesaverage seconds
Phases of play
Every moment of the match read twice — what Fulham were doing with the
ball, and what the opposition were doing about it at that exact moment. Built from the
real action sequence in time order, so one possession is split across the phases it
genuinely passed through rather than labelled once by where it began.
7,115phase segments analysed
10.0smedian time before the opposition engage
2.0their passes per defensive action when pressed
#17of 20 for share of defending spent pressing high
High press 6.3%Mid block 11.0%Low block 52.1%Unopposed 30.6%
What opponents do against Fulham
The mirror image, and the part no other section can show: whether teams come
out to press Fulham or sit in and invite them on. A side that is always faced with a low
block is playing a different sport from one that is pressed every week.
High press 8.4%Mid block 14.3%Low block 48.7%Unopposed 28.6%
Which phases actually produce
Phase
Segments
Avg length
Avg actions
Ends in shot
Turned over
Build-up
2,372
6.0s
3.5
0.3%
47.1%
Progression
2,948
6.8s
4.2
0.5%
44.3%
Chance creation
1,690
5.4s
3.4
26.3%
51.4%
Attacking transition
105
7.6s
4.4
1.0%
32.4%
Most common routes through the phases
How a possession actually travelled, in order. The chain is the tactical signature — a move that climbs all three thirds is a different thing from one that never leaves the first.
Route
Times
Ends in shot
build_up
898
0.3%
progression
668
0.1%
build_up → progression
399
0.0%
chance_creation
362
37.3%
progression → chance_creation
299
24.7%
build_up → progression → chance_creation
217
28.6%
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) 6,458 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use+0.0921.18
Wide-channel share+0.090.31
Side bias+0.140.69
Pass length-0.5020.89
Long-ball share-0.500.18
Forward gain per pass-0.499.31
Backward-pass share+0.440.22
Deep-pass share-0.510.24
Completion+0.340.82
Seconds between passes-0.413.08
Side used
left 28% · central 45% · right 27%
Progression (middle third) 9,081 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.2625.03
Wide-channel share-0.310.38
Side bias+0.411.69
Pass length-0.1617.01
Long-ball share-0.310.09
Forward gain per pass-0.452.93
Backward-pass share+0.240.35
Deep-pass share-0.470.14
Completion+0.220.86
Seconds between passes-0.093.16
Side used
left 37% · central 30% · right 32%
Final third 4,075 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use+0.0731.79
Wide-channel share+0.020.59
Side bias+0.754.80
Pass length+0.0015.47
Long-ball share-0.180.09
Forward gain per pass-0.230.74
Backward-pass share+0.230.40
Deep-pass share-0.160.08
Completion+0.120.71
Seconds between passes-0.183.26
Side used
left 49% · central 15% · right 36%
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
#17 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
#16 of 20 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
112attacking transition sequences this season
12%succeed — produce a shot
50%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
342defensive transition sequences this season
63%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
11%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 (#17), 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? 1558 opponent progressive passes and 448 shots faced (50.4 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Fulham)
Right wing
32%
Right half-space
14%
Central
16%
Left half-space
12%
Left wing
25%
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 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 (318 total)
By situation
Open play
39 · 81%
Set pieces
6 · 12%
Penalties
3 · 6%
Vision AI Model Insight
48 goals conceded. 81% come in open play; set pieces account for only 12%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 12% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the left half-space of the attacking third (19% of key passes faced) — that is the zone to shut off.
Context
Shape and tactics
Set pieces, strengths and weaknesses, and who they resemble.
The tactical idea behind each phase of this team's play, written from the same numbers shown above — what they do in build-up, how they progress, where they create, and how they defend it.
How much of the goal threat is manufactured from dead balls — a route to goal that bypasses their open-play mechanism entirely.
Open play
29 g · 34.4 xG
Set pieces
9 g · 9.4 xG
Penalties
5 g
21% of goals come from set pieces (9 of 43), worth 9.4 xG from 101 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Fulham's corners go?
187 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 (78)
Delivered into the box 97%Short 3%
Left side (109)
Delivered into the box 98%Short 2%
Where opponents attack Fulham from set pieces
83 shots from opponent corners against Fulham, 6 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 (41)
Shot 41Goals 2
Left flag (42)
Shot 42Goals 4
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
progression /game — 43.63 (75th pct)
box entries /game — 14.26 (70th pct)
pass retention % — 81.89 (65th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
press intensity (PPDA) — 7.16 (10th pct)
xG created /game — 1.26 (35th 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.
Aston Villa
86%
Man City
41%
Nottingham Forest
39%
Liverpool
38%
Chelsea
37%
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 (12m)
1.08
1.33
1.42
vs mid-block opponents (12m)
1.08
1.17
1.42
vs low-block opponents (14m)
1.50
1.50
1.29
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
79%
14%
38
9.3
12.7
vs mid-block opponents
82%
12%
45
11.1
14.3
vs low-block opponents
83%
11%
47
11.3
15.6
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 79% vs 83% against a low block (5pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 14% when pressed vs 11% against a low block — a mild adjustment, not a wholesale change.
Scouting Summary — the team in brief
In brief. Fulham are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.26 xG a game and they concede 1.33 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.
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 12 matches added up: where the value came from, who produced it, and the six biggest single moves. OBV only measures what a player does with the ball: it shows who added the most on-ball value, not who was the most important player (defending off the ball, positioning and pressing are not in it).
+21.4on-ball value, 12 matches
Where the value came from
Passes6045 actions+7.92
Carries1647 actions-0.49
Dribbles161 actions+0.66
Shots172 actions+10.12
Ball wins711 actions+3.23
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Saša Lukic
743
+2.82
+0.38
Raúl Jiménez
180
+2.17
+1.20
Calvin Bassey
1042
+1.88
+0.18
Oscar Bobb
295
+1.59
+0.54
Bernd Leno
592
+1.51
+0.26
Harry Wilson
390
+1.43
+0.37
Antonee Robinson
657
+1.34
+0.20
Timothy Castagne
515
+1.28
+0.25
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Raúl Jiménez · shot
+0.854
2 Antonee Robinson · shot
+0.792
3 Rodrigo Muniz · shot
+0.433
4 Bernd Leno · pass
+0.421
5 Timothy Castagne · pass
+0.366
6 Josh King · shot
+0.348
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Fulham’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 187 corners taken, most by Harry Wilson (70); 101 shots from corners and free kicks, 9 goals, led by Raúl Jiménez (2 goals, 0.84 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
Harry Wilson
70
55 (79%)
12
1
0.38
6
—
Raúl Jiménez
—
—
15
2
0.84
6
4/4
Saša Lukic
41
36 (88%)
5
—
0.13
—
—
Samuel Amissah
52
44 (85%)
1
—
0.06
—
—
Rodrigo Muniz
—
—
9
1
0.75
—
—
Joachim Andersen
—
—
9
—
1.26
—
—
Timothy Castagne
—
—
8
—
0.76
—
—
Calvin Bassey
—
—
6
1
0.95
—
—
Kenny Tete
—
—
5
—
0.73
—
—
Sander Berge
—
—
5
—
1.16
—
—
Emile Smith Rowe
—
—
5
2
0.81
—
—
Oscar Bobb
5
4 (80%)
3
—
0.26
—
—
Kevin
10
10 (100%)
1
—
0.02
1
—
Samuel Chukwueze
1
1 (100%)
4
1
0.15
—
—
Top Performers
Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 300 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.
Chance creation leaders — key passes /90 and box entries.
player
pos
min
key P /90
box entries
xT
Saša Lukić
M
2505
1.54
85
40.6
Harry Wilson
M
2759
1.27
73
25.4
Samuel Chukwueze
M
1169
1.77
47
11.7
Antonee Robinson
D
1594
1.24
40
28.8
Samuel Amissah
M
1834
1.32
32
13.7
Kevin
M
1156
1.09
38
11.5
Timothy Castagne
D
2008
0.81
30
20.4
Raúl Jiménez
F
2311
0.86
21
7.8
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)
Antonee Robinson
FB
1594
26 (38%)
32 (28%)
Timothy Castagne
FB
2008
13 (62%)
21 (48%)
Ryan Sessegnon
FB
1959
8 (12%)
23 (22%)
Kevin
W
1156
13 (69%)
17 (53%)
Kenny Tete
FB
1886
16 (44%)
6 (50%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Joachim Andersen
D
3115
555
45
36
114
Calvin Bassey
D
2724
408
62
22
119
Sander Berge
M
3074
383
57
25
133
Raúl Jiménez
F
2311
365
35
8
55
Kenny Tete
D
1886
321
65
27
82
Antonee Robinson
D
1594
305
48
29
98
Ryan Sessegnon
D
1959
300
48
25
74
Timothy Castagne
D
2008
278
40
31
56
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (22 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Bernd Leno
G
38
3658
0
0.0
0
114
106
32.1
Joachim Andersen
D
33
3115
0
1.6
6
169
555
50.7
Sander Berge
M
35
3074
0
1.9
21
73
383
28.1
Harry Wilson
M
36
2759
10
5.3
39
113
242
25.4
Calvin Bassey
D
30
2724
1
1.3
8
90
408
29.8
Saša Lukić
M
29
2505
4
2.3
43
189
222
40.6
Raúl Jiménez
F
36
2311
9
10.9
22
29
365
7.8
Emile Smith Rowe
M
37
2024
3
4.2
17
42
187
14.0
Timothy Castagne
D
30
2008
0
1.4
18
112
278
20.4
Ryan Sessegnon
D
27
1959
3
1.7
14
91
300
16.2
Kenny Tete
D
22
1886
1
1.3
11
130
321
24.0
Samuel Amissah
M
26
1834
1
2.2
27
51
258
13.7
Antonee Robinson
D
22
1594
1
1.1
22
169
305
28.8
Josh King
M
32
1400
1
3.5
13
14
149
5.7
Samuel Chukwueze
M
23
1169
3
1.9
23
55
112
11.7
Kevin
M
26
1156
1
1.4
14
60
141
11.5
Rodrigo Muniz
F
21
1062
1
3.2
4
4
203
1.4
Jorge Cuenca
D
15
1011
0
0.1
3
44
191
12.3
Tom Cairney
M
24
889
2
1.1
11
36
85
12.5
Issa Diop
D
13
887
1
0.2
0
26
105
8.0
Oscar Bobb
M
14
620
0
1.3
10
27
64
5.7
Harrison Reed
M
7
129
1
0.1
3
5
13
1.4
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
minutes3658
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /902.8
key passes /900.00
def actions /902.6
pass accuracy80%
Joachim Andersen
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes3115
goals · xG0 · 1.6
prog passes /904.9
key passes /900.17
def actions /9016.0
pass accuracy86%
Sander Berge
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes3074
goals · xG0 · 1.9
prog passes /902.1
key passes /900.61
def actions /9011.2
pass accuracy89%
Harry Wilson
Poacher / finisher · Forward
minutes2759
goals · xG10 · 5.3
prog passes /903.7
key passes /901.27
def actions /907.9
pass accuracy75%
Calvin Bassey
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes2724
goals · xG1 · 1.3
prog passes /903.0
key passes /900.26
def actions /9013.5
pass accuracy87%
Saša Lukić
Deep-lying playmaker · Midfielder
minutes2505
goals · xG4 · 2.3
prog passes /906.8
key passes /901.54
def actions /908.0
pass accuracy82%
Raúl Jiménez
Poacher / finisher · Forward
minutes2311
goals · xG9 · 10.9
prog passes /901.1
key passes /900.86
def actions /9014.2
pass accuracy63%
Emile Smith Rowe
Box-to-box midfielder · Midfielder
minutes2024
goals · xG3 · 4.2
prog passes /901.9
key passes /900.76
def actions /908.3
pass accuracy90%
Timothy Castagne
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes2008
goals · xG0 · 1.4
prog passes /905.0
key passes /900.81
def actions /9012.5
pass accuracy85%
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) (10th pct)
Sign a high-energy presser to lift defensive intensity. The data flags this because the press is passive (7.16, 10th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: xG created /game (35th pct)
Sign a higher-volume goalscorer or chance creator. The data flags this because the attack under-produces xG (1.26, 35th percentile vs the league).
Need — below-average: field tilt % (45th pct)
Sign a possession-controlling midfielder to win the territorial battle. The data flags this because they get pinned back (49.38, 45th percentile vs the league).
← BACK TO SEARCHSeason
