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

Nottingham Forest

A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a high-volume attack. Currently #18 of 20 on 6 points (1-3-4, 6:10). Tactical profile below is built from 8 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.

balanced-territoryaggressive high-presshigh-volume attack
D
W
W
W
D
L
D
L
D
D
W
L
L
L
D
6
points
#18 of 20 · 8 games
6:10
goals
-4 GD
1-3-4
record
W-D-L
0.75
points/game
#18 in the league
1.65
xG for/game
rank #3
1.05
xG against/game
rank #3
#13
press rank
of 20 · most aggressive
48%
field tilt
#11
Nottingham Forest
League average
Expected goals for / game
1.651.33
Expected goals against / game
1.051.33
Field tilt
48%50%
Pass retention
77%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 Nottingham Forest and how good was the season?
Read. Nottingham Forest currently sit #18 of 20 on 6 points (1W-3D-4L, 0.75 pts/game), scoring 6 and conceding 10 for a goal difference of -4. On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (48% field tilt, #11 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#13 of 20 for press intensity). Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 1.65 xG/game (#3) and concede 1.05 (#3), a net of +0.59 xG/game — the underlying performance diverges from the actual goal difference.

Season Context — the league table

The question
Where did Nottingham Forest actually finish, and against whom?

The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Nottingham Forest.

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
15Fulham8224810-28
16Man Utd81431013-37
17Crystal Palace8215919-107
18Nottingham Forest8134610-46
19Coventry8206615-96
20Sunderland8125614-85

Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger

The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Nottingham Forest 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+'+2.03-0.26
Vision AI Model Insight
Nottingham Forest tend to stay fairly even across both halves — first-half net xG +2.26, second-half +2.47. Their strongest period is 61-75' (net +2.03 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 46-60' (net -0.26 xG against them).

xG Race — the season, match by match

Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Nottingham Forest against what their opponents created. A line pulling away upwards is a side creating more than it gives away; the gap at the end is the season’s balance (+4.7 xG). Hover a point for that match.

0591413.28.4Leeds (H) 0-1 · xG 0.71 to 0.69Liverpool (A) 2-2 · xG 2.46 to 1.66Tottenham (H) 0-0 · xG 1.00 to 1.10Aston Villa (A) 2-1 · xG 1.99 to 1.04Coventry (H) 0-1 · xG 1.63 to 0.71Crystal Palace (A) 1-3 · xG 2.70 to 1.74Arsenal (H) 0-1 · xG 0.83 to 0.91Ipswich (A) 1-1 · xG 1.85 to 0.57M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8
Nottingham ForestOpponents against Nottingham Forest

Tactical DNA

The football question
In five genes, what is Nottingham Forest'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.

35
Build-Up
possession control from the back
65
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
80
Creation
manufacturing chances
40
Press
winning the ball high & hard
85
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Nottingham Forest are defined most by their Solidity DNA (85/100 · elite at resisting the opponent's threat), and least by their Build-Up DNA (35/100). 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).

Possess36Disrupt61Finish29Press29Defend33
Possess
Deep buildup
22%
Possession
43%
Field tilt
43%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
52%
Dribble tendency
70%
Progressive passes
61%
Finish
Final-third patience
26%
Shot quality
13%
Open-play xG
48%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
22%
High regains
52%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
13%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
39%
High line ~proxy
22%
PAdj defensive actions
39%
Nottingham Forest is defined most by Disrupt (61% in the league) and weakest on Finish (29%). 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 Nottingham Forest actually control, relative to the rest of the league?

Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Nottingham Forest'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; Nottingham Forest 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/gNottingham Forest33%44%55%66%0.61.32.02.6FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
Vision AI Model Insight
Nottingham Forest post 48% 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 0.75 points/game sits below the league-average return — territory is genuinely converting into results.

Where the time goes — how long each phase lasts

The question
When Nottingham Forest has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?

The share of Nottingham Forest'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: 27.8% of the time on the ball28%Progression: 41.7% of the time on the ball42%Chance creation: 27.3% of the time on the ball27%Attacking transition: 3.3% of the time on the ball42%PROGRESSION
PhaseShare of the time
Build-up27.8%
Progression41.7%
Chance creation27.3%
Attacking transition3.3%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Nottingham Forest spends most of its time on the ball (42% 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.

Neco Williams ↔ Murillo: 118 passes, -0.1 combined xTMatz Sels ↔ Murillo: 62 passes, -0.2 combined xTNikola Milenkovic ↔ Murillo: 60 passes, -0.3 combined xTMorgan Gibbs-White ↔ James McAtee: 56 passes, 1.6 combined xTJames McAtee ↔ Murillo: 56 passes, 0.7 combined xTXaver Schlager ↔ Murillo: 55 passes, -0.2 combined xTMorgan Gibbs-White ↔ Daniel Muñoz: 54 passes, 2.3 combined xTNeco Williams ↔ James McAtee: 54 passes, 1.0 combined xTDaniel Muñoz ↔ James McAtee: 54 passes, 0.1 combined xTXaver Schlager ↔ Morgan Gibbs-White: 45 passes, 1.4 combined xTDaniel Muñoz ↔ Jair Cunha: 45 passes, -0.3 combined xTNikola Milenkovic ↔ Jair Cunha: 43 passes, -0.2 combined xTXaver Schlager ↔ Neco Williams: 39 passes, 0.2 combined xTJames McAtee ↔ Jair Cunha: 38 passes, -0.5 combined xTOla Aina ↔ Morgan Gibbs-White: 37 passes, 0.2 combined xTMatz Sels ↔ Jair Cunha: 34 passes, -0.3 combined xTXaver Schlager ↔ James McAtee: 34 passes, 0.3 combined xTMorgan Gibbs-White ↔ Neco Williams: 34 passes, 1.5 combined xTOla Aina ↔ Daniel Muñoz: 31 passes, -0.3 combined xTJair Cunha ↔ Murillo: 30 passes, -0.2 combined xTXaver Schlager ↔ Daniel Muñoz: 28 passes, 0.4 combined xTNeco Williams ↔ Dan Ndoye: 27 passes, 1.1 combined xTOla Aina ↔ James McAtee: 26 passes, 0.2 combined xTMorgan Gibbs-White ↔ Jair Cunha: 26 passes, 0.4 combined xTMatz Sels — isolate this player's connectionsSelsXaver Schlager — isolate this player's connectionsSchlagerNeco Williams — isolate this player's connectionsWilliamsElliot Anderson — isolate this player's connectionsAndersonJames McAtee — isolate this player's connectionsMcAteeDan Ndoye — isolate this player's connectionsNdoyeMurillo — isolate this player's connectionsMurilloDaniel Muñoz — isolate this player's connectionsMuñozLiam Delap — isolate this player's connectionsDelapMorgan Gibbs-White — isolate this player's connectionsGibbs-WhitTaiwo Awoniyi — isolate this player's connectionsAwoniyiJair Cunha — isolate this player's connectionsCunhaOla Aina — isolate this player's connectionsAinaIbrahim Sangaré — isolate this player's connectionsSangaréIgor Jesus — isolate this player's connectionsJesusNikola Milenkovic — isolate this player's connectionsMilenkovic
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high

Top 10 combinations

Williams ↔ Murillo
118p · -0.1xT
Sels ↔ Murillo
62p · -0.2xT
Milenkovic ↔ Murillo
60p · -0.3xT
Gibbs-White ↔ McAtee
56p · 1.6xT
McAtee ↔ Murillo
56p · 0.7xT
Schlager ↔ Murillo
55p · -0.2xT
Gibbs-White ↔ Muñoz
54p · 2.3xT
Williams ↔ McAtee
54p · 1.0xT
Muñoz ↔ McAtee
54p · 0.1xT
Schlager ↔ Gibbs-White
45p · 1.4xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Neco Williams ↔ Murillo (118 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Morgan Gibbs-White ↔ Neco Williams (0.05 xT/pass over 34 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.

Touch Density — where Nottingham Forest 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 Nottingham Forest 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
3391
ACTIONS
5%6%12%5%6%8%9%9%9%8%6%4%3%4%6%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
664
ACTIONS
3%4%10%5%4%11%8%11%9%10%7%3%2%5%8%CARRIES
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (11.3% of all actions). 60% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 40% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 32% defensive, 44% middle, 24% attacking.

Attack Sides

Which channel they attacked through this season: the share of every action made in the opponent’s half, down the left, through the middle and down the right. Nottingham Forest leaned on their right (37%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.

36%Left side27%Middle37%Right sideATTACKING →
Nottingham Forest
36%27%37%
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. Nottingham Forest made 326 this season (40.8 a match); 28% came into the left wing. Longer, bolder arrows mean more entries. Entries by carrying the ball in count as well as completed passes; dribbles are not counted.

Left wing: 90 entries (28%)9028%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 53 entries (16%)5316%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 44 entries (13%)4413%CENTRERight half-space: 56 entries (17%)5617%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 83 entries (25%)8325%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing9011.228%31%
Left half-space536.616%16%
Centre445.513%13%
Right half-space567.017%14%
Right wing8310.425%27%
Build-up2 sections

Build-Up — the pass map

The football question
How does Nottingham Forest 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.

1129build-up passes attempted
75%completed
30%reach the middle third
3%go long into the final third

Pass types

392CB · 46%
73Long Wide · 9%
18Long Central · 2%
289Wide → FB · 34%
73Central · 9%

Sequence success — build-up

139build-up sequences this season
6%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
50%turned over with nothing to show
CB392 · 46%
right: 202 passes, most from Cunha202left: 190 passes, most from Murillo190
Long Wide73 · 9%
left: 47 passes, most from Sels47right: 26 passes, most from Sels26
Long Central18 · 2%
left: 10 passes, most from Sels10right: 8 passes, most from Sels8
Wide → FB289 · 34%
left: 151 passes, most from Williams151right: 138 passes, most from Sels138
Central73 · 9%
left: 38 passes, most from Sels38right: 35 passes, most from Aina35
◆ Vision AI Insight
Nottingham Forest build predominantly down the left, with Murillo as the fulcrum (156 build-up passes). Only 34% of their build-up passes actually advance a third — the rest is lateral circulation, the hallmark of a possession-controlling side that circulates patiently in midfield before progressing. Their single most-repeated pattern is RHS def → C def (50×).

Pass Explorer

Every pass of Nottingham Forest’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. 385 progressive passes across 8 matches (48.1/game).

Origin lane

Right wing
29%
Right half-space
12%
Central
19%
Left half-space
10%
Left wing
29%
Progression is right-dominant: 42% right side · 19% central · 39% left.

Who generates it

Neco Williams
61 · 16%
Matz Sels
51 · 13%
James McAtee
38 · 10%
Morgan Gibbs-White
38 · 10%
Murillo
37 · 10%
Top two — Neco Williams & Matz Sels — account for 29% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
48.1 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
30% reach final third
21% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 70% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it. 30% of progressive passes reached the final third and 21% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 29% of the progression ran through two players, mostly down the right side.

Which lanes actually create the threat

Share of passes played from each lane against its share of the threat (xT) they add. Efficient = more threat than volume, sterile = lots of the ball, little damage.

Per lane — volume vs threat
Right wingbalanced
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralbalanced
Left half-spacesterile
Left wingbalanced

Progression — the pass map

The football question
Once Nottingham Forest 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.

1456progression passes attempted
82%completed
19%break into the final third
16%go backward into the defensive third

Pass types

365CB · 30%
67Long Wide · 6%
20Long Central · 2%
577Wide → FB · 48%
170Central · 14%

Sequence success — progression

180progression sequences this season
26%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
42%turned over with nothing to show
CB365 · 30%
left: 183 passes, most from Murillo183right: 182 passes, most from Cunha182
Long Wide67 · 6%
left: 35 passes, most from Williams35right: 32 passes, most from Schlager32
Long Central20 · 2%
left: 12 passes, most from Williams12right: 8 passes, most from McAtee8
Wide → FB577 · 48%
right: 315 passes, most from McAtee315left: 262 passes, most from Williams262
Central170 · 14%
left: 89 passes, most from McAtee89right: 81 passes, most from McAtee81
◆ Vision AI Insight
Nottingham Forest progress predominantly down the right, with McAtee the busiest midfield outlet (164 progression passes). Only 19% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (66%) is recycled back into midfield or (16%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is RHS mid → RW mid (58×) — 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)
16%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
47%
Safe / backward
35%
18% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 82% 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 Nottingham Forest actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?

171 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (26% of 657 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 45m. Most active carrier: Gibbs-White (22). Filter to one player below.

First (53)Second (48)Third (42)Fourth (28)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 Nottingham Forest'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.

137shots
13.2xG
0.10xG per shot
5big chances (0.3+ xG)
6goals
#2key passes / game in the league
#6box entries / game in the league
Attacking transition: 31 shots (23%)23%31Settled attack: 79 shots (58%)58%79Set piece: 27 shots (20%)20%27137SHOTS
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set upShotsGoalsxGxG / shot
Attacking transition 23% of shots3113.160.10
Cross100.110.11
Cut-back200.200.10
Long ball400.460.11
Pass into the box / short pass1701.850.11
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)710.540.08
Settled attack 58% of shots7947.430.09
Cross1511.420.09
Cut-back1011.060.11
Long ball100.070.07
Pass into the box / short pass3513.780.11
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)1811.100.06
Set piece 20% of shots2712.570.10
Corner2101.620.08
Free kick500.150.03
Penalty110.790.79

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

PlayerSet-upsxG createdGoals
Morgan Gibbs-White222.102
Dan Ndoye51.670
Daniel Muñoz91.221
James McAtee100.940
Liam Delap80.640

Who takes them

PlayerShotsxGGoals
Liam Delap212.421
Morgan Gibbs-White132.021
Dan Ndoye191.922
Igor Jesus91.801
Murillo141.180
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Nottingham Forest's chances, by xG, is settled attack (7.4 of 13.2 xG, 79 of 137 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 31 of the 137 shots (23%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 27 of the 137 shots came from set pieces; 6 goals from 13.2 xG (-7.2).

Chance Creation — the pass map

The football question
How does Nottingham Forest 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

8CB · 9%
2Long Wide · 2%
12Long Central · 13%
23Wide → FB · 25%
46Central · 51%

Sequence success — final-third

114final-third sequences this season
24%succeed — produce a shot
43%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
CB8 · 9%
right: 5 passes, most from Cunha5left: 3 passes, most from Murillo3
Long Wide2 · 2%
left: 2 passes, most from Delap2
Long Central12 · 13%
left: 6 passes, most from McAtee6right: 6 passes, most from Williams6
Wide → FB23 · 25%
left: 12 passes, most from McAtee12right: 11 passes, most from McAtee11
Central46 · 51%
right: 25 passes, most from Gibbs-White25left: 21 passes, most from Gibbs-White21

Who creates — volume × threat

19Gibbs-White
16McAtee
12Williams
8Delap
7Muñoz
5Schlager
5Murillo
91key passes #2 of 20
14.8box entries/game #6 of 20
31.4final-3rd entries/game #9 of 20
1.65xG/game #3 of 20
6goals #18 of 20
-7.2finishing vs xG #20 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Nottingham Forest lean right — 33% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (30 of 91), most often from Gibbs-White (8). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RW att → C att (13 key passes, most often from McAtee). Gibbs-White is the primary source overall. They generate 1.65 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Dan Ndoye (2G), Liam Delap (1G), Morgan Gibbs-White (1G).

Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide

The question
How does Nottingham Forest deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?

117 crosses: 40 found a team-mate (34%), 13 led to a shot (11%). 30 cut-backs: 16 found a team-mate (53%), 11 led to a shot (37%). 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 Nottingham Forest actually cross from?

117 crosses this season (the same crosses as the map above), split into fifteen territories — five channels (both wings, both half-spaces and the centre) by three depths from the halfway line to the byline. 32% come from one territory, the byline right wing; 5 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.

deep right wing: 7 crosses (6%)6%7deep right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep centre: 0 crosses (0%)deep left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep left wing: 1 crosses (1%)1%1advanced right wing: 19 crosses (16%)16%19advanced right half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1advanced centre: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left half-space: 2 crosses (2%)2%2advanced left wing: 28 crosses (24%)24%28byline right wing: 37 crosses (32%)32%37byline right half-space: 2 crosses (2%)2%2byline centre: 0 crosses (0%)byline left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)byline left wing: 20 crosses (17%)17%20
TerritoryCrossesShareLed to a shot
byline · right wing3732%7
advanced · left wing2824%3
byline · left wing2017%1
advanced · right wing1916%1
deep · right wing76%1
advanced · left half-space22%0
byline · right half-space22%0
deep · left wing11%0
advanced · right half-space11%0
Finishing3 sections

Shot Map

137 shots for 13.2 xG (1.65/game, #3 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.

High-volume attack. 17.1 shots/game at 0.096 xG/shot. Box entries 15/game (#6). Threat created 11.2 xT/game (#10).

Goal Sequences

The move behind each of Nottingham Forest’s 6 goals this season, from the moment they got the ball to the finish. Pick a goal from the list, then step through it or press Play: numbered circles are passes and touches, dotted lines are carries (the ball travelling with a player), dashed grey is a pass that was lost, the star is the shot.

Each goal’s possession, rebuilt from the raw event feed — 6 goals traced.

How Do They Score?

The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?

Every goal Nottingham Forest scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.

By situation

Open play
5 · 83%
Set pieces
0 · 0%
Penalties
1 · 17%

By finish

Right foot
6 · 100%
Left foot
0 · 0%
Header
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
6 goals scored. 83% come in open play; set pieces add 0%. Open play is clearly their main route to goal.
When they lose it1 section

Ball-Loss Map — where attacks die

Every turnover has a location and a cause. This is a rate, not a raw count — the share of pass attempts from each zone that end in a turnover, so a zone they simply play through more often doesn't automatically look riskier. Grey cells are real zones with too few attempts to trust a rate.

Loss rate by zone

62 of 179 pass attempts lost here (35%).35%62/179Aina38 of 196 pass attempts lost here (19%).19%38/196Sels102 of 392 pass attempts lost here (26%).26%102/392Sels31 of 162 pass attempts lost here (19%).19%31/162Murillo51 of 200 pass attempts lost here (26%).26%51/200Murillo48 of 288 pass attempts lost here (17%).17%48/288Muñoz53 of 294 pass attempts lost here (18%).18%53/294Gibbs-Whit50 of 317 pass attempts lost here (16%).16%50/317McAtee57 of 294 pass attempts lost here (19%).19%57/294Murillo49 of 263 pass attempts lost here (19%).19%49/263Williams68 of 217 pass attempts lost here (31%).31%68/217Aina48 of 129 pass attempts lost here (37%).37%48/129Gibbs-Whit30 of 116 pass attempts lost here (26%).26%30/116Delap36 of 134 pass attempts lost here (27%).27%36/134Williams57 of 210 pass attempts lost here (27%).27%57/210Williamsattacking →

How they lose it

Incomplete pass — attacking third
239
Failed forward pass
159
Failed take-on
69
Lost in the defensive third
284
Their weakest zone is the right half-space in the attacking third: 37% of 129 pass attempts there are lost (48 times). Separately, 31% of all losses happen in the attacking third — a fair share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Out of possession

Out of possession

How they press, where they win the ball back, and how they concede.

Pressing2 sections

Pressing — the full picture

The football question
How hard does Nottingham Forest 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.

38
Pressing Index
/100 · passive
Intensity42
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height25
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness28
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption62
opponent completion & progression allowed

Every defensive action & where it happens

Where they win the ball back — by lane

RW
17%
RHS
20%
C
21%
LHS
21%
LW
21%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 51%
Mid 34%
Att 15%
Read
Ranked #13 of 20 for press intensity, this is a high press. Note the tension: 51% of their raw defensive actions still occur in their own third — a possession effect, not a passive one. Dominating the ball (22% 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)—#13/20lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game170#3/20
High-press share22%#14/20def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)37.5#15/20avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game20.6#11/20ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share47%#18/20share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed80%#13/20lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed7.9%#2/20of 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 Nottingham Forest win it back with a defensive action?

Counted over the 278 opposition possessions that Nottingham Forest 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 Nottingham Forest step in. Nottingham Forest win it after 6.9 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 4.6 after the hour mark (sooner).

PASSES THEY GET
5.3passes
median 3 · before Nottingham Forest win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
16sec
median 7s · 34.8 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
39%
28%
17%
16%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
6.1
20s
15–30′
7.7
24s
30–45+′
5.6
17s
45–60′
3.7
9s
60–75′
4.7
13s
75–90+′
4.6
12s
average passesaverage seconds

Attitude in each third

Every other style number here says how much Nottingham Forest 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 Nottingham Forest 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) 1,129 passes

nothing unusual in this zone

Width of use+0.5122.05
Wide-channel share+0.750.35
Side bias+0.000.17
Pass length+0.6425.02
Long-ball share+0.680.30
Forward gain per pass+0.7014.49
Backward-pass share-0.500.18
Deep-pass share+0.620.35
Completion-0.620.74
Seconds between passes-0.333.12
Side used

left 29% · central 42% · right 29%

Progression (middle third) 1,456 passes

trying to break lines, longer passing

Width of use-0.0225.52
Wide-channel share+0.040.41
Side bias+0.060.31
Pass length+1.0118.64
Long-ball share+0.780.13
Forward gain per pass+0.444.27
Backward-pass share-0.000.33
Deep-pass share+1.290.22
Completion-0.530.81
Seconds between passes+0.693.50
Side used

left 35% · central 30% · right 34%

Final third 806 passes

longer passing, more direct

Width of use-0.3930.65
Wide-channel share-0.250.56
Side bias+0.02-0.35
Pass length+1.4117.66
Long-ball share+1.060.15
Forward gain per pass-0.180.80
Backward-pass share+0.310.41
Deep-pass share+0.310.10
Completion-0.150.68
Seconds between passes+0.473.75
Side used

left 39% · central 20% · right 40%

Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Nottingham Forest'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 Nottingham Forest 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 share16%
#13 of 20 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share25%
#11 of 20 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)16.8s
#8 of 20 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.2
#12 of 20
Counter-attack shots /game1.26
#2 of 20 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game2.83
#13 of 20 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain12.3s
#7 of 20 · lower = faster break

Sequence success — attacking transition

10attacking transition sequences this season
40%succeed — produce a shot
60%turned over with nothing to show

Sequence success — defensive transition

30defensive transition sequences this season
67%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
7%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Nottingham Forest are balanced between tempo and patience: 16% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#13 of 20), against 25% built patiently over 6+ passes (#11 of 20). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.26 times a game (#2), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 2.83 times a game (#13 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 Nottingham Forest? 311 opponent progressive passes and 81 shots faced (8.4 xG against) across the season.

Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Nottingham Forest)

Right wing
24%
Right half-space
16%
Central
24%
Left half-space
12%
Left wing
23%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (24% of the danger conceded).

How Do They Concede?

The question
Where do the goals against Nottingham Forest actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?

Every goal Nottingham Forest conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Nottingham Forest'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 (56 total)

4%2%5%4%4%25%14%9%14%20%Ethan AmpaduHarry WilsonEthan AmpaduNoah OkaforJoe RodonMilos KerkezJeremie FrimpongCody GakpoDominik SzoboszlaiVíctor MuñozCody GakpoJérémy JacquetDominik SzoboszlaiRyan GravenberchFlorian WirtzPedro PorroPedro PorroEphron Mason-ClarkEphron Mason-ClarkEphron Mason-ClarkJay DasilvaCaleb YirenkyiCarl RushworthJack RudoniMatt GrimesSávioMathys TelAntonín KinskyJan Paul van HeckeMohammed KudusAaron Wan-BissakaBoubacar KamaraJohn McGinnJohn McGinnIbrahim MbayeGeorge HemmingsAnan KhalailiChris RichardsDaichi KamadaYéremy PinoAdam WhartonYéremy PinoYéremy PinoAdam WhartonAdam WhartonDeclan RiceMartin ØdegaardGabriel MagalhãesDeclan RiceJurriën TimberBukayo SakaDeclan RiceViktor GyökeresExequiel PalaciosEmersonnExequiel Palacios← own goal

By situation

Open play
7 · 70%
Set pieces
3 · 30%
Penalties
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
10 goals conceded. 70% come in open play, and 30% from set pieces — a genuine defensive frailty at dead balls to fix on the training ground. 20% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the right wing of the attacking third (25% of key passes faced) — that is the zone to shut off.
Context

Shape and tactics

Set pieces, strengths and weaknesses, and who they resemble.

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 · 10.6 xG
Set pieces
0 g · 1.8 xG
Penalties
1 g
0% of goals come from set pieces (0 of 6), worth 1.8 xG from 26 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.

Where do Nottingham Forest's corners go?

38 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 (20)

30%30%20%10%10%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Left side (18)

11%17%6%39%28%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Where opponents attack Nottingham Forest from set pieces

11 shots from opponent corners against Nottingham Forest, 2 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 (6)

50%17%17%17%
Shot 6Goals 0

Left flag (5)

40%60%
Shot 5Goals 2

Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths (top-third vs league)
  • xG created /game — 1.65 (85th pct)
  • xG conceded /game — 1.05 (85th pct)
  • shots /game — 17.12 (85th pct)
  • progression /game — 48.12 (80th pct)
  • box entries /game — 14.75 (70th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
  • pass retention % — 77.00 (25th pct)
  • press intensity (PPDA) — 5.36 (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.

Bournemouth
79%
Brentford
54%
Man Utd
48%
Arsenal
26%
Brighton
23%

Performance vs Opponent Styles

The question
Not just how Nottingham Forest 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 Nottingham Forest's own passing behaviour to the result.

Results

opponent typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)1.001.500.50
vs mid-block opponents (2m)0.000.500.50
vs low-block opponents (4m)1.001.501.00

Behaviour — how Nottingham Forest actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents66%29%388.49.0
vs mid-block opponents75%20%369.49.5
vs low-block opponents81%14%5913.420.2
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 66% vs 81% against a low block (15pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 29% when pressed vs 14% 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. Nottingham Forest are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press. Their attack creates 1.65 xG a game and they concede 1.05 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 Nottingham Forest’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.

Nottingham Forest
across 8 matches this season
Defensive actionsvs Tottenham · 0-0 · 2026-09-05203avg 170
Progressive carriesvs Coventry · 0-1 · 2026-09-1965avg 34
Progressive passesvs Coventry · 0-1 · 2026-09-1977avg 48
Final-third entriesvs Coventry · 0-1 · 2026-09-1962avg 41
PPDAvs Arsenal · 0-1 · 2026-10-188.8avg 5.4
Threat from passingvs Coventry · 0-1 · 2026-09-199.78avg 6.60
Field tiltvs Arsenal · 0-1 · 2026-10-1823%avg 48%
Passesvs Arsenal · 0-1 · 2026-10-18249avg 424

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 Nottingham Forest’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).

+13.3on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes3391 actions+5.00
Carries657 actions+0.50
Dribbles124 actions+0.18
Shots137 actions+5.11
Ball wins492 actions+2.46
Most on-ball value (OBV)ActionsOBVper 100
Liam Delap181+2.00+1.11
Dan Ndoye182+1.98+1.09
Morgan Gibbs-White429+1.95+0.46
Xaver Schlager405+1.44+0.36
James McAtee528+1.16+0.22
Matz Sels299+1.14+0.38
Murillo557+1.04+0.19
Ola Aina287+0.65+0.23
123456
Biggest single movesOBV
1  Morgan Gibbs-White · shot+0.709
2  Dan Ndoye · pass+0.501
3  Morgan Gibbs-White · pass+0.479
4  Liam Delap · shot+0.458
5  Daniel Muñoz · pass+0.446
6  Dan Ndoye · pass+0.347

Set Pieces by Player

Who delivers Nottingham Forest’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 38 corners taken, most by Neco Williams (18); 26 shots from corners and free kicks, 0 goals. “Into the box” counts corners that landed inside the penalty area; free-kick takers are the players who shot from one, because this feed does not mark who delivers the others.

PlayerCorners takenInto the boxSet-piece shotsGoalsxGFree-kick shotsPenalties
Murillo——9—0.75——
Neco Williams1818 (100%)2—0.081—
James McAtee1717 (100%)2—0.062—
Xaver Schlager22 (100%)5—0.27——
Morgan Gibbs-White——2—0.0621/1
Ousmane Diomande——2—0.20——
Nikola Milenkovic——1—0.07——
Igor Jesus——1—0.07——
Daniel Muñoz——1—0.08——
Dan Ndoye——1—0.14——
Luca Netz11 (100%)——0.00——

Top Performers

Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 216 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.

playerposminVision AI Scorecapability blocks
Matz SelsGK7606.4Shot-Stopping 64%
Morgan Gibbs-WhiteAM6675.8Box Threat 72%Ball-Carrying 49%Chance Creation 43%
Xaver SchlagerCM6585.7Successful Dribble 82%Ball-Carrying 79%Progression 36%Chance Creation 31%
MurilloCB7535.5Progression 68%Ball-Winning 64%Aerial & Box Defending 31%Ball-Carrying 19%
Neco WilliamsCM7454.8Chance Creation 50%Successful Dribble 48%Ball-Carrying 48%Progression 44%
James McAteeCM6982.5Chance Creation 53%Ball-Carrying 48%Progression 46%Successful Dribble 40%
Daniel MuñozCM5002.4Progression 50%Chance Creation 42%Ball-Carrying 3%Successful Dribble 0%
Liam DelapST5462.0Ball-Carrying 82%Box Threat 39%Finishing 13%Aerial Threat 0%
Dan NdoyeAM5271.9Ball-Carrying 53%Chance Creation 29%Box Threat 21%
Jair CunhaCB5611.7Progression 36%Aerial & Box Defending 25%Ball-Winning 24%Ball-Carrying 12%

Top Creators

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

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Morgan Gibbs-WhiteM6672.562410.4
James McAteeM6982.06219.8
Neco WilliamsM7451.452111.6
Daniel MuñozM5001.26116.6
Liam DelapF5461.3291.8
Dan NdoyeM5270.8580.9
Xaver SchlagerM6580.6856.1
Ola AinaM3940.9155.0

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)
Callum Hudson-OdoiW662 (100%)2 (0%)

Defensive Volume Leaders

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

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
MurilloD753165151237
Neco WilliamsM74513418340
James McAteeM69813318550
Xaver SchlagerM65812328940
Jair CunhaD5611027415
Daniel MuñozM5008916115
Ola AinaM3948012519
Ousmane DiomandeD361795322

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (16 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Matz SelsG876000.01512710.2
MurilloD875301.253716510.3
Neco WilliamsM874510.9126113411.6
James McAteeM869800.616381339.8
Morgan Gibbs-WhiteM766712.019386610.4
Xaver SchlagerM865800.65251236.1
Jair CunhaD656100.22291025.9
Liam DelapF754612.487711.8
Dan NdoyeM852721.953670.9
Daniel MuñozM650000.7736896.6
Ola AinaM539400.1424805.0
Nikola MilenkovicD438100.216782.5
Ousmane DiomandeD536100.307792.7
Igor JesusF528111.827641.9
Ibrahim SangaréM517100.024241.6
Chris WoodF712100.401220.2

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.

Matz Sels
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes760
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /906.0
key passes /900.12
def actions /903.2
pass accuracy59%
Murillo
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes753
goals · xG0 · 1.2
prog passes /904.4
key passes /900.60
def actions /9019.7
pass accuracy85%
Neco Williams
Deep-lying playmaker · Midfielder
minutes745
goals · xG1 · 0.9
prog passes /907.4
key passes /901.45
def actions /9016.2
pass accuracy75%
James McAtee
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes698
goals · xG0 · 0.6
prog passes /904.9
key passes /902.06
def actions /9017.1
pass accuracy75%
Morgan Gibbs-White
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes667
goals · xG1 · 2.0
prog passes /905.1
key passes /902.56
def actions /908.9
pass accuracy77%
Xaver Schlager
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes658
goals · xG0 · 0.6
prog passes /903.4
key passes /900.68
def actions /9016.8
pass accuracy82%
Jair Cunha
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes561
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /904.7
key passes /900.32
def actions /9016.4
pass accuracy82%
Liam Delap
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes546
goals · xG1 · 2.4
prog passes /901.2
key passes /901.32
def actions /9011.7
pass accuracy62%
Dan Ndoye
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes527
goals · xG2 · 1.9
prog passes /900.5
key passes /900.85
def actions /9011.4
pass accuracy70%

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: pass retention % (25th pct)
Sign a secure ball-retaining midfielder. The data flags this because possession is turned over cheaply (77.00, 25th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: press intensity (PPDA) (35th pct)
Sign a high-energy presser to lift defensive intensity. The data flags this because the press is passive (5.36, 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 (48.09, 45th percentile vs the league).
Vision AI · building report