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

Bournemouth

A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a high-volume attack. Currently #13 of 20 on 9 points (2-3-3, 12:13). Tactical profile below is built from 8 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.

balanced-territoryaggressive high-presshigh-volume attack
W
W
D
W
W
D
D
L
D
D
D
L
L
W
W
9
points
#13 of 20 · 8 games
12:13
goals
-1 GD
2-3-3
record
W-D-L
1.12
points/game
#13 in the league
1.56
xG for/game
rank #7
0.99
xG against/game
rank #2
#8
press rank
of 20 · most aggressive
50%
field tilt
#8
Bournemouth
League average
Expected goals for / game
1.561.33
Expected goals against / game
0.991.33
Field tilt
50%50%
Pass retention
78%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 Bournemouth and how good was the season?
Read. Bournemouth currently sit #13 of 20 on 9 points (2W-3D-3L, 1.12 pts/game), scoring 12 and conceding 13 for a goal difference of -1. On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (50% field tilt, #8 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#8 of 20 for press intensity). Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 1.56 xG/game (#7) and concede 0.99 (#2), a net of +0.57 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.

Season Context — the league table

The question
Where did Bournemouth actually finish, and against whom?

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

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
10Hull City824298+110
11Everton824289-110
12Ipswich83141216-410
13Bournemouth82331213-19
14Tottenham8233810-29
15Fulham8224810-28
16Man Utd81431013-37

Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger

The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Bournemouth 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+'+1.59-0.11
Vision AI Model Insight
Bournemouth tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG +1.78, second-half +2.75. Their strongest period is 46-60' (net +1.59 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 16-30' (net -0.11 xG against them).

xG Race — the season, match by match

Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Bournemouth 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 (+4.5 xG). Hover a point for that match.

0491312.57.9Man City (A) 1-2 · xG 0.47 to 1.67Everton (H) 1-1 · xG 2.47 to 1.59Newcastle (A) 2-2 · xG 1.27 to 0.66Brentford (H) 2-2 · xG 1.93 to 0.52Liverpool (H) 0-1 · xG 0.88 to 1.23Chelsea (A) 1-5 · xG 1.70 to 0.81Sunderland (H) 2-0 · xG 2.67 to 0.12Man Utd (A) 3-0 · xG 1.07 to 1.34M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8
BournemouthOpponents against Bournemouth

Tactical DNA

The football question
In five genes, what is Bournemouth'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.

48
Build-Up
possession control from the back
82
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
62
Creation
manufacturing chances
60
Press
winning the ball high & hard
90
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Bournemouth are defined most by their Solidity DNA (90/100 · elite at resisting the opponent's threat), and least by their Build-Up 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).

Possess61Disrupt77Finish57Press78Defend72
Possess
Deep buildup
70%
Possession
52%
Field tilt
61%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
74%
Dribble tendency
65%
Progressive passes
91%
Finish
Final-third patience
22%
Shot quality
65%
Open-play xG
83%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
83%
High regains
91%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
61%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
83%
High line ~proxy
39%
PAdj defensive actions
96%
Bournemouth is defined most by Press (78% in the league) and weakest on Finish (57%). 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 Bournemouth actually control, relative to the rest of the league?

Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Bournemouth'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; Bournemouth 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/gBournemouth33%44%55%66%0.61.32.02.6FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
Vision AI Model Insight
Bournemouth post 50% field tilt, ranking #8 of 20 in the league — comfortably above the league mid-point for territorial control, and their 1.12 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 Bournemouth has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?

The share of Bournemouth'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: 26.8% of the time on the ball27%Progression: 45.7% of the time on the ball46%Chance creation: 24.1% of the time on the ball24%Attacking transition: 3.3% of the time on the ball46%PROGRESSION
PhaseShare of the time
Build-up26.8%
Progression45.7%
Chance creation24.1%
Attacking transition3.3%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Bournemouth spends most of its time on the ball (46% of its time on the ball).

Passing Network

The question
Who actually plays with whom — the real on-pitch connections, not just average positions?

Every pass linked to its likely receiver (the next same-team touch), aggregated into player-pair combinations at each player's average position. Line width = how often the pair combines; colour = threat generated per pass (blue low → red high). Hover a line for the pair, or click a player to isolate their connections.

Adrien Truffert ↔ António Silva: 120 passes, 0.3 combined xTJames Hill ↔ António Silva: 108 passes, 0.4 combined xTJames Hill ↔ Djordje Petrovic: 102 passes, -0.8 combined xTDjordje Petrovic ↔ António Silva: 90 passes, -0.2 combined xTAdam Smith ↔ James Hill: 85 passes, -1.3 combined xTTyler Adams ↔ António Silva: 77 passes, -0.3 combined xTMarcus Tavernier ↔ Adrien Truffert: 75 passes, 2.1 combined xTTyler Adams ↔ James Hill: 73 passes, -0.1 combined xTAdrien Truffert ↔ Alex Scott: 54 passes, -0.3 combined xTAdam Smith ↔ Rayan: 53 passes, 1.5 combined xTMarcus Tavernier ↔ Alex Scott: 51 passes, 1.5 combined xTAdam Smith ↔ Tyler Adams: 45 passes, -0.5 combined xTTyler Adams ↔ Adrien Truffert: 45 passes, -0.2 combined xTLewis Cook ↔ James Hill: 43 passes, -0.4 combined xTTyler Adams ↔ Alex Scott: 40 passes, 0.2 combined xTMarcus Tavernier ↔ António Silva: 37 passes, 0.5 combined xTJames Hill ↔ Alex Scott: 35 passes, 0.0 combined xTAlex Scott ↔ António Silva: 35 passes, 0.4 combined xTMarcus Tavernier ↔ Evanilson: 33 passes, 1.1 combined xTJames Hill ↔ Rayan: 31 passes, 1.1 combined xTEvanilson ↔ Adrien Truffert: 31 passes, 0.8 combined xTRyan Christie ↔ Adrien Truffert: 28 passes, 0.1 combined xTTyler Adams ↔ Rayan: 28 passes, -0.1 combined xTLewis Cook ↔ António Silva: 27 passes, -0.1 combined xTAdam Smith — isolate this player's connectionsSmithLewis Cook — isolate this player's connectionsCookTyler Adams — isolate this player's connectionsAdamsMarcus Tavernier — isolate this player's connectionsTavernierJames Hill — isolate this player's connectionsHillEvanilson — isolate this player's connectionsEvanilsonAdrien Truffert — isolate this player's connectionsTruffertDjordje Petrovic — isolate this player's connectionsPetrovicAntónio Silva — isolate this player's connectionsSilvaRayan — isolate this player's connectionsRayanAntoine Semenyo — isolate this player's connectionsSemenyoRyan Christie — isolate this player's connectionsChristieJustin Kluivert — isolate this player's connectionsKluivertBen Gannon-Doak — isolate this player's connectionsGannon-DoaAlex Scott — isolate this player's connectionsScottDavid Brooks — isolate this player's connectionsBrooks
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high

Top 10 combinations

Truffert ↔ Silva
120p · 0.3xT
Hill ↔ Silva
108p · 0.4xT
Hill ↔ Petrovic
102p · -0.8xT
Petrovic ↔ Silva
90p · -0.2xT
Smith ↔ Hill
85p · -1.3xT
Adams ↔ Silva
77p · -0.3xT
Tavernier ↔ Truffert
75p · 2.1xT
Adams ↔ Hill
73p · -0.1xT
Truffert ↔ Scott
54p · -0.3xT
Smith ↔ Rayan
53p · 1.5xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Adrien Truffert ↔ António Silva (120 passes). Most dangerous per pass: James Hill ↔ Rayan (0.04 xT/pass over 31 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.

Touch Density — where Bournemouth 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 Bournemouth 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
3743
ACTIONS
4%6%10%5%4%7%10%10%11%9%5%4%3%5%7%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
874
ACTIONS
2%6%11%6%3%6%9%10%12%12%7%3%3%9%CARRIES
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the left half-space of the middle third (10.8% of all actions). 64% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 36% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 29% defensive, 48% middle, 23% 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. Bournemouth leaned on their left (42%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.

42%Left side22%Middle36%Right sideATTACKING →
Bournemouth
42%22%36%
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. Bournemouth made 399 this season (49.9 a match); 31% 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: 122 entries (31%)12231%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 87 entries (22%)8722%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 33 entries (8%)338%CENTRERight half-space: 58 entries (15%)5815%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 99 entries (25%)9925%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing12215.231%31%
Left half-space8710.922%16%
Centre334.18%13%
Right half-space587.215%14%
Right wing9912.425%27%
Build-up2 sections

Build-Up — the pass map

The football question
How does Bournemouth 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.

1089build-up passes attempted
73%completed
30%reach the middle third
3%go long into the final third

Pass types

317CB · 40%
54Long Wide · 7%
7Long Central · 1%
345Wide → FB · 43%
73Central · 9%

Sequence success — build-up

140build-up sequences this season
6%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
41%turned over with nothing to show
CB317 · 40%
right: 196 passes, most from Hill196left: 121 passes, most from Silva121
Long Wide54 · 7%
right: 42 passes, most from Petrovic42left: 12 passes, most from Petrovic12
Long Central7 · 1%
left: 4 passes, most from Cook4right: 3 passes, most from Petrovic3
Wide → FB345 · 43%
left: 187 passes, most from Petrovic187right: 158 passes, most from Petrovic158
Central73 · 9%
left: 44 passes, most from Petrovic44right: 29 passes, most from Adams29
◆ Vision AI Insight
Bournemouth build predominantly down the left, with Petrovic as the fulcrum (195 build-up passes). Only 33% 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 (78×).

Pass Explorer

Every pass of Bournemouth’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. 453 progressive passes across 8 matches (56.6/game).

Origin lane

Right wing
25%
Right half-space
17%
Central
11%
Left half-space
14%
Left wing
34%
Progression is left-dominant: 42% right side · 11% central · 47% left.

Who generates it

Adrien Truffert
84 · 19%
Adam Smith
60 · 13%
James Hill
54 · 12%
António Silva
43 · 9%
Marcus Tavernier
36 · 8%
Top two — Adrien Truffert & Adam Smith — account for 32% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
56.6 prog passes/game
mostly left
→
PENETRATION
30% reach final third
18% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 70% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it. 30% of progressive passes reached the final third and 18% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 32% 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-spacebalanced
Centralsterile
Left half-spacebalanced
Left wingbalanced

Progression — the pass map

The football question
Once Bournemouth 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.

1776progression passes attempted
83%completed
21%break into the final third
14%go backward into the defensive third

Pass types

400CB · 27%
78Long Wide · 5%
12Long Central · 1%
770Wide → FB · 52%
207Central · 14%

Sequence success — progression

227progression sequences this season
28%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
43%turned over with nothing to show
CB400 · 27%
left: 225 passes, most from Silva225right: 175 passes, most from Hill175
Long Wide78 · 5%
left: 46 passes, most from Truffert46right: 32 passes, most from Smith32
Long Central12 · 1%
right: 7 passes, most from Adams7left: 5 passes, most from Truffert5
Wide → FB770 · 52%
left: 429 passes, most from Truffert429right: 341 passes, most from Smith341
Central207 · 14%
right: 117 passes, most from Adams117left: 90 passes, most from Adams90
◆ Vision AI Insight
Bournemouth progress predominantly down the left, with Silva the busiest midfield outlet (204 progression passes). Only 21% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (65%) is recycled back into midfield or (14%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is LHS mid → LW mid (83×) — 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)
17%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
46%
Safe / backward
36%
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 Bournemouth actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?

199 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (23% of 874 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 46m. Most active carrier: Silva (39). Filter to one player below.

First (68)Second (50)Third (46)Fourth (35)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Chance creation4 sections

Chance creation — how the shots come

The question
Where do Bournemouth'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.

116shots
12.5xG
0.11xG per shot
7big chances (0.3+ xG)
11goals
#8key passes / game in the league
#9box entries / game in the league
Attacking transition: 29 shots (25%)25%29Settled attack: 69 shots (59%)59%69Set piece: 18 shots (16%)16%18116SHOTS
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set upShotsGoalsxGxG / shot
Attacking transition 25% of shots2932.740.09
Cross100.060.06
Long ball210.090.05
Pass into the box / short pass1711.960.12
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)910.630.07
Settled attack 59% of shots6976.110.09
Cross1501.270.08
Cut-back831.200.15
Long ball210.120.06
Pass into the box / short pass2722.170.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)1711.360.08
Set piece 16% of shots1813.600.20
Corner1413.490.25
Free kick400.110.03

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
Adrien Truffert81.071
Adam Smith60.861
Marcus Tavernier120.840
Evanilson70.734
Justin Kluivert70.711

Who takes them

PlayerShotsxGGoals
Evanilson212.613
Rayan262.421
Marcus Tavernier171.925
António Silva61.570
Justin Kluivert131.481
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Bournemouth's chances, by xG, is settled attack (6.1 of 12.5 xG, 69 of 116 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 29 of the 116 shots (25%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 18 of the 116 shots came from set pieces; 11 goals from 12.5 xG (-1.5).

Chance Creation — the pass map

The football question
How does Bournemouth 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 · 10%
7Long Wide · 8%
3Long Central · 4%
33Wide → FB · 40%
32Central · 39%

Sequence success — final-third

109final-third sequences this season
28%succeed — produce a shot
39%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 · 10%
right: 6 passes, most from Hill6left: 2 passes, most from Hill2
Long Wide7 · 8%
left: 4 passes, most from Adams4right: 3 passes, most from Kluivert3
Long Central3 · 4%
left: 3 passes, most from Tavernier3
Wide → FB33 · 40%
right: 17 passes, most from Scott17left: 16 passes, most from Scott16
Central32 · 39%
left: 17 passes, most from Tavernier17right: 15 passes, most from Tavernier15

Who creates — volume × threat

15Tavernier
11Scott
8Evanilson
8Truffert
7Hill
6Kluivert
6Christie
83key passes #8 of 20
14.2box entries/game #9 of 20
40.9final-3rd entries/game #6 of 20
1.56xG/game #7 of 20
11goals #6 of 20
-1.5finishing vs xG #12 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Bournemouth lean right — 41% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (34 of 83), most often from Evanilson (5). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RHS att → C att (12 key passes, most often from Evanilson). Tavernier is the primary source overall. They generate 1.56 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Marcus Tavernier (5G), Evanilson (3G), Alex Scott (1G).

Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide

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

128 crosses: 42 found a team-mate (33%), 16 led to a shot (12%). 29 cut-backs: 11 found a team-mate (38%), 7 led to a shot (24%). 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 Bournemouth actually cross from?

128 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. 23% come from one territory, the byline left wing; 9 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.

deep right wing: 6 crosses (5%)5%6deep right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep centre: 0 crosses (0%)deep left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep left wing: 10 crosses (8%)8%10advanced right wing: 20 crosses (16%)16%20advanced right half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1advanced centre: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left half-space: 2 crosses (2%)2%2advanced left wing: 27 crosses (21%)21%27byline right wing: 26 crosses (20%)20%26byline right half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1byline centre: 0 crosses (0%)byline left half-space: 5 crosses (4%)4%5byline left wing: 30 crosses (23%)23%30
TerritoryCrossesShareLed to a shot
byline · left wing3023%4
advanced · left wing2721%2
byline · right wing2620%0
advanced · right wing2016%4
deep · left wing108%3
deep · right wing65%0
byline · left half-space54%3
advanced · left half-space22%0
advanced · right half-space11%0
byline · right half-space11%0
Finishing3 sections

Shot Map

116 shots for 12.5 xG (1.56/game, #7 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.

High-volume attack. 14.5 shots/game at 0.107 xG/shot. Box entries 14/game (#9). Threat created 11.8 xT/game (#6).

Goal Sequences

The move behind each of Bournemouth’s 12 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 — 12 goals traced.

How Do They Score?

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

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

By situation

Open play
10 · 91%
Set pieces
1 · 9%
Penalties
0 · 0%

By finish

Right foot
3 · 27%
Left foot
7 · 64%
Header
1 · 9%
Vision AI Model Insight
11 goals scored. 91% come in open play; set pieces add 9%. 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

67 of 133 pass attempts lost here (50%).50%67/133Hill61 of 226 pass attempts lost here (27%).27%61/226Hill87 of 392 pass attempts lost here (22%).22%87/392Petrovic37 of 191 pass attempts lost here (19%).19%37/191Silva41 of 147 pass attempts lost here (28%).28%41/147Truffert71 of 272 pass attempts lost here (26%).26%71/272Smith66 of 393 pass attempts lost here (17%).17%66/393Hill56 of 393 pass attempts lost here (14%).14%56/393Evanilson52 of 397 pass attempts lost here (13%).13%52/397Silva64 of 321 pass attempts lost here (20%).20%64/321Truffert58 of 194 pass attempts lost here (30%).30%58/194Tavernier37 of 144 pass attempts lost here (26%).26%37/144Rayan17 of 98 pass attempts lost here (17%).17%17/98Silva47 of 183 pass attempts lost here (26%).26%47/183Tavernier79 of 259 pass attempts lost here (31%).31%79/259Truffertattacking →

How they lose it

Incomplete pass — attacking third
238
Failed forward pass
153
Failed take-on
66
Lost in the defensive third
293
Their weakest zone is the right wing in the defensive third: 50% of 133 pass attempts there are lost (67 times). Separately, 28% 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 Bournemouth 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.

73
Pressing Index
/100 · strong
Intensity70
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height70
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness80
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption70
opponent completion & progression allowed

Every defensive action & where it happens

Where they win the ball back — by lane

RW
13%
RHS
20%
C
18%
LHS
30%
LW
19%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 44%
Mid 40%
Att 16%
Read
Ranked #8 of 20 for press intensity, this is a high press. 56% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 40. Of recoveries, 57% are won high up the pitch.

Every pressing metric, ranked in the league

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)—#8/20lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game178#2/20
High-press share25%#7/20def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)40.3#6/20avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game26.5#2/20ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share57%#6/20share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed79%#9/20lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed8.1%#3/20of 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 Bournemouth win it back with a defensive action?

Counted over the 283 opposition possessions that Bournemouth 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 Bournemouth step in. Bournemouth win it after 5.1 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 3.6 after the hour mark (sooner).

PASSES THEY GET
4.7passes
median 3 · before Bournemouth win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
13sec
median 7s · 35.4 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
39%
36%
12%
13%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
4.8
12s
15–30′
5.5
17s
30–45+′
5.2
15s
45–60′
5.5
16s
60–75′
4.0
11s
75–90+′
3.4
9s
average passesaverage seconds

Attitude in each third

Every other style number here says how much Bournemouth 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 Bournemouth 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) 1,089 passes

nothing unusual in this zone

Width of use-0.3720.24
Wide-channel share-0.710.26
Side bias-0.11-0.25
Pass length+0.7025.21
Long-ball share+0.350.26
Forward gain per pass+0.6114.10
Backward-pass share-0.470.18
Deep-pass share+0.440.33
Completion-0.810.73
Seconds between passes+0.083.38
Side used

left 26% · central 46% · right 28%

Progression (middle third) 1,776 passes

longer passing, slower, trying to break lines

Width of use-0.1425.27
Wide-channel share-0.740.35
Side bias+0.291.19
Pass length+1.1518.83
Long-ball share+0.680.13
Forward gain per pass+0.434.25
Backward-pass share+0.110.34
Deep-pass share+0.950.21
Completion-0.310.82
Seconds between passes+0.973.62
Side used

left 36% · central 31% · right 33%

Final third 878 passes

more recycling, circulating, slower

Width of use-0.1131.34
Wide-channel share-0.520.54
Side bias+0.543.37
Pass length+0.9316.91
Long-ball share+0.160.11
Forward gain per pass-1.11-0.44
Backward-pass share+1.420.48
Deep-pass share-0.010.09
Completion+0.180.71
Seconds between passes+0.974.12
Side used

left 47% · central 16% · right 37%

Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Bournemouth'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 Bournemouth 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 share17%
#9 of 20 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share23%
#13 of 20 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)16.4s
#7 of 20 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.1
#14 of 20
Counter-attack shots /game1.35
#1 of 20 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.26
#6 of 20 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain11.6s
#3 of 20 · lower = faster break

Sequence success — attacking transition

15attacking transition sequences this season
33%succeed — produce a shot
40%turned over with nothing to show

Sequence success — defensive transition

35defensive transition sequences this season
54%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
14%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Bournemouth are a direct, fast-break side: 17% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#9 of 20), against 23% built patiently over 6+ passes (#13 of 20). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.35 times a game (#1), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.26 times a game (#6 of 20) — a modest but real source of chances.
Defending the box2 sections

Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them

The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Bournemouth? 322 opponent progressive passes and 84 shots faced (7.9 xG against) across the season.

Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Bournemouth)

Right wing
31%
Right half-space
11%
Central
16%
Left half-space
14%
Left wing
28%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (31% of the danger conceded).

How Do They Concede?

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

Every goal Bournemouth conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Bournemouth'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 (58 total)

2%2%3%2%2%21%17%28%17%7%Phil FodenPhil FodenNico O'ReillyRúben DiasElliot AndersonRayan CherkiRayan CherkiMarc GuéhiRayan CherkiRayan CherkiJames TarkowskiKiernan Dewsbury-HallTyrique GeorgeKiernan Dewsbury-HallIliman NdiayeKiernan Dewsbury-HallHarrison ArmstrongKiernan Dewsbury-HallFlorian WirtzAlexander IsakCody GakpoFlorian WirtzCody GakpoFlorian WirtzCody GakpoVíctor MuñozAnthony ElangaLewis HallNico GonzálezAnthony ElangaAnthony ElangaMalick ThiawJaidon AnthonyVitaly JaneltYehor YarmoliukIgor ThiagoMichael KayodeCole PalmerCole PalmerJordan HendersonJordan HendersonPedro NetoPep ChavarríaMason MountMason MountAmad DialloLeny YoroMatheus CunhaLisandro MartínezJoshua ZirkzeeMason MountSenne LammensBryan MbeumoDiogo DalotBryan MbeumoAndrey SantosGranit XhakaGranit Xhaka← own goal

By situation

Open play
10 · 77%
Set pieces
3 · 23%
Penalties
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
13 goals conceded. 77% come in open play; set pieces account for only 23%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 15% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the centre of the attacking third (28% 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
10 g · 8.9 xG
Set pieces
1 g · 3.6 xG
Penalties
0 g
9% of goals come from set pieces (1 of 11), worth 3.6 xG from 18 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.

Where do Bournemouth's corners go?

37 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 (19)

11%5%21%53%5%
Delivered into the box 95%Short 5%

Left side (18)

6%17%6%11%33%28%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Where opponents attack Bournemouth from set pieces

14 shots from opponent corners against Bournemouth, 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 (9)

33%22%22%11%11%
Shot 9Goals 1

Left flag (5)

40%20%20%20%
Shot 5Goals 1

Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths (top-third vs league)
  • progression /game — 56.62 (95th pct)
  • xG conceded /game — 0.99 (90th pct)
  • threat created /game — 11.77 (70th pct)
  • xG created /game — 1.56 (65th pct)
  • shots /game — 14.50 (65th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
  • pass retention % — 77.56 (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.

Nottingham Forest
79%
Man Utd
60%
Brentford
60%
Brighton
57%
Liverpool
42%

Performance vs Opponent Styles

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

Results

opponent typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)1.502.000.50
vs mid-block opponents (2m)2.501.002.00
vs low-block opponents (4m)1.001.751.00

Behaviour — how Bournemouth actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents76%18%408.24.5
vs mid-block opponents75%17%5010.413.5
vs low-block opponents79%15%6814.219.5
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 76% vs 79% against a low block (3pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 18% when pressed vs 15% against a low block — a mild adjustment, not a wholesale change.

Scouting Summary — the team in brief

In brief. Bournemouth are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press. Their attack creates 1.56 xG a game and they concede 0.99 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 Bournemouth’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.

Bournemouth
across 8 matches this season
PPDAat Man City · 1-2 · 2026-08-238.1avg 4.4
Field tiltat Man City · 1-2 · 2026-08-2322%avg 50%
Pass accuracyat Man Utd · 3-0 · 2026-10-2571%avg 77%
Passesvs Sunderland · 2-0 · 2026-10-18619avg 468
Threat from passingat Man City · 1-2 · 2026-08-231.80avg 5.71
Final-third entriesat Man City · 1-2 · 2026-08-2327avg 50
Progressive carriesat Man City · 1-2 · 2026-08-2328avg 43
Expected goalsvs Sunderland · 2-0 · 2026-10-182.67avg 1.56

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 Bournemouth’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).

+13.4on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes3743 actions+4.97
Carries874 actions+0.13
Dribbles103 actions+0.43
Shots116 actions+4.99
Ball wins539 actions+2.84
Most on-ball value (OBV)ActionsOBVper 100
Rayan295+1.98+0.67
James Hill637+1.97+0.31
Marcus Tavernier453+1.48+0.33
Justin Kluivert161+1.37+0.85
António Silva638+1.23+0.19
Ryan Christie216+1.04+0.48
Evanilson277+1.03+0.37
Adrien Truffert570+0.60+0.11
123456
Biggest single movesOBV
1  Ryan Christie · pass+0.576
2  James Hill · pass+0.402
3  Evanilson · take-on+0.377
4  Marcus Tavernier · shot+0.357
5  James Hill · pass+0.347
6  Marcus Tavernier · pass+0.305

Set Pieces by Player

Who delivers Bournemouth’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 37 corners taken, most by Marcus Tavernier (19); 18 shots from corners and free kicks, 1 goals, led by Evanilson (1 goals, 1.07 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
Marcus Tavernier1916 (84%)3—0.083—
Alex Scott108 (80%)1—0.031—
António Silva——4—1.41——
Evanilson11 (100%)311.07——
Rayan——3—0.34——
Lewis Cook66 (100%)——0.00——
Ryan Christie——2—0.04——
Justin Kluivert——1—0.60——
Adrien Truffert——1—0.02——
David Brooks11 (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
Marcus TavernierAM6697.3Box Threat 67%Ball-Carrying 61%Chance Creation 54%
Adrien TruffertFB7487.3Ball-Carrying 86%Ball-Winning 74%Wide Delivery 19%
James HillCB7606.8Ball-Winning 76%Progression 57%Aerial & Box Defending 38%Ball-Carrying 27%
António SilvaCB7606.6Progression 75%Ball-Carrying 74%Ball-Winning 66%Aerial & Box Defending 47%
Djordje PetrovicGK7606.0Shot-Stopping 60%
EvanilsonST6934.2Ball-Carrying 44%Box Threat 28%Finishing 26%Aerial Threat 0%
Alex ScottCM4654.1Ball-Carrying 68%Successful Dribble 61%Progression 18%Chance Creation 18%
RayanW7164.1Box Threat 62%Chance Creation 18%Ball-Carrying 14%Wide Delivery 7%
Tyler AdamsCM5672.0Ball-Carrying 35%Progression 25%Successful Dribble 20%Chance Creation 2%
Adam SmithFB7080.7Ball-Winning 24%Ball-Carrying 2%Wide Delivery 0%

Top Creators

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

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Marcus TavernierM6692.02208.3
Adrien TruffertD7480.961611.6
James HillD7600.831313.8
Alex ScottM4652.1385.7
EvanilsonF6931.04102.3
Adam SmithD7080.641010.8
RayanM7160.5093.0
Justin KluivertM3911.3852.1

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)
Adrien TruffertFB74812 (42%)14 (43%)
RayanW716011 (45%)
Adam SmithFB7089 (56%)1 (100%)

Defensive Volume Leaders

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

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
António SilvaD760173101030
James HillD76016822826
Adrien TruffertD748151211038
RayanM7161219615
EvanilsonF6931207726
Marcus TavernierM66910713242
Tyler AdamsM567106101238
Adam SmithD7081036519

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (15 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
António SilvaD876001.614317312.2
Djordje PetrovicG876000.0032186.6
James HillD876000.175416813.8
Adrien TruffertD874800.288415111.6
RayanM871612.44211213.0
Adam SmithD870800.256010310.8
EvanilsonF869332.68121202.3
Marcus TavernierM866951.915361078.3
Tyler AdamsM856700.12231066.4
Alex ScottM546510.511231025.7
Justin KluivertM639111.566542.1
Lewis CookM835600.1520504.1
Ryan ChristieM730200.8611672.7
Ben Gannon-DoakF712700.238241.2
David BrooksM511300.0211161.6

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.

Djordje Petrovic
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes760
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /903.8
key passes /900.00
def actions /902.1
pass accuracy68%
António Silva
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes760
goals · xG0 · 1.6
prog passes /905.1
key passes /900.12
def actions /9020.5
pass accuracy87%
James Hill
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes760
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /906.4
key passes /900.83
def actions /9019.9
pass accuracy75%
Adrien Truffert
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes748
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /9010.1
key passes /900.96
def actions /9018.2
pass accuracy76%
Rayan
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes716
goals · xG1 · 2.4
prog passes /902.6
key passes /900.50
def actions /9015.2
pass accuracy67%
Adam Smith
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes708
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /907.6
key passes /900.64
def actions /9013.1
pass accuracy78%
Evanilson
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes693
goals · xG3 · 2.6
prog passes /901.6
key passes /901.04
def actions /9015.6
pass accuracy74%
Marcus Tavernier
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes669
goals · xG5 · 1.9
prog passes /904.8
key passes /902.02
def actions /9014.4
pass accuracy76%
Tyler Adams
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes567
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /903.7
key passes /900.32
def actions /9016.8
pass accuracy88%

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 % (35th pct)
Sign a secure ball-retaining midfielder. The data flags this because possession is turned over cheaply (77.56, 35th percentile vs the league).
Vision AI · building report