Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportPremier League 2025/26
Bournemouth
A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a high-volume attack. Finished #7 of 23 on 66 points (15-21-10, 70:67). Tactical profile below is built from 46 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.
In one read, what kind of team is Bournemouth and how good was the season?
Read. Bournemouth finished #7 of 23 on 66 points (15W-21D-10L, 1.43 pts/game), scoring 70 and conceding 67 for a goal difference of +3.
On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (51% field tilt, #9 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#4 of 23 for press intensity).
Across the 46 matches of event data, they create 1.55 xG/game (#4) and concede 1.35 (#10), a net of +0.20 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.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
4
Aston Villa
46
22
10
14
65
61
+4
76
5
Liverpool
46
21
12
13
74
61
+13
75
6
Brighton
46
19
12
15
75
53
+22
69
7
Bournemouth
46
15
21
10
70
67
+3
66
8
Chelsea
46
18
11
17
75
67
+8
65
9
Brentford
46
16
16
14
69
61
+8
64
10
Newcastle
46
17
9
20
65
69
-4
60
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)
Vision AI Model Insight
Bournemouth tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG +3.43, second-half +5.87. Their strongest period is 46-60' (net +3.24 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 16-30' (net -0.90 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 46 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 (+9.3 xG). Hover a point for that match.
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.
50
Build-Up
possession control from the back
74
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
71
Creation
manufacturing chances
72
Press
winning the ball high & hard
57
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Bournemouth are defined most by their Progression DNA (74/100 · strong at moving the ball upfield with threat), and least by their Build-Up DNA (50/100). Percentiles vs the 23 teams in the league.
The Playstyle Wheel
Fifteen style metrics across five domains — Possess, Disrupt, Finish, Press, Defend — each a percentile against the rest of the league. Metrics marked ~proxy use the closest available event-data signal where the standard definition needs data this feed doesn't carry (explicit pressure events, offside/keeper-sweep incidents).
Possess
Deep buildup
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.
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.
Vision AI Model Insight
Bournemouth post 51% field tilt, ranking #9 of 23 in the league — comfortably above the league mid-point for territorial control, and their 1.43 points/game sits above the league-average return — territory is genuinely converting into results.
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.
Phase
Share of the time
Build-up
25.1%
Progression
46.9%
Chance creation
25.6%
Attacking transition
2.4%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Bournemouth spends most of its time on the ball (47% of its time on the ball).
Passing Network
The question
Who actually plays with whom — the real on-pitch connections, not just average positions?
Every pass linked to its likely receiver (the next same-team touch), aggregated into player-pair combinations at each player's average position. Line width = how often the pair combines; colour = threat generated per pass (blue low → red high). Hover a line for the pair, or click a player to isolate their connections.
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high
Top 10 combinations
Senesi ↔ Truffert
725p · 42.8xT
Senesi ↔ Petrovic
414p · 14.7xT
Tavernier ↔ Truffert
341p · 20.2xT
Senesi ↔ Hill
327p · 4.4xT
Adams ↔ Senesi
315p · 8.3xT
Senesi ↔ Scott
315p · 10.5xT
Truffert ↔ Scott
252p · 8.2xT
Adams ↔ Truffert
237p · 7.5xT
Senesi ↔ Tavernier
236p · 19.2xT
Scott ↔ Jiménez
215p · 6.3xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Marcos Senesi ↔ Adrien Truffert (725 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Marcos Senesi ↔ Antoine Semenyo (0.15 xT/pass over 111 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 460 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
21106
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
5415
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the left wing of the middle third (10.9% of all actions). 58% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 42% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 28% defensive, 48% 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. Bournemouth leaned on their left (44%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Bournemouth
44%22%34%
League
39%23%38%
Final-Third Entries
Every completed pass or carry that took the ball from outside the final third into it, by the channel it arrived in. Bournemouth made 2058 this season (44.7 a match); 33% came into the left wing. Longer, bolder arrows mean more entries. Entries by carrying the ball in count as well as completed passes; dribbles are not counted.
Channel
Entries
Per match
Share
League share
Left wing
673
14.6
33%
29%
Left half-space
376
8.2
18%
16%
Centre
230
5.0
11%
12%
Right half-space
267
5.8
13%
14%
Right wing
512
11.1
25%
29%
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.
5923build-up passes attempted
75%completed
28%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third
Pass types
1739CB · 39%
274Long Wide · 6%
33Long Central · 1%
1996Wide → FB · 45%
429Central · 10%
Sequence success — build-up
1381build-up sequences this season
9%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
43%turned over with nothing to show
CB1739 · 39%
Long Wide274 · 6%
Long Central33 · 1%
Wide → FB1996 · 45%
Central429 · 10%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Bournemouth build predominantly down the left, with Petrovic as the fulcrum (950 build-up passes). Only 30% 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 → LHS def (308×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Bournemouth’s last 10 matches as an arrow, theirs first and the opponents’ with other team, each side attacking left to right (solid = completed, dashed grey = failed). Eight families per team — click any map to open it wide, then filter by channel or third, from one to another (or click a cell of the flow grids), by outcome, half, minute and passer. Channels: right wing, right half-space, centre, left half-space, left wing.
From channel
To channel
From third
To third
Outcome
Minutes
Channel to channel · click a cell
Third to third · click a cell
Progression4 sections
How They Progress — the mechanism
Not just how many progressive passes, but where they start, who plays them, and whether they actually penetrate. 2085 progressive passes across 46 matches (45.3/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
25%
Right half-space
12%
Central
12%
Left half-space
17%
Left wing
34%
Progression is left-dominant: 36% right side · 12% central · 51% left.
Who generates it
Adrien Truffert
327 · 16%
Marcos Senesi
318 · 15%
Marcus Tavernier
144 · 7%
James Hill
137 · 7%
Djordje Petrovic
130 · 6%
Top two — Adrien Truffert & Marcos Senesi — account for 31% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
45.3 prog passes/game
mostly left
→
PENETRATION
31% reach final third
20% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 69% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.31% of progressive passes reached the final third and 20% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 31% of the progression ran through two players, mostly down the left side.
Which lanes actually create the threat
Share of passes played from each lane against its share of the threat (xT) they add. Efficient = more threat than volume, sterile = lots of the ball, little damage.
Per lane — volume vs threat
Right wingbalanced
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralsterile
Left half-spacebalanced
Left 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.
10024progression passes attempted
83%completed
18%break into the final third
11%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
2293CB · 28%
325Long Wide · 4%
55Long Central · 1%
4533Wide → FB · 55%
1090Central · 13%
Sequence success — progression
2281progression sequences this season
26%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
45%turned over with nothing to show
CB2293 · 28%
Long Wide325 · 4%
Long Central55 · 1%
Wide → FB4533 · 55%
Central1090 · 13%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Bournemouth progress predominantly down the left, with Senesi the busiest midfield outlet (999 progression passes). Only 18% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (71%) is recycled back into midfield or (11%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is LW mid → LHS mid (477×) — 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)
14%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
49%
Safe / backward
36%
15% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 85% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.
Where does Bournemouth actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
1289 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (25% of 5119 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 71m. Most active carrier: Senesi (185). Filter to one player below.
First (415)Second (327)Third (308)Fourth (239)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.
640shots
71.4xG
0.11xG per shot
47big chances (0.3+ xG)
68goals
#9key passes / game in the league
#11box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition29% of shots
185
18
19.29
0.10
Cross
16
1
2.86
0.18
Cut-back
8
0
1.02
0.13
Long ball
4
1
0.35
0.09
Pass into the box / short pass
100
9
10.55
0.11
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
57
7
4.51
0.08
Settled attack54% of shots
345
38
36.50
0.11
Cross
55
4
4.89
0.09
Cut-back
32
4
3.68
0.12
Long ball
13
1
1.10
0.08
Pass into the box / short pass
153
20
15.94
0.10
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
92
9
10.88
0.12
Set piece17% of shots
110
12
15.61
0.14
Corner
79
5
10.11
0.13
Free kick
25
2
0.73
0.03
Penalty
6
5
4.76
0.79
Every attempt to create — and what came of it
Every pass into the box, every cut-back and every pass before a shot. Red led to a shot, gold to a goal; grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball. Filter by outcome, type or player; tap an arrow for the detail.
Who sets the shots up
Player
Set-ups
xG created
Goals
Marcus Tavernier
62
6.18
5
Adrien Truffert
35
3.74
5
Rayan
18
3.35
2
David Brooks
25
3.34
3
Justin Kluivert
25
3.33
1
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Evanilson
91
12.15
9
Marcus Tavernier
87
9.82
12
Junior Kroupi
52
7.67
13
Antoine Semenyo
49
7.03
10
Rayan
54
5.26
6
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Bournemouth's chances, by xG, is settled attack (36.5 of 71.4 xG, 345 of 640 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 185 of the 640 shots (29%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 110 of the 640 shots came from set pieces; 68 goals from 71.4 xG (-3.4).
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
44CB · 10%
18Long Wide · 4%
23Long Central · 5%
135Wide → FB · 32%
201Central · 48%
Sequence success — final-third
1443final-third sequences this season
24%succeed — produce a shot
41%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
CB44 · 10%
Long Wide18 · 4%
Long Central23 · 5%
Wide → FB135 · 32%
Central201 · 48%
Who creates — volume × threat
69Tavernier
37Truffert
35Evanilson
34Scott
28Brooks
26Kluivert
25Semenyo
421key passes #9 of 23
12.9box entries/game #11 of 23
34.8final-3rd entries/game #5 of 23
1.55xG/game #4 of 23
68goals #7 of 23
-3.4finishing vs xG #15 of 23
◆ Vision AI Insight
Bournemouth lean left — 38% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (161 of 421), most often from Truffert (35). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RHS att → C att (49 key passes, most often from Evanilson). Tavernier is the primary source overall. They generate 1.55 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Junior Kroupi (13G), Marcus Tavernier (12G), Antoine Semenyo (10G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Bournemouth deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
760 crosses: 228 found a team-mate (30%), 72 led to a shot (9%). 158 cut-backs: 72 found a team-mate (46%), 43 led to a shot (27%). 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?
760 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. 27% come from one territory, the byline left wing; 38 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
byline · left wing
207
27%
16
advanced · left wing
174
23%
23
advanced · right wing
127
17%
14
byline · right wing
124
16%
9
deep · left wing
54
7%
3
deep · right wing
36
5%
0
byline · left half-space
12
2%
4
advanced · right half-space
8
1%
1
advanced · left half-space
8
1%
1
byline · right half-space
7
1%
1
deep · right half-space
2
0%
0
deep · left half-space
1
0%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
640 shots for 71.4 xG (1.55/game, #4 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
High-volume attack. 13.9 shots/game at 0.112 xG/shot. Box entries 13/game (#11). Threat created 10.3 xT/game (#10).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Bournemouth’s 70 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 — 70 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
56 · 82%
Set pieces
7 · 10%
Penalties
5 · 7%
By finish
Right foot
33 · 49%
Left foot
29 · 43%
Header
6 · 9%
Vision AI Model Insight
68 goals scored. 82% come in open play; set pieces add 10%. Open play is clearly their main route to goal.
When they lose it1 section
Ball-Loss Map — where attacks die
Every turnover has a location and a cause. This is a rate, not a raw count — the share of pass attempts from each zone that end in a turnover, so a zone they simply play through more often doesn't automatically look riskier. Grey cells are real zones with too few attempts to trust a rate.
Loss rate by zone
How they lose it
Incomplete pass — attacking third
1567
Failed forward pass
1085
Failed take-on
518
Lost in the defensive third
1452
Their weakest zone is the right wing in the defensive third: 36% of 825 pass attempts there are lost (297 times). Separately, 33% of all losses happen in the attacking third — a fair share happen deeper, which invites transitions.
Out of possession
Out of possession
How they press, where they win the ball back, and how they concede.
How hard does 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.
58
Pressing Index /100 · average
Intensity62
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height39
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness76
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption46
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
17%
RHS
18%
C
22%
LHS
22%
LW
21%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 51%
Mid 35%
Att 14%
Read
Ranked #4 of 23 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 (21% high-press share) means that when they do defend, it is often deep. Of recoveries, 54% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#4/23
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
158
#2/23
High-press share
21%
#14/23
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
37.1
#14/23
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
24.7
#2/23
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
54%
#9/23
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
77%
#2/23
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
9.7%
#23/23
of opp passes, lower = better
Transition timing
This source carries per-event timestamps, so genuine transition metrics — counter-attack shots, press→shot conversions, time-to-recover — are measured; see the dedicated Transitions section below.
How long they keep it — passes and seconds until the ball is won
The question
Once the opponent has the ball, how many passes and how many seconds pass before Bournemouth win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 1660 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 4.9 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 3.4 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
4.2passes
median 3 · before Bournemouth win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
12sec
median 6s · 36.1 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
46%
30%
14%
10%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
5.1
13s
15–30′
4.8
14s
30–45+′
4.6
13s
45–60′
4.1
12s
60–75′
3.5
11s
75–90+′
3.3
11s
average passesaverage seconds
Phases of play
Every moment of the match read twice — what Bournemouth were doing with the
ball, and what the opposition were doing about it at that exact moment. Built from the
real action sequence in time order, so one possession is split across the phases it
genuinely passed through rather than labelled once by where it began.
7,237phase segments analysed
6.0smedian time before the opposition engage
2.0their passes per defensive action when pressed
#4of 20 for share of defending spent pressing high
High press 9.4%Mid block 13.8%Low block 49.9%Unopposed 26.9%
What opponents do against Bournemouth
The mirror image, and the part no other section can show: whether teams come
out to press Bournemouth or sit in and invite them on. A side that is always faced with a low
block is playing a different sport from one that is pressed every week.
High press 8.9%Mid block 11.5%Low block 50.3%Unopposed 29.3%
Which phases actually produce
Phase
Segments
Avg length
Avg actions
Ends in shot
Turned over
Build-up
2,218
4.2s
2.8
0.2%
52.7%
Progression
3,030
5.7s
3.7
0.8%
50.8%
Chance creation
1,857
5.1s
3.3
25.5%
53.8%
Attacking transition
132
6.7s
4.2
1.5%
43.2%
Most common routes through the phases
How a possession actually travelled, in order. The chain is the tactical signature — a move that climbs all three thirds is a different thing from one that never leaves the first.
Route
Times
Ends in shot
build_up
954
0.3%
progression
938
0.4%
chance_creation
477
33.5%
progression → chance_creation
378
31.5%
build_up → progression
370
0.0%
build_up → progression → chance_creation
209
31.1%
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) 5,923 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use+0.4421.91
Wide-channel share+0.370.33
Side bias+0.341.42
Pass length+0.3123.80
Long-ball share+0.240.25
Forward gain per pass+0.4013.18
Backward-pass share-0.300.19
Deep-pass share+0.330.32
Completion-0.540.75
Seconds between passes+0.143.41
Side used
left 30% · central 43% · right 27%
Progression (middle third) 10,024 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use+0.4326.49
Wide-channel share+0.280.42
Side bias+0.692.81
Pass length+0.6118.08
Long-ball share+0.460.12
Forward gain per pass+0.614.53
Backward-pass share-0.130.33
Deep-pass share+0.610.19
Completion-0.370.82
Seconds between passes+0.493.41
Side used
left 40% · central 28% · right 32%
Final third 5,159 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.1531.24
Wide-channel share-0.210.57
Side bias+0.764.91
Pass length+0.4116.10
Long-ball share+0.230.11
Forward gain per pass-0.180.81
Backward-pass share+0.190.40
Deep-pass share+0.090.09
Completion-0.130.69
Seconds between passes+0.083.46
Side used
left 48% · central 17% · right 35%
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%
#11 of 23 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share23%
#13 of 23 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)16.4s
#10 of 23 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.1
#14 of 23
Counter-attack shots /game1.35
#1 of 23 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.26
#6 of 23 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain11.6s
#3 of 23 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
179attacking transition sequences this season
23%succeed — produce a shot
45%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
471defensive transition sequences this season
62%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
9%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Bournemouth are balanced between tempo and patience: 17% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#11 of 23), against 23% built patiently over 6+ passes (#13 of 23). 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 23) — 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? 2068 opponent progressive passes and 564 shots faced (62.1 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Bournemouth)
Right wing
31%
Right half-space
13%
Central
20%
Left half-space
11%
Left wing
25%
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
Every opponent key pass against them (382 total)
By situation
Open play
42 · 66%
Set pieces
16 · 25%
Penalties
6 · 9%
Vision AI Model Insight
64 goals conceded. 66% come in open play, and 25% from set pieces — a genuine defensive frailty at dead balls to fix on the training ground. 16% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the right wing of the attacking third (19% of key passes faced) — that is the zone to shut off.
Context
Shape and tactics
Set pieces, strengths and weaknesses, and who they resemble.
The tactical idea behind each phase of this team's play, written from the same numbers shown above — what they do in build-up, how they progress, where they create, and how they defend it.
How much of the goal threat is manufactured from dead balls — a route to goal that bypasses their open-play mechanism entirely.
Open play
56 g · 55.8 xG
Set pieces
7 g · 10.8 xG
Penalties
5 g
10% of goals come from set pieces (7 of 68), worth 10.8 xG from 104 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Bournemouth's corners go?
248 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 (121)
Delivered into the box 93%Short 7%
Left side (127)
Delivered into the box 97%Short 3%
Where opponents attack Bournemouth from set pieces
114 shots from opponent corners against Bournemouth, 11 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 (56)
Shot 56Goals 5
Left flag (58)
Shot 58Goals 6
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
progression /game — 45.33 (91th pct)
xG created /game — 1.55 (83th pct)
press intensity (PPDA) — 5.27 (83th pct)
shots /game — 13.91 (78th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
none stand out
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.
Brentford
72%
Newcastle
69%
Man Utd
69%
Brighton
55%
Arsenal
39%
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 type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (15m)
1.67
2.07
1.00
vs mid-block opponents (15m)
1.53
1.00
1.87
vs low-block opponents (16m)
1.38
1.31
1.44
Behaviour — how Bournemouth actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
73%
18%
40
9.1
11.5
vs mid-block opponents
77%
15%
50
11.0
14.7
vs low-block opponents
80%
13%
45
10.9
12.4
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 73% vs 80% against a low block (7pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 18% when pressed vs 13% 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. Bournemouth are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.55 xG a game and they concede 1.35 a game.
[Event-data based — no tracking, so off-ball structure and marking scheme need video.]
For each of ten match numbers, the one match this season that departed furthest from 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 46 matches this season
Progressive carriesvs West Ham · 2-2 · 2025-11-22125avg 48
Final-third entriesvs West Ham · 2-2 · 2025-11-22102avg 45
PPDAat Fulham · 1-0 · 2026-05-0911.6avg 5.3
Field tiltvs West Ham · 2-2 · 2025-11-2291%avg 51%
Progressive passesvs Liverpool · 0-1 · 2026-09-2076avg 45
Threat from passingvs Liverpool · 0-1 · 2026-09-209.57avg 5.23
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 12 matches added up: where the value came from, who produced it, and the six biggest single moves. OBV only measures what a player does with the ball: it shows who added the most on-ball value, not who was the most important player (defending off the ball, positioning and pressing are not in it).
+20.1on-ball value, 12 matches
Where the value came from
Passes5575 actions+7.62
Carries1332 actions+0.15
Dribbles180 actions+0.19
Shots169 actions+7.69
Ball wins786 actions+4.42
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Rayan
446
+3.02
+0.68
Marcus Tavernier
732
+2.66
+0.36
James Hill
949
+2.20
+0.23
Adrien Truffert
840
+1.50
+0.18
Justin Kluivert
181
+1.46
+0.81
António Silva
638
+1.23
+0.19
Ryan Christie
273
+1.14
+0.42
Junior Kroupi
159
+1.11
+0.70
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Junior Kroupi · shot
+0.777
2 Ryan Christie · pass
+0.576
3 James Hill · pass
+0.402
4 Marcus Tavernier · pass
+0.381
5 Evanilson · take-on
+0.377
6 Marcus Tavernier · shot
+0.357
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Bournemouth’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 248 corners taken, most by Marcus Tavernier (81); 104 shots from corners and free kicks, 7 goals, led by Marcus Tavernier (2 goals, 0.47 xG). “Into the box” counts corners that landed inside the penalty area; free-kick takers are the players who shot from one, because this feed does not mark who delivers the others.
Player
Corners taken
Into the box
Set-piece shots
Goals
xG
Free-kick shots
Penalties
Marcus Tavernier
81
58 (72%)
14
2
0.47
10
2/2
Alex Scott
66
60 (91%)
9
—
0.63
3
—
David Brooks
23
20 (87%)
6
—
0.22
2
—
Justin Kluivert
20
17 (85%)
6
—
1.23
3
—
Lewis Cook
32
27 (84%)
2
—
0.06
—
—
Junior Kroupi
1
0 (0%)
9
1
1.32
—
2/2
James Hill
—
—
9
—
0.94
—
—
Evanilson
1
1 (100%)
8
1
1.48
—
—
Rayan
1
1 (100%)
7
1
1.16
—
—
Amine Adli
15
13 (87%)
1
—
0.02
1
—
Álex Jiménez
—
—
6
—
0.16
—
—
Enes Ünal
—
—
6
—
0.21
5
—
Ryan Christie
4
3 (75%)
4
—
0.12
—
—
Marcos Senesi
—
—
5
—
0.76
—
—
Top Performers
Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 300 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.
Chance creation leaders — key passes /90 and box entries.
player
pos
min
key P /90
box entries
xT
Marcus Tavernier
M
3520
1.76
88
36.5
Adrien Truffert
D
4368
0.76
65
53.7
Alex Scott
M
3464
0.88
39
29.4
Evanilson
F
3520
0.89
31
7.0
David Brooks
M
1435
1.76
36
16.7
Justin Kluivert
M
1416
1.65
23
10.6
James Hill
D
3054
0.50
31
40.0
Álex Jiménez
D
2433
0.52
30
27.1
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.
player
pos
min
crosses (completed)
cutbacks (completed)
Adrien Truffert
FB
4368
56 (38%)
49 (41%)
Rayan
W
1861
10 (20%)
20 (40%)
Adam Smith
FB
1866
18 (39%)
6 (33%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Adrien Truffert
D
4368
810
124
58
226
James Hill
D
3054
685
61
47
101
Alex Scott
M
3464
599
69
44
230
Marcus Tavernier
M
3520
459
53
19
192
Tyler Adams
M
2428
417
63
45
134
Evanilson
F
3520
405
20
15
106
Álex Jiménez
D
2433
359
69
27
135
Rayan
M
1861
285
20
14
58
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (22 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Djordje Petrovic
G
46
4432
0
0.0
0
130
111
29.5
Adrien Truffert
D
46
4368
1
1.7
37
327
810
53.7
Evanilson
F
44
3520
9
12.2
35
31
405
7.0
Marcus Tavernier
M
42
3520
12
9.8
69
144
459
36.5
Alex Scott
M
42
3464
4
4.1
34
100
599
29.4
James Hill
D
37
3054
0
1.1
17
137
685
40.0
Álex Jiménez
D
31
2433
1
1.4
14
127
359
27.1
Tyler Adams
M
33
2428
2
0.9
7
69
417
20.3
Adam Smith
D
30
1866
0
0.2
10
100
247
19.3
Rayan
M
23
1861
6
5.3
17
69
285
10.4
Junior Kroupi
M
34
1764
13
7.7
20
23
165
7.6
Ryan Christie
M
33
1455
2
2.9
14
53
231
14.7
David Brooks
M
36
1435
1
5.2
28
97
160
16.7
Justin Kluivert
M
26
1416
3
3.4
26
43
160
10.6
Bafodé Diakité
D
20
1401
0
0.0
2
50
253
15.0
Lewis Cook
M
26
1348
0
0.2
16
65
228
15.1
Amine Adli
M
33
1264
3
2.3
14
50
206
8.4
António Silva
D
8
760
0
1.6
1
43
173
12.2
Veljko Milosavljevic
D
7
393
0
0.1
1
9
79
3.2
Enes Ünal
F
23
374
1
1.6
1
1
68
0.6
Ben Gannon-Doak
M
15
303
0
0.5
4
12
47
1.9
Alex Tóth
M
11
215
0
0.2
5
5
27
1.3
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
minutes4432
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /902.6
key passes /900.00
def actions /902.3
pass accuracy70%
Adrien Truffert
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes4368
goals · xG1 · 1.7
prog passes /906.7
key passes /900.76
def actions /9016.7
pass accuracy79%
Evanilson
Poacher / finisher · Forward
minutes3520
goals · xG9 · 12.2
prog passes /900.8
key passes /900.89
def actions /9010.4
pass accuracy75%
Marcus Tavernier
Creative forward · Forward
minutes3520
goals · xG12 · 9.8
prog passes /903.7
key passes /901.76
def actions /9011.7
pass accuracy77%
Alex Scott
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes3464
goals · xG4 · 4.1
prog passes /902.6
key passes /900.88
def actions /9015.6
pass accuracy80%
James Hill
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes3054
goals · xG0 · 1.1
prog passes /904.0
key passes /900.50
def actions /9020.2
pass accuracy74%
Álex Jiménez
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes2433
goals · xG1 · 1.4
prog passes /904.7
key passes /900.52
def actions /9013.3
pass accuracy78%
Tyler Adams
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes2428
goals · xG2 · 0.9
prog passes /902.6
key passes /900.26
def actions /9015.5
pass accuracy87%
Adam Smith
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes1866
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /904.8
key passes /900.48
def actions /9011.9
pass accuracy77%
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 — below-average: pass retention % (39th pct)
Sign a secure ball-retaining midfielder. The data flags this because possession is turned over cheaply (77.51, 39th percentile vs the league).
Need — below-average: box entries /game (52th pct)
Sign a penetrative wide player or runner to create box entries. The data flags this because few entries into the box (12.87, 52th percentile vs the league).
← BACK TO SEARCHSeason
