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 reportLigue 1 2026

Le Havre

A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a high-volume attack. Currently #18 of 18 on 2 points (0-2-6, 8:15). 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
D
D
D
D
L
W
L
D
L
D
L
L
L
L
2
points
#18 of 18 · 8 games
8:15
goals
-7 GD
0-2-6
record
W-D-L
0.25
points/game
#18 in the league
1.59
xG for/game
rank #5
1.43
xG against/game
rank #11
#2
press rank
of 18 · most aggressive
51%
field tilt
#8
Le Havre
League average
Expected goals for / game
1.591.41
Expected goals against / game
1.431.41
Field tilt
51%50%
Pass retention
80%83%
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 Le Havre and how good was the season?
Read. Le Havre currently sit #18 of 18 on 2 points (0W-2D-6L, 0.25 pts/game), scoring 8 and conceding 15 for a goal difference of -7. On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (51% field tilt, #8 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#2 of 18 for press intensity). Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 1.59 xG/game (#5) and concede 1.43 (#11), a net of +0.16 xG/game — the underlying performance diverges from the actual goal difference.

Season Context — the league table

The question
Where did Le Havre actually finish, and against whom?

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

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
15Le Mans81431116-57
16Strasbourg82151218-67
17Troyes8125516-115
18Le Havre8026815-72

Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger

The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Le Havre 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+'+3.18-0.98
Vision AI Model Insight
Le Havre tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG -0.72, second-half +1.97. Their strongest period is 76-90+' (net +3.18 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 0-15' (net -0.98 xG against them).

xG Race — the season, match by match

Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Le Havre against what their opponents created. A line pulling away upwards is a side creating more than it gives away; the gap at the end is the season’s balance (+1.2 xG). Hover a point for that match.

0591412.711.5Monaco (H) 0-1 · xG 0.83 to 1.51Lyon (A) 1-1 · xG 0.80 to 1.45Brest (H) 1-2 · xG 2.21 to 2.42Angers (H) 0-0 · xG 1.66 to 0.65Toulouse (A) 2-3 · xG 2.31 to 1.99Lille (A) 0-1 · xG 1.35 to 0.64Auxerre (H) 1-3 · xG 1.20 to 1.84Marseille (A) 3-4 · xG 2.35 to 0.97M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8
Le HavreOpponents against Le Havre

Tactical DNA

The football question
In five genes, what is Le Havre'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.

39
Build-Up
possession control from the back
58
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
70
Creation
manufacturing chances
72
Press
winning the ball high & hard
39
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Le Havre are defined most by their Press DNA (72/100 · strong at winning the ball high & hard), and least by their Build-Up DNA (39/100). Percentiles vs the 18 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).

Possess32Disrupt52Finish25Press47Defend53
Possess
Deep buildup
25%
Possession
40%
Field tilt
30%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
40%
Dribble tendency
75%
Progressive passes
40%
Finish
Final-third patience
25%
Shot quality
20%
Open-play xG
30%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
80%
High regains
25%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
35%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
50%
High line ~proxy
30%
PAdj defensive actions
80%
Le Havre is defined most by Defend (53% in the league) and weakest on Finish (25%). Percentiles vs the 20 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 Le Havre actually control, relative to the rest of the league?

Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Le Havre'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; Le Havre highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.

PSG: 74% tilt, 2.12 pts/gRennes: 50% tilt, 2.00 pts/gLille: 44% tilt, 1.88 pts/gMonaco: 52% tilt, 1.88 pts/gLyon: 49% tilt, 1.75 pts/gParis FC: 46% tilt, 1.75 pts/gLens: 55% tilt, 1.62 pts/gLorient: 40% tilt, 1.50 pts/gMarseille: 58% tilt, 1.50 pts/gNice: 53% tilt, 1.38 pts/gToulouse: 51% tilt, 1.25 pts/gAuxerre: 52% tilt, 1.25 pts/gBrest: 44% tilt, 1.12 pts/gAngers: 43% tilt, 1.00 pts/gStrasbourg: 42% tilt, 0.88 pts/gLe Mans: 41% tilt, 0.88 pts/gTroyes: 54% tilt, 0.62 pts/gLe Havre: 51% tilt, 0.25 pts/gLe Havre40%52%63%74%0.20.91.52.1FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
Vision AI Model Insight
Le Havre post 51% field tilt, ranking #8 of 18 in the league — comfortably above the league mid-point for territorial control, and their 0.25 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 Le Havre has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?

The share of Le Havre'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: 25.9% of the time on the ball26%Progression: 44.5% of the time on the ball44%Chance creation: 27.1% of the time on the ball27%Attacking transition: 2.5% of the time on the ball44%PROGRESSION
PhaseShare of the time
Build-up25.9%
Progression44.5%
Chance creation27.1%
Attacking transition2.5%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Le Havre spends most of its time on the ball (44% of its time on the ball).

Passing Network

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

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

Gauthier Gallon ↔ Ahmed Touba: 65 passes, 0.1 combined xTAhmed Touba ↔ Ayumu Seko: 61 passes, 0.1 combined xTAmir Richardson ↔ Simon Ebonog: 59 passes, -0.1 combined xTSimon Ebonog ↔ Djibril Ouziad: 54 passes, 1.1 combined xTAyumu Seko ↔ Djibril Ouziad: 50 passes, 0.1 combined xTAhmed Touba ↔ Junior Mwanga: 49 passes, -0.2 combined xTAhmed Touba ↔ Simon Ebonog: 48 passes, 0.1 combined xTMbwana Samatta ↔ Amir Richardson: 47 passes, 1.2 combined xTAhmed Touba ↔ Amir Richardson: 47 passes, -0.3 combined xTAhmed Touba ↔ Enzo Koffi: 47 passes, 0.0 combined xTAyumu Seko ↔ Simon Ebonog: 46 passes, -0.2 combined xTJunior Mwanga ↔ Ayumu Seko: 42 passes, -0.1 combined xTGauthier Gallon ↔ Ayumu Seko: 40 passes, 0.0 combined xTRassoul Ndiaye ↔ Amir Richardson: 37 passes, 1.4 combined xTRassoul Ndiaye ↔ Simon Ebonog: 36 passes, 0.3 combined xTAmir Richardson ↔ Djibril Ouziad: 36 passes, 0.8 combined xTSimon Ebonog ↔ Enzo Koffi: 33 passes, 0.0 combined xTJunior Mwanga ↔ Amir Richardson: 30 passes, -0.4 combined xTRassoul Ndiaye ↔ Djibril Ouziad: 28 passes, 0.8 combined xTAmir Richardson ↔ Ayumu Seko: 28 passes, 0.2 combined xTJunior Mwanga ↔ Djibril Ouziad: 24 passes, -0.1 combined xTRassoul Ndiaye ↔ Ayumu Seko: 23 passes, 0.9 combined xTJosh Maja ↔ Amir Richardson: 22 passes, 0.4 combined xTSimon Ebonog ↔ Sota Nakamura: 21 passes, 0.7 combined xTJosh Maja — isolate this player's connectionsMajaMbwana Samatta — isolate this player's connectionsSamattaAmir Richardson — isolate this player's connectionsRichardsonSimon Ebonog — isolate this player's connectionsEbonogSota Nakamura — isolate this player's connectionsNakamuraEnzo Koffi — isolate this player's connectionsKoffiDjibril Ouziad — isolate this player's connectionsOuziadAyumu Seko — isolate this player's connectionsSekoJunior Mwanga — isolate this player's connectionsMwangaRassoul Ndiaye — isolate this player's connectionsNdiayeGautier Lloris — isolate this player's connectionsLlorisAhmed Touba — isolate this player's connectionsToubaIssa Soumaré — isolate this player's connectionsSoumaréKaito Mizuta — isolate this player's connectionsMizutaRayan Fofana — isolate this player's connectionsFofanaGauthier Gallon — isolate this player's connectionsGallon
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high

Top 10 combinations

Gallon ↔ Touba
65p · 0.1xT
Touba ↔ Seko
61p · 0.1xT
Richardson ↔ Ebonog
59p · -0.1xT
Ebonog ↔ Ouziad
54p · 1.1xT
Seko ↔ Ouziad
50p · 0.1xT
Touba ↔ Mwanga
49p · -0.2xT
Touba ↔ Ebonog
48p · 0.1xT
Samatta ↔ Richardson
47p · 1.2xT
Touba ↔ Richardson
47p · -0.3xT
Touba ↔ Koffi
47p · 0.0xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Gauthier Gallon ↔ Ahmed Touba (65 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Rassoul Ndiaye ↔ Ayumu Seko (0.04 xT/pass over 23 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.

Touch Density — where Le Havre had the ball

Every touch across 72 matches. Brighter means more touches.

Which Zones Do They Attack Through?

The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Le Havre 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
3686
ACTIONS
4%5%10%5%4%9%9%10%10%9%8%4%3%4%6%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
894
ACTIONS
3%6%10%6%3%8%7%14%11%8%7%3%3%3%6%CARRIES
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the middle third (10.8% of all actions). 59% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 41% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 29% defensive, 47% 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. Le Havre leaned on their right (40%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.

37%Left side23%Middle40%Right sideATTACKING →
Le Havre
37%23%40%
League
38%22%40%

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. Le Havre made 335 this season (41.9 a match); 31% came into the right 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: 98 entries (29%)9829%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 50 entries (15%)5015%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 35 entries (10%)3510%CENTRERight half-space: 47 entries (14%)4714%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 105 entries (31%)10531%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing9812.229%30%
Left half-space506.215%13%
Centre354.410%11%
Right half-space475.914%14%
Right wing10513.131%32%
Build-up2 sections

Build-Up — the pass map

The football question
How does Le Havre 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.

1053build-up passes attempted
84%completed
30%reach the middle third
1%go long into the final third

Pass types

382CB · 43%
71Long Wide · 8%
6Long Central · 1%
354Wide → FB · 40%
71Central · 8%

Sequence success — build-up

91build-up sequences this season
9%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
37%turned over with nothing to show
CB382 · 43%
left: 196 passes, most from Touba196right: 186 passes, most from Seko186
Long Wide71 · 8%
left: 38 passes, most from Gallon38right: 33 passes, most from Mpasi33
Long Central6 · 1%
left: 3 passes, most from Samatta3right: 3 passes, most from Gallon3
Wide → FB354 · 40%
right: 181 passes, most from Gallon181left: 173 passes, most from Gallon173
Central71 · 8%
left: 36 passes, most from Gallon36right: 35 passes, most from Gallon35
◆ Vision AI Insight
Le Havre build predominantly down the left, with Gallon as the fulcrum (149 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 → RHS def (75×).

Pass Explorer

Every pass of Le Havre’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. 365 progressive passes across 8 matches (45.6/game).

Origin lane

Right wing
39%
Right half-space
10%
Central
12%
Left half-space
9%
Left wing
30%
Progression is right-dominant: 49% right side · 12% central · 39% left.

Who generates it

Djibril Ouziad
51 · 14%
Ayumu Seko
36 · 10%
Ahmed Touba
31 · 8%
Rassoul Ndiaye
25 · 7%
Amir Richardson
25 · 7%
Top two — Djibril Ouziad & Ayumu Seko — account for 24% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
45.6 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
25% reach final third
23% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 75% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it. 25% of progressive passes reached the final third and 23% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 24% 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 wingefficient
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralsterile
Left half-spacebalanced
Left wingbalanced

Progression — the pass map

The football question
Once Le Havre 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.

1736progression passes attempted
85%completed
17%break into the final third
11%go backward into the defensive third

Pass types

519CB · 35%
48Long Wide · 3%
8Long Central · 1%
715Wide → FB · 48%
193Central · 13%

Sequence success — progression

134progression sequences this season
28%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
37%turned over with nothing to show
CB519 · 35%
right: 273 passes, most from Seko273left: 246 passes, most from Touba246
Long Wide48 · 3%
right: 26 passes, most from Ouziad26left: 22 passes, most from Koffi22
Long Central8 · 1%
right: 5 passes, most from Richardson5left: 3 passes, most from Jelert3
Wide → FB715 · 48%
left: 373 passes, most from Ebonog373right: 342 passes, most from Ouziad342
Central193 · 13%
right: 98 passes, most from Richardson98left: 95 passes, most from Ebonog95
◆ Vision AI Insight
Le Havre progress predominantly down the left, with Touba the busiest midfield outlet (195 progression passes). Only 17% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (72%) 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 RHS mid → RW mid (94×) — 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
50%
Safe / backward
34%
16% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 84% 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 Le Havre actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?

242 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (27% of 894 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 40m. Most active carrier: Touba (40). Filter to one player below.

First (88)Second (60)Third (50)Fourth (44)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 Le Havre'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.

130shots
12.7xG
0.10xG per shot
6big chances (0.3+ xG)
8goals
#2key passes / game in the league
#8box entries / game in the league
Attacking transition: 25 shots (19%)19%25Settled attack: 88 shots (68%)68%88Set piece: 17 shots (13%)13%17130SHOTS
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set upShotsGoalsxGxG / shot
Attacking transition 19% of shots2511.770.07
Cross300.260.09
Cut-back210.220.11
Pass into the box / short pass1701.050.06
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)300.230.08
Settled attack 68% of shots8858.490.10
Cross2532.710.11
Cut-back600.990.16
Long ball400.240.06
Pass into the box / short pass3523.200.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)1801.350.07
Set piece 13% of shots1722.450.14
Corner1500.860.06
Penalty221.590.79

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
Kaito Mizuta101.492
Sota Nakamura91.342
Amir Richardson130.920
Rassoul Ndiaye120.790
Mbwana Samatta40.690

Who takes them

PlayerShotsxGGoals
Josh Maja153.633
Mbwana Samatta322.722
Rayan Fofana121.812
Amir Richardson120.690
Djibril Ouziad90.670
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Le Havre's chances, by xG, is settled attack (8.5 of 12.7 xG, 88 of 130 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 25 of the 130 shots (19%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 17 of the 130 shots came from set pieces; 8 goals from 12.7 xG (-4.7).

Chance Creation — the pass map

The football question
How does Le Havre 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

10CB · 11%
3Long Wide · 3%
13Long Central · 14%
30Wide → FB · 32%
39Central · 41%

Sequence success — final-third

106final-third sequences this season
22%succeed — produce a shot
37%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
CB10 · 11%
left: 5 passes, most from Seko5right: 5 passes, most from Seko5
Long Wide3 · 3%
right: 2 passes, most from N'Diaye2
Long Central13 · 14%
right: 9 passes, most from Ndiaye9left: 4 passes, most from Ouziad4
Wide → FB30 · 32%
left: 17 passes, most from Richardson17right: 13 passes, most from Ndiaye13
Central39 · 41%
right: 28 passes, most from Nakamura28left: 11 passes, most from Ndiaye11

Who creates — volume × threat

13Ndiaye
12Richardson
9Nakamura
8Seko
8Ouziad
8Ebonog
7Mizuta
95key passes #2 of 18
13.1box entries/game #8 of 18
32.4final-3rd entries/game #8 of 18
1.59xG/game #5 of 18
8goals #15 of 18
-4.7finishing vs xG #18 of 18
◆ Vision AI Insight
Le Havre lean right — 46% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (44 of 95), most often from Ndiaye (8). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RW att → C att (20 key passes, most often from Ouziad). Ndiaye is the primary source overall. They generate 1.59 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Josh Maja (3G), Mbwana Samatta (2G), Rayan Fofana (2G).

Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide

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

182 crosses: 62 found a team-mate (34%), 27 led to a shot (15%). 23 cut-backs: 9 found a team-mate (39%), 8 led to a shot (35%). 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 Le Havre actually cross from?

182 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. 31% come from one territory, the advanced right wing; 6 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.

deep right wing: 4 crosses (2%)2%4deep right half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1deep centre: 0 crosses (0%)deep left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep left wing: 6 crosses (3%)3%6advanced right wing: 57 crosses (31%)31%57advanced right half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1advanced centre: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1advanced left wing: 35 crosses (19%)19%35byline right wing: 30 crosses (16%)16%30byline right half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1byline centre: 0 crosses (0%)byline left half-space: 2 crosses (1%)1%2byline left wing: 44 crosses (24%)24%44
TerritoryCrossesShareLed to a shot
advanced · right wing5731%15
byline · left wing4424%6
advanced · left wing3519%2
byline · right wing3016%3
deep · left wing63%1
deep · right wing42%0
byline · left half-space21%0
deep · right half-space11%0
advanced · right half-space11%0
advanced · left half-space11%0
byline · right half-space11%0
Finishing3 sections

Shot Map

130 shots for 12.7 xG (1.59/game, #5 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.

High-volume attack. 16.2 shots/game at 0.098 xG/shot. Box entries 13/game (#8). Threat created 11.0 xT/game (#9).

Goal Sequences

The move behind each of Le Havre’s 8 goals this season, from the moment they got the ball to the finish. Pick a goal from the list, then step through it or press Play: numbered circles are passes and touches, dotted lines are carries (the ball travelling with a player), dashed grey is a pass that was lost, the star is the shot.

Each goal’s possession, rebuilt from the raw event feed — 8 goals traced.

How Do They Score?

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

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

By situation

Open play
6 · 75%
Set pieces
0 · 0%
Penalties
2 · 25%

By finish

Right foot
4 · 50%
Left foot
1 · 12%
Header
3 · 38%
Vision AI Model Insight
8 goals scored. 75% 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

44 of 164 pass attempts lost here (27%).27%44/164Seko18 of 166 pass attempts lost here (11%).11%18/166Mpasi52 of 378 pass attempts lost here (14%).14%52/378Mpasi18 of 184 pass attempts lost here (10%).10%18/184Touba37 of 161 pass attempts lost here (23%).23%37/161Touba68 of 345 pass attempts lost here (20%).20%68/345Ouziad31 of 327 pass attempts lost here (9%).9%31/327Richardson40 of 366 pass attempts lost here (11%).11%40/366Seko50 of 352 pass attempts lost here (14%).14%50/352Touba64 of 346 pass attempts lost here (18%).18%64/346Koffi109 of 312 pass attempts lost here (35%).35%109/312Ouziad43 of 133 pass attempts lost here (32%).32%43/133Ebonog30 of 106 pass attempts lost here (28%).28%30/106Samatta42 of 130 pass attempts lost here (32%).32%42/130Ndiaye94 of 216 pass attempts lost here (44%).44%94/216Koffiattacking →

How they lose it

Incomplete pass — attacking third
318
Failed forward pass
222
Failed take-on
86
Lost in the defensive third
169
Their weakest zone is the left wing in the attacking third: 44% of 216 pass attempts there are lost (94 times). Separately, 43% 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 Le Havre 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.

61
Pressing Index
/100 · average
Intensity76
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height72
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness44
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption50
opponent completion & progression allowed

Every defensive action & where it happens

Where they win the ball back — by lane

RW
21%
RHS
17%
C
20%
LHS
19%
LW
23%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 44%
Mid 39%
Att 17%
Read
Ranked #2 of 18 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, 54% are won high up the pitch.

Every pressing metric, ranked in the league

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)—#2/18lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game164#4/18
High-press share24%#7/18def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)40.3#5/18avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game22.6#12/18ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share54%#8/18share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed81%#4/18lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed9.4%#14/18of 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 Le Havre win it back with a defensive action?

Counted over the 263 opposition possessions that Le Havre 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 Le Havre step in. Le Havre win it after 5.6 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 4.6 after the hour mark (sooner).

PASSES THEY GET
5.0passes
median 3 · before Le Havre win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
15sec
median 9s · 32.9 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
41%
30%
16%
13%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
5.5
15s
15–30′
5.7
17s
30–45+′
5.1
16s
45–60′
3.9
11s
60–75′
5.0
19s
75–90+′
4.5
12s
average passesaverage seconds

Attitude in each third

Every other style number here says how much Le Havre 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 Le Havre 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) 1,053 passes

nothing unusual in this zone

Width of use+0.2721.56
Wide-channel share+0.250.32
Side bias+0.090.50
Pass length-0.4421.11
Long-ball share-0.360.19
Forward gain per pass-0.389.79
Backward-pass share-0.340.18
Deep-pass share-0.380.25
Completion+0.560.84
Seconds between passes+0.293.50
Side used

left 29% · central 43% · right 28%

Progression (middle third) 1,736 passes

nothing unusual in this zone

Width of use+0.3726.36
Wide-channel share+0.260.42
Side bias+0.060.31
Pass length+0.0117.24
Long-ball share-0.140.10
Forward gain per pass+0.223.94
Backward-pass share-0.310.32
Deep-pass share-0.030.16
Completion+0.170.85
Seconds between passes-0.163.12
Side used

left 37% · central 28% · right 36%

Final third 897 passes

attacking the next line

Width of use+0.0131.63
Wide-channel share+0.250.61
Side bias-0.69-5.34
Pass length+0.7816.67
Long-ball share+0.160.11
Forward gain per pass+1.002.38
Backward-pass share-0.660.34
Deep-pass share+0.610.11
Completion-0.600.65
Seconds between passes+0.303.62
Side used

left 35% · central 18% · right 47%

Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Le Havre'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 Le Havre 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 share19%
#4 of 18 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share25%
#13 of 18 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)17.2s
#7 of 18 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.1
#14 of 18
Counter-attack shots /game0.95
#11 of 18 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.19
#10 of 18 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain12.9s
#11 of 18 · lower = faster break

Sequence success — attacking transition

16attacking transition sequences this season
12%succeed — produce a shot
56%turned over with nothing to show

Sequence success — defensive transition

41defensive transition sequences this season
76%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
7%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Le Havre are a direct, fast-break side: 19% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#4 of 18), against 25% built patiently over 6+ passes (#13 of 18). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 0.95 times a game (#11), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.19 times a game (#10 of 18) — 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 Le Havre? 359 opponent progressive passes and 101 shots faced (11.5 xG against) across the season.

Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Le Havre)

Right wing
32%
Right half-space
12%
Central
15%
Left half-space
11%
Left wing
30%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (32% of the danger conceded).

How Do They Concede?

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

Every goal Le Havre conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Le Havre'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 (67 total)

1%1%3%13%1%1%15%22%12%16%12%Stanis IdumboVandersonFlávio NazinhoFlávio NazinhoAleksandr GolovinAleksandr GolovinAmine SbaïSadibou SanéAnis SoubeirAmine El OuazzaniAmine SbaïBranco van den BoomenJim AllevinahCarlens ArcusLouis MoutonThomas JørgensenChrist TapéRafik MessaliCristian CásseresKamory DoumbiaJoris ChotardLudovic AjorqueKamory DoumbiaBradley LockoPathé MboupMama BaldéLuck ZogbéJoris ChotardNoah EdjoumaJoris ChotardLucas TousartLudovic AjorqueErnest NuamahZachary AthekameCorentin TolissoMads BidstrupMalick FofanaZachary AthekameAbner ViníciusLoïs OpendaAmine HaritEmersonIgor PaixãoAmine HaritIgor PaixãoAmine GouiriPierre-Emile HøjbjergCasper TengstedtThomas JørgensenCristian CásseresThomas JørgensenCristian CásseresFredrik OppegårdRomain FaivreRomain FaivreKévin DanoisNaouirou AhamadaRomain FaivreKévin DanoisDanny NamasoFredrik OppegårdDanny NamasoKévin DanoisTanguy NianzouDilane BakwaHákon HaraldssonOsame Sahraoui← own goal

By situation

Open play
10 · 67%
Set pieces
3 · 20%
Penalties
2 · 13%
Vision AI Model Insight
15 goals conceded. 67% come in open play; set pieces account for only 20%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 20% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the right half-space of the attacking third (22% 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
6 g · 10.3 xG
Set pieces
0 g · 0.9 xG
Penalties
2 g
0% of goals come from set pieces (0 of 8), worth 0.9 xG from 15 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.

Where do Le Havre's corners go?

43 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 (27)

26%48%7%7%7%
Delivered into the box 96%Short 4%

Left side (16)

6%44%19%6%25%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Where opponents attack Le Havre from set pieces

13 shots from opponent corners against Le Havre, 3 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)

17%67%17%
Shot 6Goals 2

Left flag (7)

14%14%43%14%14%
Shot 7Goals 1

Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths (top-third vs league)
  • press intensity (PPDA) — 4.53 (89th pct)
  • shots /game — 16.25 (83th pct)
  • xG created /game — 1.59 (72th pct)
  • progression /game — 45.62 (67th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
  • pass retention % — 79.92 (22th 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.

Brest
65%
Le Mans
51%
Rennes
49%
Auxerre
42%
Troyes
40%

Performance vs Opponent Styles

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

Results

opponent typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)0.501.500.00
vs mid-block opponents (2m)1.502.000.50
vs low-block opponents (4m)1.002.000.25

Behaviour — how Le Havre actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents78%12%5012.014.0
vs mid-block opponents80%12%4410.512.0
vs low-block opponents81%13%4410.713.2
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 78% vs 81% against a low block (3pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 12% when pressed vs 13% against a low block — their passing style barely changes regardless of how the opponent sets up, for better or worse.

Scouting Summary — the team in brief

In brief. Le Havre are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press. Their attack creates 1.59 xG a game and they concede 1.43 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 Le Havre’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.

Le Havre
across 8 matches this season
Threat from passingvs Brest · 1-2 · 2026-09-0510.28avg 6.85
Progressive passesvs Brest · 1-2 · 2026-09-0556avg 46
Passesat Lyon · 1-1 · 2026-08-29379avg 461
Final-third entriesvs Brest · 1-2 · 2026-09-0556avg 42
PPDAvs Brest · 1-2 · 2026-09-053.4avg 4.5
Field tiltat Lyon · 1-1 · 2026-08-2937%avg 51%
Defensive actionsvs Auxerre · 1-3 · 2026-10-18187avg 164
Pass accuracyat Toulouse · 2-3 · 2026-09-1984%avg 80%

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 Le Havre’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).

+14.4on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes3686 actions+4.44
Carries894 actions+0.51
Dribbles141 actions+0.13
Shots130 actions+7.14
Ball wins512 actions+2.23
Most on-ball value (OBV)ActionsOBVper 100
Josh Maja136+1.82+1.34
Mbwana Samatta297+1.73+0.58
Rayan Fofana89+1.36+1.53
Sota Nakamura203+1.22+0.60
Djibril Ouziad384+1.04+0.27
Simon Ebonog553+1.00+0.18
Amir Richardson489+0.97+0.20
Ahmed Touba568+0.95+0.17
123456
Biggest single movesOBV
1  Rayan Fofana · shot+0.810
2  Josh Maja · shot+0.808
3  Mbwana Samatta · shot+0.439
4  Josh Maja · shot+0.358
5  Josh Maja · shot+0.249
6  Josh Maja · shot+0.225

Set Pieces by Player

Who delivers Le Havre’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 43 corners taken, most by Rassoul Ndiaye (16); 15 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
Rassoul Ndiaye1616 (100%)1—0.03——
Djibril Ouziad1313 (100%)1—0.03——
Amir Richardson——3—0.28——
Mbwana Samatta——3—0.22——
Enzo Koffi——2—0.06——
Josh Maja——1—0.05—1/1
Rayan Fofana——1—0.05—1/1
Elias Jelert44 (100%)——0.00——
Kaito Mizuta44 (100%)——0.00——
Lamine N'Diaye11 (100%)1—0.08——
Fodé Doucouré——1—0.03——
Ayumu Seko——1—0.03——
Ismaïl Bouneb21 (50%)——0.00——
Sota Nakamura22 (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
Rassoul NdiayeAM4895.3Box Threat 62%Ball-Carrying 54%Chance Creation 43%
Ahmed ToubaCB6785.1Ball-Carrying 78%Ball-Winning 75%Progression 64%Aerial & Box Defending 42%
Lionel MpasiGK2854.2Shot-Stopping 42%
Mbwana SamattaW6963.9Ball-Carrying 50%Chance Creation 43%Wide Delivery 32%Box Threat 32%
Simon EbonogCM7423.9Successful Dribble 78%Ball-Carrying 65%Progression 7%Chance Creation 5%
Amir RichardsonCM7193.7Ball-Carrying 49%Chance Creation 38%Successful Dribble 34%Progression 28%
Josh MajaST4512.8Box Threat 86%Ball-Carrying 43%Finishing 22%Aerial Threat 0%
Djibril OuziadFB5102.6Wide Delivery 48%Ball-Winning 43%Ball-Carrying 38%
Ayumu SekoCB6782.5Progression 40%Ball-Winning 37%Ball-Carrying 31%Aerial & Box Defending 16%
Junior MwangaCB5402.1Ball-Carrying 44%Ball-Winning 38%Progression 31%Aerial & Box Defending 2%

Top Creators

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

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Rassoul NdiayeM4892.39176.7
Amir RichardsonM7191.50137.4
Djibril OuziadD5101.41159.1
Sota NakamuraF3642.23113.8
Simon EbonogM7420.9744.8
Ayumu SekoD6781.0639.4
Enzo KoffiD2701.6753.8
Josh MajaF4511.4021.7

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)
Djibril OuziadFB51015 (33%)5 (60%)
Enzo KoffiFB2706 (17%)8 (38%)
Mbwana SamattaW6963 (33%)3 (33%)

Defensive Volume Leaders

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

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
Simon EbonogM742160161566
Amir RichardsonM719149181136
Ahmed ToubaD678142121733
Mbwana SamattaF6961039431
Ayumu SekoD67810181220
Djibril OuziadD5108611615
Rassoul NdiayeM4897912324
Junior MwangaD5407814817

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (20 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Simon EbonogM874200.4881604.8
Amir RichardsonM871900.712251497.4
Mbwana SamattaF869622.74191033.3
Ayumu SekoD767800.68361019.4
Ahmed ToubaD767800.11311429.8
Junior MwangaD754000.0113783.8
Djibril OuziadD751000.7851869.1
Rassoul NdiayeM748900.61325796.7
Gauthier GallonG648700.001393.9
Josh MajaF845133.675371.7
Sota NakamuraF836400.5920433.8
Elias JelertM429500.0221393.7
Lionel MpasiG328500.001583.5
Rayan FofanaM628121.813420.5
Enzo KoffiD727000.2522563.8
Timothée PembéléM320500.115341.7
Kaito MizutaM619700.3713182.9
Lamine N'DiayeD318010.4316392.9
Vincent SassoD317100.005322.0
Fodé DoucouréM210300.1211141.4

Player Role Architecture

The question
Who does what — and what tactical job does each key player actually perform?

The nine most-used players (450+ minutes), each with the role their event fingerprint points to — not just their listed position.

Simon Ebonog
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes742
goals · xG0 · 0.4
prog passes /901.0
key passes /900.97
def actions /9019.4
pass accuracy87%
Amir Richardson
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes719
goals · xG0 · 0.7
prog passes /903.1
key passes /901.50
def actions /9018.7
pass accuracy82%
Mbwana Samatta
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes696
goals · xG2 · 2.7
prog passes /902.5
key passes /900.52
def actions /9013.3
pass accuracy71%
Ayumu Seko
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes678
goals · xG0 · 0.6
prog passes /904.8
key passes /901.06
def actions /9013.4
pass accuracy88%
Ahmed Touba
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes678
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /904.1
key passes /900.13
def actions /9018.8
pass accuracy88%
Junior Mwanga
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes540
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /902.2
key passes /900.17
def actions /9013.0
pass accuracy88%
Djibril Ouziad
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes510
goals · xG0 · 0.7
prog passes /909.0
key passes /901.41
def actions /9015.2
pass accuracy74%
Rassoul Ndiaye
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes489
goals · xG0 · 0.6
prog passes /904.6
key passes /902.39
def actions /9014.5
pass accuracy70%
Gauthier Gallon
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes487
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /902.4
key passes /900.00
def actions /901.7
pass accuracy86%

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 % (22th pct)
Sign a secure ball-retaining midfielder. The data flags this because possession is turned over cheaply (79.92, 22th percentile vs the league).
Need — below-average: xG conceded /game (39th pct)
Sign a defensive organiser / shot-suppressing centre-back. The data flags this because too much xG is conceded (1.43, 39th percentile vs the league).
Need — below-average: threat created /game (50th pct)
Sign a threat-generating creator between the lines. The data flags this because little threat is manufactured (10.96, 50th percentile vs the league).
Vision AI · building report