Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportLigue 1 2025/26
Toulouse
A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Finished #9 of 18 on 45 points (12-9-13, 47:46). Tactical profile below is built from 34 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.
In one read, what kind of team is Toulouse and how good was the season?
Read. Toulouse finished #9 of 18 on 45 points (12W-9D-13L, 1.32 pts/game), scoring 47 and conceding 46 for a goal difference of +1.
On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (49% field tilt, #10 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#11 of 18 for press intensity).
Across the 34 matches of event data, they create 1.27 xG/game (#9) and concede 1.15 (#3), a net of +0.12 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Toulouse actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Toulouse.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
6
Rennes
34
17
8
9
59
50
+9
59
7
Monaco
34
16
6
12
60
54
+6
54
8
Strasbourg
34
15
8
11
58
47
+11
53
9
Toulouse
34
12
9
13
47
46
+1
45
10
Lorient
34
11
12
11
48
51
-3
45
11
Paris FC
34
11
11
12
47
50
-3
44
12
Brest
34
10
9
15
43
55
-12
39
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Toulouse 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
Toulouse tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG +0.81, second-half +3.36. Their strongest period is 61-75' (net +3.54 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 46-60' (net -1.56 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 34 matches: Toulouse 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 (+4.2 xG). Hover a point for that match.
ToulouseOpponents against Toulouse
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Toulouse'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.
33
Build-Up
possession control from the back
39
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
56
Creation
manufacturing chances
42
Press
winning the ball high & hard
83
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Toulouse are defined most by their Solidity DNA (83/100 · strong at resisting the opponent's threat), and least by their Build-Up DNA (33/100). 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).
Possess
Deep buildup
30%
Possession
20%
Field tilt
45%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
35%
Dribble tendency
85%
Progressive passes
50%
Finish
Final-third patience
20%
Shot quality
45%
Open-play xG
40%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
40%
High regains
75%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
70%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
25%
High line ~proxy
60%
PAdj defensive actions
25%
Toulouse is defined most by Press (62% in the league) and weakest on Possess (32%). 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.
How much of the pitch does Toulouse actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Toulouse'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; Toulouse highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Toulouse post 49% field tilt, ranking #10 of 18 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 1.32 points/game sits below the league-average return — territory is genuinely converting into results.
Where the time goes — how long each phase lasts
The question
When Toulouse has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Toulouse'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
25.2%
Progression
49.3%
Chance creation
22.5%
Attacking transition
3.0%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Toulouse spends most of its time on the ball (49% 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
McKenzie ↔ Cresswell
461p · 11.9xT
Cresswell ↔ Nicolaisen
447p · 8.2xT
Cresswell ↔ Restes
332p · 10.3xT
Dønnum ↔ McKenzie
305p · 21.7xT
Dønnum ↔ Cásseres
258p · 16.9xT
Cásseres ↔ Nicolaisen
253p · 7.5xT
Cásseres ↔ Cresswell
251p · 8.4xT
McKenzie ↔ Cásseres
250p · 8.4xT
Sidibé ↔ Cresswell
230p · 9.9xT
Sidibé ↔ Dønnum
217p · 15.0xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Mark McKenzie ↔ Charlie Cresswell (461 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Aron Dønnum ↔ Charlie Cresswell (0.10 xT/pass over 106 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Toulouse had the ball
Every touch across 306 matches. Brighter means more touches.
Which Zones Do They Attack Through?
The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Toulouse 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
13601
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
3337
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the middle third (11.4% of all actions). 63% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 37% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 28% defensive, 51% middle, 21% attacking.
Attack Sides
Which channel they attacked through this season: the share of every action made in the opponent’s half, down the left, through the middle and down the right. Toulouse leaned on their right (40%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Toulouse
36%24%40%
League
39%22%39%
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. Toulouse made 1200 this season (35.3 a match); 29% 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.
Channel
Entries
Per match
Share
League share
Left wing
291
8.6
24%
30%
Left half-space
217
6.4
18%
15%
Centre
146
4.3
12%
11%
Right half-space
198
5.8
16%
14%
Right wing
348
10.2
29%
30%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Toulouse 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.
3780build-up passes attempted
80%completed
31%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third
Pass types
1437CB · 47%
206Long Wide · 7%
27Long Central · 1%
1022Wide → FB · 34%
348Central · 11%
Sequence success — build-up
807build-up sequences this season
10%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
42%turned over with nothing to show
CB1437 · 47%
Long Wide206 · 7%
Long Central27 · 1%
Wide → FB1022 · 34%
Central348 · 11%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Toulouse build predominantly down the left, with Restes as the fulcrum (639 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 (217×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Toulouse’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. 1365 progressive passes across 34 matches (40.1/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
35%
Right half-space
14%
Central
14%
Left half-space
14%
Left wing
23%
Progression is right-dominant: 49% right side · 14% central · 36% left.
Who generates it
Aron Dønnum
237 · 17%
Djibril Sidibé
162 · 12%
Cristian Cásseres
152 · 11%
Mark McKenzie
137 · 10%
Guillaume Restes
136 · 10%
Top two — Aron Dønnum & Djibril Sidibé — account for 29% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
40.1 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
30% reach final third
22% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 70% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.30% of progressive passes reached the final third and 22% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 29% of the progression ran through two players, mostly down the right side.
Which lanes actually create the threat
Share of passes played from each lane against its share of the threat (xT) they add. Efficient = more threat than volume, sterile = lots of the ball, little damage.
Per lane — volume vs threat
Right wingefficient
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralsterile
Left half-spacebalanced
Left wingbalanced
Progression — the pass map
The football question
Once Toulouse 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.
6965progression passes attempted
84%completed
15%break into the final third
11%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
2060CB · 35%
222Long Wide · 4%
34Long Central · 1%
2726Wide → FB · 47%
805Central · 14%
Sequence success — progression
1566progression sequences this season
28%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
43%turned over with nothing to show
CB2060 · 35%
Long Wide222 · 4%
Long Central34 · 1%
Wide → FB2726 · 47%
Central805 · 14%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Toulouse progress predominantly down the right, with Cásseres the busiest midfield outlet (834 progression passes). Only 15% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (74%) 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 RW mid → RHS mid (342×) — 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)
15%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
49%
Safe / backward
35%
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.
Where does Toulouse actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
717 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (22% of 3328 tracked carries total), grouped into up to 4 spatial patterns by where each carry starts and ends together — not just its origin zone. Median 14m, longest 58m. Most active carrier: Gboho (131). Filter to one player below.
First (210)Second (192)Third (186)Fourth (129)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 Toulouse'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.
426shots
43.2xG
0.10xG per shot
23big chances (0.3+ xG)
46goals
#7key passes / game in the league
#8box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition27% of shots
115
11
9.14
0.08
Cross
7
0
0.44
0.06
Cut-back
9
0
0.83
0.09
Long ball
5
2
0.55
0.11
Pass into the box / short pass
49
3
3.93
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
45
6
3.39
0.08
Settled attack52% of shots
223
24
20.34
0.09
Cross
45
3
4.56
0.10
Cut-back
23
6
3.59
0.16
Long ball
11
2
0.79
0.07
Pass into the box / short pass
97
10
7.54
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
47
3
3.87
0.08
Set piece21% of shots
88
11
13.76
0.16
Corner
75
7
8.02
0.11
Free kick
6
0
0.18
0.03
Penalty
7
4
5.56
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
Yann Gboho
51
4.20
4
Aron Dønnum
37
3.41
4
Cristian Cásseres
24
2.02
3
Djibril Sidibé
12
2.00
2
Mark McKenzie
19
1.84
2
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Emersonn
52
5.96
6
Yann Gboho
58
5.40
8
Aron Dønnum
40
5.01
4
Frank Magri
33
4.43
5
Charlie Cresswell
37
3.45
3
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Toulouse's chances, by xG, is settled attack (20.3 of 43.2 xG, 223 of 426 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 115 of the 426 shots (27%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 88 of the 426 shots came from set pieces; 46 goals from 43.2 xG (+2.8).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Toulouse 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
26CB · 9%
16Long Wide · 5%
29Long Central · 10%
89Wide → FB · 30%
134Central · 46%
Sequence success — final-third
942final-third sequences this season
22%succeed — produce a shot
36%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
CB26 · 9%
Long Wide16 · 5%
Long Central29 · 10%
Wide → FB89 · 30%
Central134 · 46%
Who creates — volume × threat
61Dønnum
53Gboho
37Cásseres
20Diop
17McKenzie
15Sidibé
15Emersonn
294key passes #7 of 18
13.1box entries/game #8 of 18
27.9final-3rd entries/game #14 of 18
1.27xG/game #9 of 18
46goals #10 of 18
+2.8finishing vs xG #11 of 18
◆ Vision AI Insight
Toulouse lean right — 40% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (118 of 294), most often from Dønnum (35). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RW att → C att (42 key passes, most often from Dønnum). Dønnum is the primary source overall. They generate 1.27 xG a game and finish it clinical — they beat their xG, led by Yann Gboho (8G), Emersonn (6G), Frank Magri (5G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Toulouse deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
414 crosses: 157 found a team-mate (38%), 51 led to a shot (12%). 103 cut-backs: 57 found a team-mate (55%), 33 led to a shot (32%). 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 Toulouse actually cross from?
414 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. 26% come from one territory, the byline right wing; 20 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
byline · right wing
108
26%
11
advanced · right wing
97
23%
11
byline · left wing
84
20%
16
advanced · left wing
59
14%
6
deep · right wing
36
9%
3
deep · left wing
10
2%
2
advanced · left half-space
5
1%
0
byline · right half-space
5
1%
0
byline · left half-space
4
1%
1
deep · left half-space
3
1%
0
advanced · right half-space
3
1%
1
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
426 shots for 43.2 xG (1.27/game, #9 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Moderate attack. 12.5 shots/game at 0.102 xG/shot. Box entries 13/game (#8). Threat created 9.7 xT/game (#11).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Toulouse’s 47 goals this season, from the moment they got the ball to the finish. Pick a goal from the list, then step through it or press Play: numbered circles are passes and touches, dotted lines are carries (the ball travelling with a player), dashed grey is a pass that was lost, the star is the shot.
Each goal’s possession, rebuilt from the raw event feed — 47 goals traced.
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal Toulouse scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
35 · 76%
Set pieces
7 · 15%
Penalties
4 · 9%
By finish
Right foot
24 · 52%
Left foot
15 · 33%
Header
7 · 15%
Vision AI Model Insight
46 goals scored. 76% come in open play; set pieces add 15%. 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
929
Failed forward pass
642
Failed take-on
360
Lost in the defensive third
740
Their weakest zone is the right half-space in the attacking third: 37% of 491 pass attempts there are lost (181 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 Toulouse 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.
70
Pressing Index /100 · strong
Intensity70
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height78
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness75
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption56
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
20%
RHS
20%
C
19%
LHS
23%
LW
18%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 47%
Mid 37%
Att 16%
Read
Ranked #11 of 18 for press intensity, this is a high press. 53% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 39. Of recoveries, 58% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#11/18
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
131
#7/18
High-press share
24%
#2/18
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
39.1
#4/18
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
24.4
#6/18
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
58%
#3/18
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
85%
#15/18
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
6.8%
#1/18
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 Toulouse win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 1116 opposition possessions that Toulouse 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 Toulouse step in. Toulouse win it after 7.6 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 4.3 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
5.7passes
median 4 · before Toulouse win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
16sec
median 9s · 32.8 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
39%
26%
17%
18%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
8.1
25s
15–30′
6.9
20s
30–45+′
6.0
17s
45–60′
4.7
12s
60–75′
4.9
15s
75–90+′
3.8
11s
average passesaverage seconds
Phases of play
Every moment of the match read twice — what Toulouse 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.
5,656phase segments analysed
6.0smedian time before the opposition engage
2.0their passes per defensive action when pressed
#12of 18 for share of defending spent pressing high
High press 6.5%Mid block 13.9%Low block 48.8%Unopposed 30.8%
What opponents do against Toulouse
The mirror image, and the part no other section can show: whether teams come
out to press Toulouse 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 8.0%Mid block 12.7%Low block 49.8%Unopposed 29.5%
Which phases actually produce
Phase
Segments
Avg length
Avg actions
Ends in shot
Turned over
Build-up
1,670
4.4s
2.9
0.3%
49.0%
Progression
2,431
6.0s
3.8
0.5%
50.3%
Chance creation
1,425
4.6s
3.0
27.0%
56.9%
Attacking transition
130
6.8s
4.2
4.6%
32.3%
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
progression
710
0.4%
build_up
661
0.2%
chance_creation
383
35.0%
progression → chance_creation
367
26.7%
build_up → progression
324
0.0%
build_up → progression → chance_creation
141
28.4%
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Toulouse 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 Toulouse 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) 3,780 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.0820.83
Wide-channel share-0.380.28
Side bias-0.19-0.56
Pass length+0.0122.74
Long-ball share+0.060.24
Forward gain per pass+0.1312.04
Backward-pass share-0.300.19
Deep-pass share+0.090.30
Completion+0.030.80
Seconds between passes+0.043.35
Side used
left 27% · central 44% · right 29%
Progression (middle third) 6,965 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.2125.13
Wide-channel share-0.280.38
Side bias-0.70-2.73
Pass length-0.1617.00
Long-ball share-0.050.10
Forward gain per pass+0.384.18
Backward-pass share-0.250.32
Deep-pass share+0.250.17
Completion-0.300.82
Seconds between passes-0.183.12
Side used
left 32% · central 30% · right 38%
Final third 2,856 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.5830.18
Wide-channel share-0.680.53
Side bias-0.19-1.80
Pass length+0.2615.87
Long-ball share+0.190.11
Forward gain per pass+0.251.38
Backward-pass share-0.230.37
Deep-pass share-0.070.09
Completion-0.330.67
Seconds between passes+0.243.58
Side used
left 39% · central 19% · right 43%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Toulouse'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 Toulouse 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 share20%
#2 of 18 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share25%
#15 of 18 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)16.3s
#4 of 18 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.2
#14 of 18
Counter-attack shots /game1.02
#10 of 18 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.31
#7 of 18 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain11.9s
#4 of 18 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
118attacking transition sequences this season
16%succeed — produce a shot
45%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
343defensive transition sequences this season
63%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
13%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Toulouse are a direct, fast-break side: 20% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#2 of 18), against 25% built patiently over 6+ passes (#15 of 18). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.02 times a game (#10), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.31 times a game (#7 of 18) — 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 Toulouse? 1273 opponent progressive passes and 404 shots faced (39.1 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Toulouse)
Right wing
29%
Right half-space
16%
Central
14%
Left half-space
15%
Left wing
26%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (29% of the danger conceded).
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against Toulouse actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Toulouse conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Toulouse'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 (277 total)
By situation
Open play
31 · 69%
Set pieces
9 · 20%
Penalties
5 · 11%
Vision AI Model Insight
45 goals conceded. 69% 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 (23% 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
35 g · 29.5 xG
Set pieces
7 g · 8.2 xG
Penalties
4 g
15% of goals come from set pieces (7 of 46), worth 8.2 xG from 81 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Toulouse's corners go?
149 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 (77)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Left side (72)
Delivered into the box 99%Short 1%
Where opponents attack Toulouse from set pieces
70 shots from opponent corners against Toulouse, 8 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 (31)
Shot 31Goals 6
Left flag (39)
Shot 39Goals 2
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
xG conceded /game — 1.15 (83th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
pass retention % — 79.51 (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.
Nantes
64%
Auxerre
53%
Brest
49%
Le Havre
39%
Angers
13%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Toulouse 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 Toulouse's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (11m)
1.00
1.27
1.09
vs mid-block opponents (11m)
1.64
1.55
1.55
vs low-block opponents (12m)
1.50
1.25
1.33
Behaviour — how Toulouse actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
72%
19%
32
7.3
9.0
vs mid-block opponents
80%
14%
39
9.1
11.0
vs low-block opponents
83%
11%
49
12.4
18.8
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 72% vs 83% against a low block (11pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 19% when pressed vs 11% 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. Toulouse are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.27 xG a game and they concede 1.15 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 Toulouse’s own average, the eight biggest swings first. Bar right of centre means more than usual, left means less. It shows how much the way they play moves from game to game, and which opponent moved it.
Every pass, carry, take-on, shot and ball win is worth the change it made to the chance of scoring minus the chance of conceding in the next 10 seconds. This is Toulouse’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).
+16.7on-ball value, 12 matches
Where the value came from
Passes4738 actions+7.77
Carries1189 actions-0.91
Dribbles177 actions-0.12
Shots144 actions+6.01
Ball wins716 actions+3.92
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Yann Gboho
567
+2.87
+0.51
Aron Dønnum
567
+2.71
+0.48
Cristian Cásseres
746
+1.81
+0.24
Santiago Hidalgo
272
+1.60
+0.59
Guillaume Restes
415
+1.33
+0.32
Pape Diop
611
+1.31
+0.21
Dayann Méthalie
407
+0.80
+0.20
Mark McKenzie
571
+0.79
+0.14
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Julián Vignolo · shot
+0.554
2 Yann Gboho · shot
+0.415
3 Yann Gboho · shot
+0.391
4 Emersonn · shot
+0.316
5 Guillaume Restes · pass
+0.295
6 Seny Koumbassa · shot
+0.273
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Toulouse’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 149 corners taken, most by Aron Dønnum (68); 81 shots from corners and free kicks, 7 goals, led by Charlie Cresswell (2 goals, 1.84 xG). “Into the box” counts corners that landed inside the penalty area; free-kick takers are the players who shot from one, because this feed does not mark who delivers the others.
Player
Corners taken
Into the box
Set-piece shots
Goals
xG
Free-kick shots
Penalties
Aron Dønnum
68
62 (91%)
4
—
0.15
2
3/3
Cristian Cásseres
56
51 (91%)
2
—
0.05
2
0/1
Charlie Cresswell
—
—
21
2
1.84
—
—
Pape Diop
15
12 (80%)
5
—
0.18
2
—
Rasmus Nicolaisen
—
—
9
1
0.55
—
—
Frank Magri
—
—
6
—
0.37
—
0/1
Emersonn
—
—
6
1
0.76
—
—
Djibril Sidibé
2
2 (100%)
3
1
1.56
—
1/2
Mark McKenzie
—
—
5
—
0.30
—
—
Yann Gboho
—
—
4
—
0.75
—
—
Alexis Vossah
4
4 (100%)
2
—
0.06
—
—
Mário Sauer
3
3 (100%)
2
—
0.05
—
—
Julián Vignolo
—
—
3
1
1.02
—
—
Warren Kamanzi
—
—
2
—
0.10
—
—
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
Aron Dønnum
M
2577
2.13
107
46.7
Yann Gboho
M
2838
1.68
67
22.2
Cristian Cásseres
M
2654
1.25
50
40.0
Mark McKenzie
D
2635
0.58
34
36.9
Djibril Sidibé
M
2279
0.59
29
30.8
Pape Diop
M
1252
1.44
19
15.2
Dayann Méthalie
M
1952
0.46
22
12.7
Santiago Hidalgo
M
1430
0.63
18
5.1
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Charlie Cresswell
D
2695
525
26
28
74
Rasmus Nicolaisen
D
2734
455
25
43
92
Cristian Cásseres
M
2654
401
79
35
181
Mark McKenzie
D
2635
370
45
24
97
Aron Dønnum
M
2577
288
46
27
137
Djibril Sidibé
M
2279
278
49
17
95
Dayann Méthalie
M
1952
248
55
25
86
Yann Gboho
M
2838
242
26
14
149
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (22 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Guillaume Restes
G
34
3144
0
0.0
1
136
73
29.7
Yann Gboho
M
32
2838
8
5.4
53
81
242
22.2
Rasmus Nicolaisen
D
33
2734
1
0.9
1
81
455
24.7
Charlie Cresswell
D
29
2695
3
3.5
8
98
525
27.3
Cristian Cásseres
M
31
2654
2
2.1
37
152
401
40.0
Mark McKenzie
D
30
2635
0
0.3
17
137
370
36.9
Aron Dønnum
M
28
2577
4
5.0
61
237
288
46.7
Djibril Sidibé
M
33
2279
3
3.4
15
162
278
30.8
Dayann Méthalie
M
28
1952
2
1.1
10
64
248
12.7
Emersonn
F
28
1676
6
6.0
15
10
236
3.1
Santiago Hidalgo
M
29
1430
4
2.9
10
19
220
5.1
Frank Magri
F
17
1273
5
4.4
9
9
153
3.2
Pape Diop
M
16
1252
1
1.3
20
54
222
15.2
Alexis Vossah
M
23
1177
1
0.5
6
12
120
4.5
Warren Kamanzi
M
24
993
1
1.3
7
28
107
5.5
Mário Sauer
M
25
775
1
1.1
3
18
107
5.5
Rafik Messali
M
12
537
0
0.0
3
18
94
4.6
Abu Francis
M
8
536
0
0.2
1
11
88
3.6
Seny Koumbassa
D
10
514
1
0.2
0
8
80
2.4
Jacen Russell-Rowe
F
13
512
1
1.4
5
2
49
0.8
Julián Vignolo
M
13
258
2
1.4
5
10
18
1.8
Jaydee Canvot
D
2
196
0
0.2
0
7
30
1.5
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.
Guillaume Restes
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes3144
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /903.9
key passes /900.03
def actions /902.1
pass accuracy70%
Yann Gboho
Creative forward · Forward
minutes2838
goals · xG8 · 5.4
prog passes /902.6
key passes /901.68
def actions /907.7
pass accuracy80%
Rasmus Nicolaisen
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes2734
goals · xG1 · 0.9
prog passes /902.7
key passes /900.03
def actions /9015.0
pass accuracy85%
Charlie Cresswell
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes2695
goals · xG3 · 3.5
prog passes /903.3
key passes /900.27
def actions /9017.5
pass accuracy86%
Cristian Cásseres
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes2654
goals · xG2 · 2.1
prog passes /905.2
key passes /901.25
def actions /9013.6
pass accuracy81%
Mark McKenzie
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes2635
goals · xG0 · 0.3
prog passes /904.7
key passes /900.58
def actions /9012.6
pass accuracy83%
Aron Dønnum
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes2577
goals · xG4 · 5.0
prog passes /908.3
key passes /902.13
def actions /9010.1
pass accuracy74%
Djibril Sidibé
Deep-lying playmaker · Midfielder
minutes2279
goals · xG3 · 3.4
prog passes /906.4
key passes /900.59
def actions /9011.0
pass accuracy77%
Dayann Méthalie
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes1952
goals · xG2 · 1.1
prog passes /903.0
key passes /900.46
def actions /9011.4
pass accuracy76%
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 (79.51, 22th percentile vs the league).
Need — below-average: press intensity (PPDA) (39th pct)
Sign a high-energy presser to lift defensive intensity. The data flags this because the press is passive (7.54, 39th percentile vs the league).
Need — below-average: progression /game (39th pct)
Sign a progressive passer / ball-carrier to break lines. The data flags this because progression is limited (40.15, 39th percentile vs the league).