Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportLigue 1 2025/26
Lens
A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a high-volume attack. Finished #2 of 18 on 70 points (22-4-8, 66:35). 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 Lens and how good was the season?
Read. Lens finished #2 of 18 on 70 points (22W-4D-8L, 2.06 pts/game), scoring 66 and conceding 35 for a goal difference of +31.
On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (55% field tilt, #4 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#5 of 18 for press intensity).
Across the 34 matches of event data, they create 1.75 xG/game (#2) and concede 1.17 (#4), a net of +0.58 xG/game — the underlying performance diverges from the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Lens actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Lens.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
1
PSG
34
24
4
6
74
29
+45
76
2
Lens
34
22
4
8
66
35
+31
70
3
Lille
34
18
7
9
52
37
+15
61
4
Lyon
34
18
6
10
53
40
+13
60
5
Marseille
34
18
5
11
63
45
+18
59
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Lens 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
Lens tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG +9.29, second-half +10.52. Their strongest period is 0-15' (net +6.18 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 61-75' (net +0.57 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 34 matches: Lens 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 (+19.8 xG). Hover a point for that match.
LensOpponents against Lens
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Lens'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.
64
Build-Up
possession control from the back
86
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
89
Creation
manufacturing chances
75
Press
winning the ball high & hard
78
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Lens are defined most by their Creation DNA (89/100 · elite at manufacturing chances), and least by their Build-Up DNA (64/100). 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
75%
Possession
60%
Field tilt
80%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
0%
Dribble tendency
40%
Progressive passes
90%
Finish
Final-third patience
15%
Shot quality
75%
Open-play xG
90%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
65%
High regains
80%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
80%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
80%
High line ~proxy
80%
PAdj defensive actions
75%
Lens is defined most by Defend (78% in the league) and weakest on Disrupt (43%). 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 Lens actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Lens'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; Lens highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Lens post 55% field tilt, ranking #4 of 18 in the league — comfortably above the league mid-point for territorial control, and their 2.06 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 Lens has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Lens'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
25.5%
Progression
45.2%
Chance creation
26.3%
Attacking transition
3.0%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Lens spends most of its time on the ball (45% 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
Udol ↔ Sarr
691p · 36.2xT
Sarr ↔ Baidoo
450p · 8.4xT
Sarr ↔ Risser
347p · 13.1xT
Thauvin ↔ Aguilar
336p · 23.4xT
Sarr ↔ Ganiou
301p · 5.5xT
Thauvin ↔ Sangaré
287p · 13.4xT
Aguilar ↔ Sangaré
282p · 11.3xT
Thomasson ↔ Udol
262p · 12.8xT
Sarr ↔ Sangaré
259p · 8.8xT
Saïd ↔ Udol
240p · 13.8xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Matthieu Udol ↔ Malang Sarr (691 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Wesley Saïd ↔ Malang Sarr (0.08 xT/pass over 224 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Lens 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 Lens 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
17244
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
3848
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the middle third (10.2% 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: 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. Lens leaned on their right (42%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Lens
35%23%42%
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. Lens made 1498 this season (44.1 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.
Channel
Entries
Per match
Share
League share
Left wing
414
12.2
28%
30%
Left half-space
206
6.1
14%
15%
Centre
180
5.3
12%
11%
Right half-space
231
6.8
15%
14%
Right wing
467
13.7
31%
30%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Lens 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.
4915build-up passes attempted
84%completed
29%reach the middle third
1%go long into the final third
Pass types
1899CB · 46%
228Long Wide · 6%
22Long Central · 1%
1568Wide → FB · 38%
400Central · 10%
Sequence success — build-up
976build-up sequences this season
12%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
39%turned over with nothing to show
CB1899 · 46%
Long Wide228 · 6%
Long Central22 · 1%
Wide → FB1568 · 38%
Central400 · 10%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Lens build predominantly down the left, with Risser as the fulcrum (797 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 (247×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Lens’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. 1795 progressive passes across 34 matches (52.8/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
36%
Right half-space
13%
Central
8%
Left half-space
12%
Left wing
31%
Progression is right-dominant: 49% right side · 8% central · 43% left.
Who generates it
Matthieu Udol
298 · 17%
Florian Thauvin
209 · 12%
Ruben Aguilar
182 · 10%
Malang Sarr
145 · 8%
Adrien Thomasson
142 · 8%
Top two — Matthieu Udol & Florian Thauvin — account for 28% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
52.8 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
24% reach final third
23% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 76% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.24% of progressive passes reached the final third and 23% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 28% 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 wingefficient
Progression — the pass map
The football question
Once Lens 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.
8196progression passes attempted
88%completed
16%break into the final third
11%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
2584CB · 36%
225Long Wide · 3%
36Long Central · 1%
3497Wide → FB · 49%
834Central · 12%
Sequence success — progression
1569progression sequences this season
29%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
38%turned over with nothing to show
CB2584 · 36%
Long Wide225 · 3%
Long Central36 · 1%
Wide → FB3497 · 49%
Central834 · 12%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Lens progress predominantly down the right, with Sarr the busiest midfield outlet (1000 progression passes). Only 16% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (73%) 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 (444×) — 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
2%
Neutral / sideways
48%
Safe / backward
35%
17% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 83% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.
Where does Lens actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
902 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (24% of 3782 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 60m. Most active carrier: Sarr (138). Filter to one player below.
First (265)Second (257)Third (235)Fourth (145)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 Lens'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.
559shots
59.6xG
0.11xG per shot
30big chances (0.3+ xG)
65goals
#2key passes / game in the league
#2box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition28% of shots
154
24
17.29
0.11
Cross
18
6
2.93
0.16
Cut-back
14
2
1.77
0.13
Long ball
2
1
0.10
0.05
Pass into the box / short pass
85
14
9.23
0.11
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
35
1
3.27
0.09
Settled attack51% of shots
286
27
29.53
0.10
Cross
61
5
6.90
0.11
Cut-back
32
4
3.69
0.12
Long ball
16
1
1.38
0.09
Pass into the box / short pass
130
16
13.70
0.11
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
47
1
3.86
0.08
Set piece21% of shots
119
14
12.77
0.11
Corner
104
10
8.56
0.08
Free kick
10
0
0.24
0.02
Penalty
5
4
3.97
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
Matthieu Udol
57
7.81
7
Florian Thauvin
52
5.78
6
Adrien Thomasson
49
5.22
7
Wesley Saïd
23
3.90
2
Saud Abdulhamid
22
2.62
6
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Odsonne Édouard
60
9.84
12
Florian Thauvin
73
9.68
11
Wesley Saïd
60
7.84
12
Adrien Thomasson
43
5.54
3
Rayan Fofana
36
4.65
5
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Lens's chances, by xG, is settled attack (29.5 of 59.6 xG, 286 of 559 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 154 of the 559 shots (28%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 119 of the 559 shots came from set pieces; 65 goals from 59.6 xG (+5.4).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Lens 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
20CB · 5%
17Long Wide · 4%
54Long Central · 13%
111Wide → FB · 26%
220Central · 52%
Sequence success — final-third
1187final-third sequences this season
23%succeed — produce a shot
35%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
CB20 · 5%
Long Wide17 · 4%
Long Central54 · 13%
Wide → FB111 · 26%
Central220 · 52%
Who creates — volume × threat
78Thomasson
78Thauvin
54Udol
34Sangaré
25Aguilar
23Saïd
22Abdulhamid
422key passes #2 of 18
17.1box entries/game #2 of 18
35.9final-3rd entries/game #6 of 18
1.75xG/game #2 of 18
65goals #2 of 18
+5.4finishing vs xG #6 of 18
◆ Vision AI Insight
Lens lean right — 42% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (179 of 422), most often from Thomasson (47). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RW att → C att (62 key passes, most often from Thomasson). Thomasson is the primary source overall. They generate 1.75 xG a game and finish it clinical — they beat their xG, led by Wesley Saïd (12G), Odsonne Édouard (12G), Florian Thauvin (11G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Lens deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
577 crosses: 217 found a team-mate (38%), 77 led to a shot (13%). 141 cut-backs: 79 found a team-mate (56%), 48 led to a shot (34%). 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 Lens actually cross from?
577 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. 25% come from one territory, the byline right wing; 25 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
byline · right wing
143
25%
22
byline · left wing
128
22%
21
advanced · right wing
107
19%
12
advanced · left wing
107
19%
16
deep · left wing
34
6%
1
deep · right wing
33
6%
3
advanced · right half-space
8
1%
0
advanced · left half-space
7
1%
1
byline · right half-space
5
1%
0
byline · left half-space
4
1%
1
deep · left half-space
1
0%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
559 shots for 59.6 xG (1.75/game, #2 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
High-volume attack. 16.4 shots/game at 0.107 xG/shot. Box entries 17/game (#2). Threat created 12.0 xT/game (#3).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Lens’s 66 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 — 66 goals traced.
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal Lens scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
51 · 78%
Set pieces
10 · 15%
Penalties
4 · 6%
By finish
Right foot
27 · 42%
Left foot
27 · 42%
Header
11 · 17%
Vision AI Model Insight
65 goals scored. 78% 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
1142
Failed forward pass
781
Failed take-on
339
Lost in the defensive third
798
Their weakest zone is the right half-space in the attacking third: 32% of 736 pass attempts there are lost (235 times). Separately, 39% 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 Lens 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.
72
Pressing Index /100 · strong
Intensity74
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height72
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness78
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption61
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
19%
RHS
22%
C
21%
LHS
20%
LW
18%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 48%
Mid 37%
Att 15%
Read
Ranked #5 of 18 for press intensity, this is a high press. 52% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 39. Of recoveries, 57% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#5/18
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
141
#2/18
High-press share
23%
#6/18
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
38.9
#5/18
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
27.7
#2/18
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
57%
#6/18
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
82%
#7/18
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
8.3%
#7/18
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 Lens win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 1294 opposition possessions that Lens 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 Lens step in. Lens win it after 5.5 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 4.7 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
5.0passes
median 3 · before Lens win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
14sec
median 7s · 38.1 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
42%
29%
15%
14%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
5.7
15s
15–30′
5.4
15s
30–45+′
5.9
17s
45–60′
4.2
12s
60–75′
4.9
14s
75–90+′
4.5
13s
average passesaverage seconds
Phases of play
Every moment of the match read twice — what Lens 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.
6,193phase segments analysed
9.0smedian time before the opposition engage
2.3their passes per defensive action when pressed
#4of 18 for share of defending spent pressing high
High press 10.7%Mid block 16.1%Low block 47.0%Unopposed 26.2%
What opponents do against Lens
The mirror image, and the part no other section can show: whether teams come
out to press Lens 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 8.4%Mid block 13.1%Low block 48.5%Unopposed 30.0%
Which phases actually produce
Phase
Segments
Avg length
Avg actions
Ends in shot
Turned over
Build-up
1,831
5.5s
3.3
0.1%
46.5%
Progression
2,535
7.0s
4.2
0.7%
43.5%
Chance creation
1,674
6.2s
3.5
30.0%
53.5%
Attacking transition
153
7.6s
4.7
3.3%
34.0%
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
666
0.0%
progression
601
0.3%
chance_creation
419
37.9%
progression → chance_creation
397
34.0%
build_up → progression
311
0.3%
build_up → progression → chance_creation
222
32.9%
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Lens 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 Lens 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) 4,915 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use+0.6422.31
Wide-channel share+0.530.34
Side bias-0.21-0.64
Pass length-0.6520.36
Long-ball share-0.580.17
Forward gain per pass-0.559.05
Backward-pass share+0.160.21
Deep-pass share-0.450.24
Completion+0.500.84
Seconds between passes-0.303.15
Side used
left 29% · central 40% · right 31%
Progression (middle third) 8,196 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use+0.1225.82
Wide-channel share+0.110.41
Side bias-0.53-2.02
Pass length-0.0817.11
Long-ball share-0.330.09
Forward gain per pass+0.033.65
Backward-pass share-0.190.33
Deep-pass share-0.110.16
Completion+0.380.87
Seconds between passes-0.383.03
Side used
left 33% · central 28% · right 39%
Final third 4,133 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.0731.43
Wide-channel share+0.020.59
Side bias-0.44-3.54
Pass length+0.2815.90
Long-ball share-0.160.09
Forward gain per pass+0.251.37
Backward-pass share-0.160.38
Deep-pass share+0.210.10
Completion+0.180.71
Seconds between passes-0.303.18
Side used
left 37% · central 16% · right 47%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Lens'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 Lens 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%
#5 of 18 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share30%
#9 of 18 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)18.7s
#10 of 18 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.9
#9 of 18
Counter-attack shots /game1.38
#1 of 18 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.48
#3 of 18 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain11.2s
#2 of 18 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
142attacking transition sequences this season
24%succeed — produce a shot
49%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
450defensive transition sequences this season
74%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
5%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Lens are a direct, fast-break side: 19% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#5 of 18), against 30% built patiently over 6+ passes (#9 of 18). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.38 times a game (#1), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.48 times a game (#3 of 18) — a genuine transition weapon.
Defending the box2 sections
Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them
The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Lens? 1395 opponent progressive passes and 378 shots faced (39.8 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Lens)
Right wing
25%
Right half-space
10%
Central
16%
Left half-space
15%
Left wing
33%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the left wing (33% of the danger conceded).
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against Lens actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Lens conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Lens'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 (260 total)
By situation
Open play
28 · 80%
Set pieces
4 · 11%
Penalties
3 · 9%
Vision AI Model Insight
35 goals conceded. 80% come in open play; set pieces account for only 11%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 14% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the centre 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.
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
51 g · 46.8 xG
Set pieces
10 g · 8.8 xG
Penalties
4 g
15% of goals come from set pieces (10 of 65), worth 8.8 xG from 114 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Lens's corners go?
211 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 (119)
Delivered into the box 97%Short 3%
Left side (92)
Delivered into the box 97%Short 3%
Where opponents attack Lens from set pieces
63 shots from opponent corners against Lens, 4 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 (30)
Shot 30Goals 4
Left flag (33)
Shot 33Goals 0
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
xG created /game — 1.75 (89th pct)
progression /game — 52.79 (89th pct)
box entries /game — 17.06 (89th pct)
shots /game — 16.44 (89th pct)
threat created /game — 12.04 (83th 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.
Lille
82%
PSG
80%
Lyon
79%
Monaco
78%
Rennes
66%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Lens 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 Lens's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (11m)
1.45
0.91
2.00
vs mid-block opponents (11m)
2.18
0.82
2.18
vs low-block opponents (12m)
2.17
1.33
2.00
Behaviour — how Lens actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
79%
14%
44
9.5
11.0
vs mid-block opponents
82%
11%
54
12.4
20.4
vs low-block opponents
85%
9%
60
14.1
19.6
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 79% vs 85% against a low block (6pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 14% when pressed vs 9% 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. Lens are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.75 xG a game and they concede 1.17 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 Lens’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.
Threat from passingvs Toulouse · 3-2 · 2026-04-1712.14avg 7.06
Field tiltvs Toulouse · 3-2 · 2026-04-1793%avg 55%
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 Lens’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).
+23.9on-ball value, 12 matches
Where the value came from
Passes6444 actions+11.10
Carries1626 actions-2.34
Dribbles188 actions-0.09
Shots253 actions+10.29
Ball wins848 actions+4.89
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Florian Thauvin
682
+3.02
+0.44
Matthieu Udol
830
+2.72
+0.33
Allan Saint-Maximin
321
+2.33
+0.73
Adrien Thomasson
638
+2.24
+0.35
Abdallah Sima
305
+1.89
+0.62
Wesley Saïd
260
+1.80
+0.69
Saud Abdulhamid
548
+1.72
+0.31
Odsonne Édouard
199
+1.68
+0.84
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Florian Thauvin · shot
+0.527
2 Adrien Thomasson · shot
+0.437
3 Matthieu Udol · shot
+0.393
4 Abdallah Sima · shot
+0.390
5 Wesley Saïd · pass
+0.378
6 Adrien Thomasson · shot
+0.337
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Lens’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 211 corners taken, most by Adrien Thomasson (86); 114 shots from corners and free kicks, 10 goals, led by Wesley Saïd (2 goals, 1.32 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
Florian Thauvin
84
74 (88%)
3
—
0.14
1
2/3
Adrien Thomasson
86
74 (86%)
3
—
0.06
2
—
Matthieu Udol
1
0 (0%)
16
—
1.06
—
—
Andrija Bulatovic
36
35 (97%)
3
—
0.07
3
—
Samson Baidoo
—
—
14
2
1.15
—
—
Malang Sarr
—
—
13
—
1.28
1
—
Mamadou Sangaré
—
—
13
1
0.52
1
—
Wesley Saïd
1
0 (0%)
11
2
1.32
—
1/1
Ismaëlo Ganiou
—
—
12
1
1.03
—
—
Odsonne Édouard
—
—
6
2
0.95
2
1/1
Abdallah Sima
—
—
6
1
0.39
—
—
Allan Saint-Maximin
1
1 (100%)
5
—
0.18
—
—
Florian Sotoca
1
0 (0%)
2
—
0.13
—
—
Deiver Machado
—
—
1
—
0.02
—
—
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
Florian Thauvin
M
2500
2.81
113
43.9
Adrien Thomasson
M
2821
2.49
88
32.6
Matthieu Udol
M
3173
1.53
88
50.2
Ruben Aguilar
M
1825
1.23
46
31.4
Saud Abdulhamid
M
1463
1.35
45
22.1
Wesley Saïd
M
2034
1.02
39
16.6
Mamadou Sangaré
M
2447
1.25
25
28.4
Allan Saint-Maximin
M
456
3.55
20
8.7
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.
player
pos
min
crosses (completed)
cutbacks (completed)
Saud Abdulhamid
W
1463
18 (44%)
21 (62%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Malang Sarr
D
3101
563
65
76
175
Adrien Thomasson
M
2821
501
99
19
193
Mamadou Sangaré
M
2447
482
86
40
207
Matthieu Udol
M
3173
444
51
51
131
Ismaëlo Ganiou
D
2158
408
39
29
117
Samson Baidoo
D
1941
366
34
23
105
Ruben Aguilar
M
1825
248
38
28
83
Florian Thauvin
M
2500
224
25
10
112
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (25 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Matthieu Udol
M
34
3173
1
4.1
54
298
444
50.2
Robin Risser
G
33
3154
0
0.0
2
76
59
19.7
Malang Sarr
D
33
3101
0
1.7
5
145
563
48.0
Adrien Thomasson
M
32
2821
3
5.5
78
142
501
32.6
Florian Thauvin
M
33
2500
11
9.7
78
209
224
43.9
Mamadou Sangaré
M
29
2447
3
3.2
34
89
482
28.4
Ismaëlo Ganiou
D
23
2158
3
1.6
9
114
408
29.9
Wesley Saïd
M
29
2034
12
7.8
23
66
186
16.6
Samson Baidoo
D
23
1941
2
1.3
3
34
366
15.9
Ruben Aguilar
M
26
1825
2
0.9
25
182
248
31.4
Odsonne Édouard
F
29
1813
12
9.8
17
14
144
5.1
Saud Abdulhamid
M
25
1463
2
0.9
22
138
191
22.1
Jonathan Gradit
D
10
944
0
0.2
2
45
147
10.8
Rayan Fofana
F
25
898
5
4.6
3
3
84
1.2
Andrija Bulatovic
M
19
840
0
0.7
16
27
134
7.8
Abdallah Sima
M
21
792
2
3.2
9
20
105
2.9
Nidal Celik
D
8
640
0
0.1
0
24
91
5.6
Florian Sotoca
M
26
618
1
0.8
7
19
80
4.7
Morgan Guilavogui
M
16
578
1
0.9
10
23
82
5.8
Allan Saint-Maximin
M
10
456
3
1.2
18
41
30
8.7
Amadou Haidara
M
7
283
1
0.2
2
17
28
3.3
Arthur Masuaku
D
4
233
0
0.0
2
16
44
3.9
Kyllian Antonio
D
4
212
0
0.1
1
15
48
2.4
Anthony Bermont
M
10
161
0
0.3
1
15
22
3.3
Fode Sylla
M
4
116
0
0.0
0
3
30
0.6
Player Role Architecture
The question
Who does what — and what tactical job does each key player actually perform?
The nine most-used players (450+ minutes), each with the role their event fingerprint points to — not just their listed position.
Matthieu Udol
Deep-lying playmaker · Midfielder
minutes3173
goals · xG1 · 4.1
prog passes /908.5
key passes /901.53
def actions /9012.6
pass accuracy81%
Robin Risser
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes3154
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /902.2
key passes /900.06
def actions /901.7
pass accuracy80%
Malang Sarr
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes3101
goals · xG0 · 1.7
prog passes /904.2
key passes /900.15
def actions /9016.3
pass accuracy88%
Adrien Thomasson
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes2821
goals · xG3 · 5.5
prog passes /904.5
key passes /902.49
def actions /9016.0
pass accuracy79%
Florian Thauvin
Creative forward · Forward
minutes2500
goals · xG11 · 9.7
prog passes /907.5
key passes /902.81
def actions /908.1
pass accuracy72%
Mamadou Sangaré
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes2447
goals · xG3 · 3.2
prog passes /903.3
key passes /901.25
def actions /9017.7
pass accuracy86%
Ismaëlo Ganiou
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes2158
goals · xG3 · 1.6
prog passes /904.8
key passes /900.38
def actions /9017.0
pass accuracy86%
Wesley Saïd
Poacher / finisher · Forward
minutes2034
goals · xG12 · 7.8
prog passes /902.9
key passes /901.02
def actions /908.2
pass accuracy81%
Samson Baidoo
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes1941
goals · xG2 · 1.3
prog passes /901.6
key passes /900.14
def actions /9017.0
pass accuracy93%
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 % (50th pct)
Sign a secure ball-retaining midfielder. The data flags this because possession is turned over cheaply (82.83, 50th percentile vs the league).