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 reportBundesliga 2026

Werder Bremen

A territorially-dominated side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a high-volume attack. Currently #6 of 18 on 12 points (3-3-1, 15:14). Tactical profile below is built from 7 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.

territorially-dominatedaggressive high-presshigh-volume attack
W
L
L
W
D
L
L
L
L
W
D
W
D
D
W
12
points
#6 of 18 · 7 games
15:14
goals
+1 GD
3-3-1
record
W-D-L
1.71
points/game
#6 in the league
1.53
xG for/game
rank #11
1.50
xG against/game
rank #8
#18
press rank
of 18 · most aggressive
42%
field tilt
#14
Werder Bremen
League average
Expected goals for / game
1.531.63
Expected goals against / game
1.501.63
Field tilt
42%50%
Pass retention
82%79%
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 Werder Bremen and how good was the season?
Read. Werder Bremen currently sit #6 of 18 on 12 points (3W-3D-1L, 1.71 pts/game), scoring 15 and conceding 14 for a goal difference of +1. On the ball they are a territorially-dominated team (42% field tilt, #14 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#18 of 18 for press intensity). Across the 7 matches of event data, they create 1.53 xG/game (#11) and concede 1.50 (#8), a net of +0.03 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.

Season Context — the league table

The question
Where did Werder Bremen actually finish, and against whom?

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

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
3Freiburg7412169+713
4Leverkusen74121612+413
5RBL74032011+912
6Werder Bremen73311514+112
7Mainz73131613+310
8Elversberg73131215-310
9Augsburg72321713+49

Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger

The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Werder Bremen 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+'+0.99-0.80
Vision AI Model Insight
Werder Bremen tend to fade after a strong start — first-half net xG +0.30, second-half -0.08. Their strongest period is 61-75' (net +0.99 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 46-60' (net -0.80 xG against them).

xG Race — the season, match by match

Expected goals piling up over 7 matches: Werder Bremen 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 (+0.2 xG). Hover a point for that match.

0481210.710.5Freiburg (A) 1-4 · xG 0.62 to 1.78RBL (H) 3-1 · xG 1.01 to 1.47Koln (A) 1-1 · xG 1.06 to 1.91Augsburg (H) 3-2 · xG 1.89 to 0.92Borussia Dortmund (A) 2-2 · xG 0.73 to 1.95Paderborn (H) 2-2 · xG 2.56 to 0.95Mainz (A) 3-2 · xG 2.86 to 1.52M1M2M3M4M5M6M7
Werder BremenOpponents against Werder Bremen

Tactical DNA

The football question
In five genes, what is Werder Bremen's footballing identity?

Each gene is a 0–100 score — the team's league percentile across the metrics that define that phase of play. It distils the whole report into an identity fingerprint: the taller the gene, the more that trait defines them.

50
Build-Up
possession control from the back
50
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
37
Creation
manufacturing chances
11
Press
winning the ball high & hard
56
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Werder Bremen are defined most by their Solidity DNA (56/100 · average at resisting the opponent's threat), and least by their Press DNA (11/100). 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).

Possess65Disrupt46Finish27Press49Defend30
Possess
Deep buildup
86%
Possession
62%
Field tilt
48%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
62%
Dribble tendency
24%
Progressive passes
52%
Finish
Final-third patience
57%
Shot quality
5%
Open-play xG
19%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
29%
High regains
76%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
43%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
33%
High line ~proxy
24%
PAdj defensive actions
33%
Werder Bremen is defined most by Possess (65% in the league) and weakest on Finish (27%). Percentiles vs the 21 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 Werder Bremen actually control, relative to the rest of the league?

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

Borussia Dortmund: 57% tilt, 2.43 pts/gBayern: 77% tilt, 2.43 pts/gFreiburg: 55% tilt, 1.86 pts/gLeverkusen: 57% tilt, 1.86 pts/gWerder Bremen: 42% tilt, 1.71 pts/gRBL: 54% tilt, 1.71 pts/gMainz: 60% tilt, 1.43 pts/gElversberg: 37% tilt, 1.43 pts/gHamburg: 35% tilt, 1.29 pts/gAugsburg: 44% tilt, 1.29 pts/gHoffenheim: 62% tilt, 1.29 pts/gPaderborn: 46% tilt, 1.14 pts/gEintracht Frankfurt: 48% tilt, 1.14 pts/gKoln: 48% tilt, 1.14 pts/gUnion Berlin: 41% tilt, 0.86 pts/gStuttgart: 56% tilt, 0.86 pts/gSchalke: 38% tilt, 0.86 pts/gBorussia Monchengladbach: 44% tilt, 0.43 pts/gWerder Bremen35%49%63%77%0.41.11.82.4FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
Vision AI Model Insight
Werder Bremen post 42% field tilt, ranking #14 of 18 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 1.71 points/game sits above 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 Werder Bremen has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?

The share of Werder Bremen's time on the ball spent in each phase of play, in the order the phases happen. A phase is where the ball is on the pitch (own third, middle third, final third); a transition or a set piece skips the build-up and is counted on its own.

Build-up: 26.2% of the time on the ball26%Progression: 52.0% of the time on the ball52%Chance creation: 20.5% of the time on the ball21%Attacking transition: 1.2% of the time on the ball52%PROGRESSION
PhaseShare of the time
Build-up26.2%
Progression52.0%
Chance creation20.5%
Attacking transition1.2%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Werder Bremen spends most of its time on the ball (52% 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.

Marco Friedl ↔ Olivier Deman: 162 passes, -0.2 combined xTMarco Friedl ↔ Amos Pieper: 148 passes, -0.8 combined xTAmos Pieper ↔ Arthur: 126 passes, 0.2 combined xTMarco Friedl ↔ Karl Hein: 102 passes, 0.0 combined xTMarco Grüll ↔ Olivier Deman: 93 passes, 1.6 combined xTAmos Pieper ↔ Karl Hein: 78 passes, -0.2 combined xTMarco Friedl ↔ Youri Regeer: 76 passes, -0.4 combined xTAmos Pieper ↔ Youri Regeer: 70 passes, -0.4 combined xTOlivier Deman ↔ Youri Regeer: 62 passes, -0.4 combined xTLudovit Reis ↔ Amos Pieper: 54 passes, 0.1 combined xTMarco Friedl ↔ Ludovit Reis: 48 passes, -0.5 combined xTLudovit Reis ↔ Arthur: 48 passes, 0.4 combined xTMarco Friedl ↔ Marco Grüll: 47 passes, -0.2 combined xTLudovit Reis ↔ Youri Regeer: 46 passes, 0.8 combined xTYouri Regeer ↔ Arthur: 44 passes, 0.0 combined xTKarl Hein ↔ Olivier Deman: 39 passes, -0.4 combined xTLudovit Reis ↔ Olivier Deman: 38 passes, 0.2 combined xTAmos Pieper ↔ Mick Schmetgens: 35 passes, -0.1 combined xTOlivier Deman ↔ Chuki: 35 passes, 0.4 combined xTMarco Grüll ↔ Chuki: 34 passes, 1.0 combined xTMarco Grüll ↔ Youri Regeer: 32 passes, 0.7 combined xTArthur ↔ Chuki: 32 passes, 0.9 combined xTNiclas Füllkrug ↔ Arthur: 31 passes, 1.9 combined xTNiclas Füllkrug ↔ Chuki: 31 passes, 0.5 combined xTNiclas Füllkrug — isolate this player's connectionsFüllkrugMarco Friedl — isolate this player's connectionsFriedlLudovit Reis — isolate this player's connectionsReisAmos Pieper — isolate this player's connectionsPieperMarco Grüll — isolate this player's connectionsGrüllKarl Hein — isolate this player's connectionsHeinOlivier Deman — isolate this player's connectionsDemanMio Backhaus — isolate this player's connectionsBackhausChuki — isolate this player's connectionsChukiArthur — isolate this player's connectionsArthurEren Dinkçi — isolate this player's connectionsDinkçiMax Wöber — isolate this player's connectionsWöberYouri Regeer — isolate this player's connectionsRegeerMick Schmetgens — isolate this player's connectionsSchmetgensCedric Itten — isolate this player's connectionsIttenMitchell Weiser — isolate this player's connectionsWeiser
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high

Top 10 combinations

Friedl ↔ Deman
162p · -0.2xT
Friedl ↔ Pieper
148p · -0.8xT
Pieper ↔ Arthur
126p · 0.2xT
Friedl ↔ Hein
102p · 0.0xT
Grüll ↔ Deman
93p · 1.6xT
Pieper ↔ Hein
78p · -0.2xT
Friedl ↔ Regeer
76p · -0.4xT
Pieper ↔ Regeer
70p · -0.4xT
Deman ↔ Regeer
62p · -0.4xT
Reis ↔ Pieper
54p · 0.1xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Marco Friedl ↔ Olivier Deman (162 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Niclas Füllkrug ↔ Arthur (0.06 xT/pass over 31 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.

Touch Density — where Werder Bremen had the ball

Every touch across 63 matches. Brighter means more touches.

Which Zones Do They Attack Through?

The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Werder Bremen 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
3621
ACTIONS
5%5%11%5%4%9%10%13%10%9%5%3%3%3%5%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
883
ACTIONS
4%7%8%7%2%11%13%13%11%10%5%1%3%4%CARRIES
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the middle third (12.9% 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: 30% defensive, 52% middle, 18% 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. Werder Bremen leaned on their right (38%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.

37%Left side25%Middle38%Right sideATTACKING →
Werder Bremen
37%25%38%
League
39%25%36%

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. Werder Bremen made 276 this season (39.4 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.

Left wing: 75 entries (27%)7527%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 48 entries (17%)4817%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 38 entries (14%)3814%CENTRERight half-space: 35 entries (13%)3513%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 80 entries (29%)8029%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing7510.727%28%
Left half-space486.917%17%
Centre385.414%14%
Right half-space355.013%15%
Right wing8011.429%26%
Build-up2 sections

Build-Up — the pass map

The football question
How does Werder Bremen 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.

1081build-up passes attempted
81%completed
25%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third

Pass types

365CB · 42%
49Long Wide · 6%
25Long Central · 3%
346Wide → FB · 39%
93Central · 11%

Sequence success — build-up

111build-up sequences this season
8%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
48%turned over with nothing to show
CB365 · 42%
right: 213 passes, most from Pieper213left: 152 passes, most from Friedl152
Long Wide49 · 6%
left: 29 passes, most from Hein29right: 20 passes, most from Hein20
Long Central25 · 3%
left: 13 passes, most from Hein13right: 12 passes, most from Hein12
Wide → FB346 · 39%
left: 176 passes, most from Hein176right: 170 passes, most from Hein170
Central93 · 11%
left: 51 passes, most from Deman51right: 42 passes, most from Hein42
◆ Vision AI Insight
Werder Bremen build predominantly down the right, with Hein as the fulcrum (205 build-up passes). Only 27% 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 (74×).

Pass Explorer

Every pass of Werder Bremen’s last 7 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. 323 progressive passes across 7 matches (46.1/game).

Origin lane

Right wing
33%
Right half-space
11%
Central
14%
Left half-space
14%
Left wing
28%
Progression is right-dominant: 44% right side · 14% central · 42% left.

Who generates it

Olivier Deman
52 · 16%
Arthur
46 · 14%
Marco Grüll
39 · 12%
Youri Regeer
33 · 10%
Karl Hein
31 · 10%
Top two — Olivier Deman & Arthur — account for 30% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
46.1 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
29% reach final third
19% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 71% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it. 29% of progressive passes reached the final third and 19% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 30% 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
Centralbalanced
Left half-spacesterile
Left wingefficient

Progression — the pass map

The football question
Once Werder Bremen 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.

1851progression passes attempted
87%completed
13%break into the final third
11%go backward into the defensive third

Pass types

568CB · 35%
55Long Wide · 3%
8Long Central · 0%
764Wide → FB · 47%
224Central · 14%

Sequence success — progression

189progression sequences this season
27%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
43%turned over with nothing to show
CB568 · 35%
right: 316 passes, most from Pieper316left: 252 passes, most from Friedl252
Long Wide55 · 3%
left: 30 passes, most from Deman30right: 25 passes, most from Arthur25
Long Central8 · 0%
left: 7 passes, most from Füllkrug7
Wide → FB764 · 47%
left: 407 passes, most from Deman407right: 357 passes, most from Arthur357
Central224 · 14%
left: 134 passes, most from Deman134right: 90 passes, most from Regeer90
◆ Vision AI Insight
Werder Bremen progress predominantly down the right, with Friedl the busiest midfield outlet (278 progression passes). Only 13% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (76%) 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 → C mid (96×) — 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)
13%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
50%
Safe / backward
36%
14% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 86% 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 Werder Bremen actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?

156 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (18% of 883 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 45m. Most active carrier: Pieper (41). Filter to one player below.

First (63)Second (41)Third (38)Fourth (14)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 Werder Bremen'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.

101shots
10.7xG
0.11xG per shot
4big chances (0.3+ xG)
15goals
#13key passes / game in the league
#11box entries / game in the league
Attacking transition: 28 shots (28%)28%28Settled attack: 48 shots (48%)48%48Set piece: 25 shots (25%)25%25101SHOTS
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set upShotsGoalsxGxG / shot
Attacking transition 28% of shots2833.270.12
Cut-back200.320.16
Long ball400.560.14
Pass into the box / short pass1011.330.13
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)1221.060.09
Settled attack 48% of shots4863.800.08
Cross1411.480.11
Cut-back400.270.07
Long ball700.410.06
Pass into the box / short pass1731.310.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)620.320.05
Set piece 25% of shots2563.660.15
Corner2031.220.06
Free kick200.060.03
Penalty332.380.79

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
Chuki61.062
Youri Regeer90.960
Marco Grüll100.912
Niclas Füllkrug70.630
Olivier Deman70.560

Who takes them

PlayerShotsxGGoals
Niclas Füllkrug234.548
Eren Dinkçi81.291
Marco Grüll141.012
Chuki110.920
Ludovit Reis100.782
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Werder Bremen's chances, by xG, is settled attack (3.8 of 10.7 xG, 48 of 101 shots), mostly cross. 28 of the 101 shots (28%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 25 of the 101 shots came from set pieces; 15 goals from 10.7 xG (+4.3).

Chance Creation — the pass map

The football question
How does Werder Bremen 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

3CB · 4%
7Long Wide · 10%
15Long Central · 22%
15Wide → FB · 22%
29Central · 42%

Sequence success — final-third

124final-third sequences this season
29%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
CB3 · 4%
right: 2 passes, most from Pieper2
Long Wide7 · 10%
right: 4 passes, most from Grüll4left: 3 passes, most from Itten3
Long Central15 · 22%
right: 9 passes, most from Grüll9left: 6 passes, most from Chuki6
Wide → FB15 · 22%
left: 9 passes, most from Grüll9right: 6 passes, most from Füllkrug6
Central29 · 42%
right: 15 passes, most from Regeer15left: 14 passes, most from Grüll14

Who creates — volume × threat

15Grüll
10Chuki
8Regeer
7Füllkrug
6Deman
5Weiser
4Reis
69key passes #13 of 18
13.3box entries/game #11 of 18
32.9final-3rd entries/game #11 of 18
1.53xG/game #11 of 18
15goals #7 of 18
+4.3finishing vs xG #4 of 18
◆ Vision AI Insight
Werder Bremen lean left — 36% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (25 of 69), most often from Grüll (8). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RW att → C att (11 key passes, most often from Grüll). Grüll is the primary source overall. They generate 1.53 xG a game and finish it clinical — they beat their xG, led by Niclas Füllkrug (8G), Ludovit Reis (2G), Marco Grüll (2G).

Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide

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

109 crosses: 33 found a team-mate (30%), 15 led to a shot (14%). 21 cut-backs: 10 found a team-mate (48%), 5 led to a shot (24%). A cross starts wide and is aimed into the box; a cut-back starts near the byline and is squared back. Grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball.

Crosses by Territory

The question
Which part of the final third does Werder Bremen actually cross from?

109 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. 21% come from one territory, the advanced right wing; 6 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.

deep right wing: 11 crosses (10%)10%11deep right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep centre: 0 crosses (0%)deep left half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1deep left wing: 9 crosses (8%)8%9advanced right wing: 23 crosses (21%)21%23advanced right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)advanced centre: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left half-space: 3 crosses (3%)3%3advanced left wing: 20 crosses (18%)18%20byline right wing: 21 crosses (19%)19%21byline right half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1byline centre: 0 crosses (0%)byline left half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1byline left wing: 19 crosses (17%)17%19
TerritoryCrossesShareLed to a shot
advanced · right wing2321%5
byline · right wing2119%3
advanced · left wing2018%2
byline · left wing1917%2
deep · right wing1110%1
deep · left wing98%0
advanced · left half-space33%2
deep · left half-space11%0
byline · right half-space11%0
byline · left half-space11%0
Finishing3 sections

Shot Map

101 shots for 10.7 xG (1.53/game, #11 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.

High-volume attack. 14.4 shots/game at 0.106 xG/shot. Box entries 13/game (#11). Threat created 11.1 xT/game (#9).

Goal Sequences

The move behind each of Werder Bremen’s 15 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 — 15 goals traced.

How Do They Score?

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

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

By situation

Open play
9 · 60%
Set pieces
3 · 20%
Penalties
3 · 20%

By finish

Right foot
8 · 53%
Left foot
4 · 27%
Header
3 · 20%
Vision AI Model Insight
15 goals scored. 60% come in open play; set pieces add 20%. 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

56 of 175 pass attempts lost here (32%).32%56/175Arthur20 of 183 pass attempts lost here (11%).11%20/183Pieper61 of 413 pass attempts lost here (15%).15%61/413Hein27 of 165 pass attempts lost here (16%).16%27/165Friedl39 of 145 pass attempts lost here (27%).27%39/145Deman58 of 330 pass attempts lost here (18%).18%58/330Arthur39 of 366 pass attempts lost here (11%).11%39/366Pieper45 of 462 pass attempts lost here (10%).10%45/462Friedl42 of 366 pass attempts lost here (11%).11%42/366Friedl48 of 327 pass attempts lost here (15%).15%48/327Grüll54 of 190 pass attempts lost here (28%).28%54/190Arthur37 of 106 pass attempts lost here (35%).35%37/106Füllkrug22 of 100 pass attempts lost here (22%).22%22/100Dinkçi29 of 110 pass attempts lost here (26%).26%29/110Grüll59 of 183 pass attempts lost here (32%).32%59/183Grüllattacking →

How they lose it

Incomplete pass — attacking third
201
Failed forward pass
131
Failed take-on
51
Lost in the defensive third
203
Their weakest zone is the right half-space in the attacking third: 35% of 106 pass attempts there are lost (37 times). Separately, 32% 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 Werder Bremen 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.

16
Pressing Index
/100 · passive
Intensity4
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height0
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness22
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption39
opponent completion & progression allowed

Every defensive action & where it happens

Where they win the ball back — by lane

RW
17%
RHS
21%
C
23%
LHS
19%
LW
21%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 56%
Mid 31%
Att 12%
Read
Ranked #18 of 18 for press intensity, this is a high press. Note the tension: 56% of their raw defensive actions still occur in their own third — a possession effect, not a passive one. Dominating the ball (18% high-press share) means that when they do defend, it is often deep. Of recoveries, 49% are won high up the pitch.

Every pressing metric, ranked in the league

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)—#18/18lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game172#7/18
High-press share18%#17/18def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)34.3#18/18avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game21.1#12/18ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share49%#16/18share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed83%#17/18lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed9.1%#5/18of 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 Werder Bremen win it back with a defensive action?

Counted over the 228 opposition possessions that Werder Bremen 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 Werder Bremen step in. Werder Bremen win it after 7.3 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 5.1 after the hour mark (sooner).

PASSES THEY GET
6.0passes
median 4 · before Werder Bremen win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
17sec
median 8s · 32.6 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
40%
23%
15%
21%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
7.9
24s
15–30′
6.8
18s
30–45+′
5.3
16s
45–60′
5.6
16s
60–75′
4.6
13s
75–90+′
5.5
16s
average passesaverage seconds

Attitude in each third

Every other style number here says how much Werder Bremen 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 Werder Bremen 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) 1,081 passes

nothing unusual in this zone

Width of use+0.0921.19
Wide-channel share+0.090.31
Side bias-0.48-1.62
Pass length-0.2521.79
Long-ball share-0.350.20
Forward gain per pass-0.2910.20
Backward-pass share-0.110.19
Deep-pass share-0.270.26
Completion+0.180.81
Seconds between passes-0.543.00
Side used

left 26% · central 44% · right 30%

Progression (middle third) 1,851 passes

nothing unusual in this zone

Width of use-0.0325.50
Wide-channel share-0.080.40
Side bias+0.130.56
Pass length+0.1117.38
Long-ball share-0.450.08
Forward gain per pass-0.462.91
Backward-pass share-0.030.33
Deep-pass share-0.600.13
Completion+0.150.85
Seconds between passes-0.443.00
Side used

left 35% · central 31% · right 34%

Final third 689 passes

nothing unusual in this zone

Width of use-0.2830.93
Wide-channel share-0.120.58
Side bias+0.291.56
Pass length-0.3514.93
Long-ball share+0.180.11
Forward gain per pass-0.040.99
Backward-pass share-0.110.38
Deep-pass share-0.130.08
Completion-0.140.69
Seconds between passes+0.423.71
Side used

left 42% · central 19% · right 39%

Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Werder Bremen'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 Werder Bremen win or lose the ball, what actually happens in the seconds after?

Reconstructed from the full timestamped event stream: real possession spells (not zone-clustered), and shots that follow a regain within a fixed window. This phase of play needs ordered, per-event timestamps — which every match here carries.

Direct play share17%
#12 of 18 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share28%
#7 of 18 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)16.1s
#8 of 18 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.7
#7 of 18
Counter-attack shots /game1.41
#3 of 18 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.54
#6 of 18 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain10.8s
#6 of 18 · lower = faster break

Sequence success — attacking transition

11attacking transition sequences this season
9%succeed — produce a shot
55%turned over with nothing to show

Sequence success — defensive transition

50defensive transition sequences this season
78%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
6%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Werder Bremen are a patient build-up side: 17% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#12 of 18), against 28% built patiently over 6+ passes (#7 of 18). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.41 times a game (#3), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.54 times a game (#6 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 Werder Bremen? 368 opponent progressive passes and 110 shots faced (10.5 xG against) across the season.

Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Werder Bremen)

Right wing
34%
Right half-space
16%
Central
13%
Left half-space
13%
Left wing
24%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (34% of the danger conceded).

How Do They Concede?

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

Every goal Werder Bremen conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Werder Bremen'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 (78 total)

3%1%4%5%3%1%1%17%14%21%17%14%Nadiem AmiriSheraldo BeckerAnthony CaciNadiem AmiriAnthony CaciLee Jae-SungPhilipp LienhartMatthias GinterDerry ScherhantPhilipp LienhartMatthias GinterNiklas BesteYuito SuzukiMatthias GinterMaximilian EggesteinAnthony CaciAnthony CaciAnthony CaciLee Jae-SungSheraldo BeckerNadiem AmiriNadiem AmiriSheraldo BeckerKaishu SanoIgor MatanovicIgor MatanovicLucas HölerLucas HölerJohan BakayokoDavid RaumRidle BakuChristopher NkunkuNeil El AynaouiDavid RaumDavid RaumDavid RaumDavid RaumTidiam GomisAndrija MaksimovicEllyes SkhiriEllyes SkhiriLinton MainaAlessio Castro-MontesMarius BülterTom KraußSaïd El MalaEllyes SkhiriRobin FellhauerFabian RiederFabian RiederAlexis Claude-MauriceRobin FellhauerJeffrey GouweleeuwFelix NmechaMaximilian BeierSerhou GuirassyEthan NwaneriNico SchlotterbeckWaldemar AntonSerhou GuirassyFelix NmechaMarcel SabitzerDaniel SvenssonMaximilian BeierMaximilian BeierMaximilian BeierNico SchlotterbeckWaldemar AntonSerhou GuirassyJoey VeermanSantiago CastañedaLaurin UlrichSteffen TiggesNahuel NollLaurin CurdaLaurin UlrichTjark SchellerRaphael Obermair← own goal

By situation

Open play
11 · 79%
Set pieces
3 · 21%
Penalties
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
14 goals conceded. 79% come in open play; set pieces account for only 21%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 43% are headers — a real weakness in the air. Their supply line runs mainly through the centre of the attacking third (21% 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
9 g · 7.1 xG
Set pieces
3 g · 1.3 xG
Penalties
3 g
20% of goals come from set pieces (3 of 15), worth 1.3 xG from 22 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.

Where do Werder Bremen's corners go?

28 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 (14)

21%43%14%14%
Delivered into the box 93%Short 7%

Left side (14)

7%50%29%7%7%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Where opponents attack Werder Bremen from set pieces

24 shots from opponent corners against Werder Bremen, 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 (15)

27%33%20%13%7%
Shot 15Goals 1

Left flag (9)

11%33%11%11%11%22%
Shot 9Goals 2

Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths (top-third vs league)
  • pass retention % — 82.44 (78th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
  • press intensity (PPDA) — 6.07 (0th pct)
  • field tilt % — 42.31 (22th pct)
  • shots /game — 14.43 (33th 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.

RBL
59%
Elversberg
41%
Hamburg
39%
Paderborn
28%
Freiburg
28%

Performance vs Opponent Styles

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

Results

opponent typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)2.501.502.00
vs mid-block opponents (2m)1.503.000.50
vs low-block opponents (3m)2.331.672.33

Behaviour — how Werder Bremen actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents72%18%266.86.5
vs mid-block opponents83%12%5111.913.0
vs low-block opponents86%10%5613.518.0
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 72% vs 86% against a low block (13pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 18% when pressed vs 10% 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. Werder Bremen are territorially-dominated with a aggressive high-press. Their attack creates 1.53 xG a game and they concede 1.50 a game. [Event-data based — no tracking, so off-ball structure and marking scheme need video.]
Squad

Players

Who drives the numbers.

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 Werder Bremen’s last 7 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).

+12.9on-ball value, 7 matches
Where the value came from
Passes3621 actions+3.99
Carries883 actions+0.17
Dribbles93 actions-0.47
Shots101 actions+6.59
Ball wins463 actions+2.61
Most on-ball value (OBV)ActionsOBVper 100
Niclas Füllkrug268+3.86+1.44
Marco Grüll426+2.00+0.47
Chuki306+1.12+0.37
Youri Regeer461+0.82+0.18
Karl Hein326+0.79+0.24
Amos Pieper623+0.77+0.12
Marco Friedl714+0.67+0.09
Arthur436+0.65+0.15
123456
Biggest single movesOBV
1  Niclas Füllkrug · shot+0.854
2  Niclas Füllkrug · shot+0.805
3  Niclas Füllkrug · shot+0.746
4  Marco Grüll · pass+0.359
5  Marco Grüll · pass+0.338
6  Niclas Füllkrug · shot+0.268

Set Pieces by Player

Who delivers Werder Bremen’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 28 corners taken, most by Marco Grüll (16); 22 shots from corners and free kicks, 3 goals, led by Niclas Füllkrug (2 goals, 0.42 xG). “Into the box” counts corners that landed inside the penalty area; free-kick takers are the players who shot from one, because this feed does not mark who delivers the others.

PlayerCorners takenInto the boxSet-piece shotsGoalsxGFree-kick shotsPenalties
Marco Grüll1613 (81%)3—0.071—
Chuki1211 (92%)3—0.091—
Niclas Füllkrug——420.42—3/3
Marco Friedl——2—0.08——
Oskar Wójcik——2—0.08——
Mitchell Weiser——1—0.09——
Justin Njinmah——1—0.05——
Dariusz Stalmach——110.10——
Patrice Covic——1—0.03——
Amos Pieper——1—0.08——
Ludovit Reis——1—0.06——
Olivier Deman——1—0.05——
Youri Regeer——1—0.08——

Top Performers

Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 189 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.

playerposminVision AI Scorecapability blocks
Youri RegeerCM5066.8Progression 85%Successful Dribble 64%Ball-Carrying 62%Chance Creation 62%
Amos PieperCB5685.0Progression 62%Ball-Carrying 56%Ball-Winning 52%Aerial & Box Defending 33%
Olivier DemanFB6154.4Ball-Winning 48%Wide Delivery 29%Ball-Carrying 12%
ChukiAM5614.1Chance Creation 55%Box Threat 42%Ball-Carrying 30%
ArthurFB4923.8Ball-Winning 44%Ball-Carrying 33%Wide Delivery 21%
Marco GrüllW6563.7Ball-Carrying 58%Chance Creation 38%Box Threat 27%Wide Delivery 24%
Karl HeinGK6653.7Shot-Stopping 37%
Marco FriedlCB6653.1Progression 72%Ball-Carrying 46%Ball-Winning 34%Aerial & Box Defending 25%
Ludovit ReisCM5962.8Ball-Carrying 59%Successful Dribble 24%Progression 24%Chance Creation 4%
Niclas FüllkrugST5800.7Box Threat 25%Finishing 20%Ball-Carrying 6%Aerial Threat 0%

Top Creators

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

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Marco GrüllM6562.06196.8
ChukiM5611.60166.1
Niclas FüllkrugF5801.09122.2
Youri RegeerM5061.4277.6
Olivier DemanD6150.8889.7
ArthurD4920.55117.3
Eren DinkçiM3900.6972.4
Ludovit ReisM5960.6022.2

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)
Olivier DemanFB61512 (25%)4 (0%)
ArthurFB49210 (30%)6 (50%)
Marco GrüllW65610 (10%)5 (40%)
Eren DinkçiW3902 (0%)1 (100%)

Defensive Volume Leaders

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

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
Marco FriedlD6651363929
Marco GrüllM65612418942
Ludovit ReisM59611318528
Olivier DemanD61511120521
Niclas FüllkrugF5801088221
Amos PieperD56810517914
Youri RegeerM50696161123
ArthurD4927110826

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (16 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Karl HeinG766500.0231258.8
Marco FriedlD766500.10211368.6
Marco GrüllM765621.015391246.8
Olivier DemanD761500.36521119.7
Ludovit ReisM759620.8431132.2
Niclas FüllkrugF758084.5731082.2
Amos PieperD756800.22311059.4
ChukiM756100.91023606.1
Youri RegeerM650600.1833967.6
ArthurD649200.2346717.3
Eren DinkçiM739011.3314352.4
Mick SchmetgensD620700.117471.6
Mitchell WeiserM518110.659392.0
Dariusz StalmachM513610.114320.9
Oskar WójcikD313400.103281.0
Cedric IttenF511700.221290.3

Player Role Architecture

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

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

Marco Friedl
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes665
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /902.8
key passes /900.00
def actions /9018.4
pass accuracy92%
Karl Hein
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes665
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /904.2
key passes /900.27
def actions /903.4
pass accuracy78%
Marco Grüll
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes656
goals · xG2 · 1.0
prog passes /905.4
key passes /902.06
def actions /9017.0
pass accuracy73%
Olivier Deman
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes615
goals · xG0 · 0.3
prog passes /907.6
key passes /900.88
def actions /9016.2
pass accuracy84%
Ludovit Reis
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes596
goals · xG2 · 0.8
prog passes /900.5
key passes /900.60
def actions /9017.1
pass accuracy90%
Niclas Füllkrug
Poacher / finisher · Forward
minutes580
goals · xG8 · 4.5
prog passes /900.5
key passes /901.09
def actions /9016.8
pass accuracy71%
Amos Pieper
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes568
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /904.9
key passes /900.32
def actions /9016.6
pass accuracy89%
Chuki
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes561
goals · xG0 · 0.9
prog passes /903.7
key passes /901.60
def actions /909.6
pass accuracy71%
Youri Regeer
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes506
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /905.9
key passes /901.42
def actions /9017.1
pass accuracy90%

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: press intensity (PPDA) (0th pct)
Sign a high-energy presser to lift defensive intensity. The data flags this because the press is passive (6.07, 0th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: field tilt % (22th pct)
Sign a possession-controlling midfielder to win the territorial battle. The data flags this because they get pinned back (42.31, 22th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: shots /game (33th pct)
Sign a shot-taking forward to raise shot volume. The data flags this because shot volume is low (14.43, 33th percentile vs the league).
Vision AI · building report