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.
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.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
3
Freiburg
7
4
1
2
16
9
+7
13
4
Leverkusen
7
4
1
2
16
12
+4
13
5
RBL
7
4
0
3
20
11
+9
12
6
Werder Bremen
7
3
3
1
15
14
+1
12
7
Mainz
7
3
1
3
16
13
+3
10
8
Elversberg
7
3
1
3
12
15
-3
10
9
Augsburg
7
2
3
2
17
13
+4
9
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)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Phase
Share of the time
Build-up
26.2%
Progression
52.0%
Chance creation
20.5%
Attacking transition
1.2%
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.
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
Carries
the ball moved with a player
883
ACTIONS
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.
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.
Channel
Entries
Per match
Share
League share
Left wing
75
10.7
27%
28%
Left half-space
48
6.9
17%
17%
Centre
38
5.4
14%
14%
Right half-space
35
5.0
13%
15%
Right wing
80
11.4
29%
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%
Long Wide49 · 6%
Long Central25 · 3%
Wide → FB346 · 39%
Central93 · 11%
◆ 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.
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. 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%
Long Wide55 · 3%
Long Central8 · 0%
Wide → FB764 · 47%
Central224 · 14%
◆ 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.
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
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition28% of shots
28
3
3.27
0.12
Cut-back
2
0
0.32
0.16
Long ball
4
0
0.56
0.14
Pass into the box / short pass
10
1
1.33
0.13
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
12
2
1.06
0.09
Settled attack48% of shots
48
6
3.80
0.08
Cross
14
1
1.48
0.11
Cut-back
4
0
0.27
0.07
Long ball
7
0
0.41
0.06
Pass into the box / short pass
17
3
1.31
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
6
2
0.32
0.05
Set piece25% of shots
25
6
3.66
0.15
Corner
20
3
1.22
0.06
Free kick
2
0
0.06
0.03
Penalty
3
3
2.38
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
Chuki
6
1.06
2
Youri Regeer
9
0.96
0
Marco Grüll
10
0.91
2
Niclas Füllkrug
7
0.63
0
Olivier Deman
7
0.56
0
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Niclas Füllkrug
23
4.54
8
Eren Dinkçi
8
1.29
1
Marco Grüll
14
1.01
2
Chuki
11
0.92
0
Ludovit Reis
10
0.78
2
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%
Long Wide7 · 10%
Long Central15 · 22%
Wide → FB15 · 22%
Central29 · 42%
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.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
advanced · right wing
23
21%
5
byline · right wing
21
19%
3
advanced · left wing
20
18%
2
byline · left wing
19
17%
2
deep · right wing
11
10%
1
deep · left wing
9
8%
0
advanced · left half-space
3
3%
2
deep · left half-space
1
1%
0
byline · right half-space
1
1%
0
byline · left half-space
1
1%
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
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.
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
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#18/18
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
172
#7/18
High-press share
18%
#17/18
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
34.3
#18/18
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
21.1
#12/18
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
49%
#16/18
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
83%
#17/18
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
9.1%
#5/18
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 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
Every opponent key pass against them (78 total)
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.
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
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)
Delivered into the box 93%Short 7%
Left side (14)
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)
Shot 15Goals 1
Left flag (9)
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 type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)
2.50
1.50
2.00
vs mid-block opponents (2m)
1.50
3.00
0.50
vs low-block opponents (3m)
2.33
1.67
2.33
Behaviour — how Werder Bremen actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
72%
18%
26
6.8
6.5
vs mid-block opponents
83%
12%
51
11.9
13.0
vs low-block opponents
86%
10%
56
13.5
18.0
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.]
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)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Niclas Füllkrug
268
+3.86
+1.44
Marco Grüll
426
+2.00
+0.47
Chuki
306
+1.12
+0.37
Youri Regeer
461
+0.82
+0.18
Karl Hein
326
+0.79
+0.24
Amos Pieper
623
+0.77
+0.12
Marco Friedl
714
+0.67
+0.09
Arthur
436
+0.65
+0.15
Biggest single moves
OBV
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.
Player
Corners taken
Into the box
Set-piece shots
Goals
xG
Free-kick shots
Penalties
Marco Grüll
16
13 (81%)
3
—
0.07
1
—
Chuki
12
11 (92%)
3
—
0.09
1
—
Niclas Füllkrug
—
—
4
2
0.42
—
3/3
Marco Friedl
—
—
2
—
0.08
—
—
Oskar Wójcik
—
—
2
—
0.08
—
—
Mitchell Weiser
—
—
1
—
0.09
—
—
Justin Njinmah
—
—
1
—
0.05
—
—
Dariusz Stalmach
—
—
1
1
0.10
—
—
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.
Chance creation leaders — key passes /90 and box entries.
player
pos
min
key P /90
box entries
xT
Marco Grüll
M
656
2.06
19
6.8
Chuki
M
561
1.60
16
6.1
Niclas Füllkrug
F
580
1.09
12
2.2
Youri Regeer
M
506
1.42
7
7.6
Olivier Deman
D
615
0.88
8
9.7
Arthur
D
492
0.55
11
7.3
Eren Dinkçi
M
390
0.69
7
2.4
Ludovit Reis
M
596
0.60
2
2.2
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.
player
pos
min
crosses (completed)
cutbacks (completed)
Olivier Deman
FB
615
12 (25%)
4 (0%)
Arthur
FB
492
10 (30%)
6 (50%)
Marco Grüll
W
656
10 (10%)
5 (40%)
Eren Dinkçi
W
390
2 (0%)
1 (100%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Marco Friedl
D
665
136
3
9
29
Marco Grüll
M
656
124
18
9
42
Ludovit Reis
M
596
113
18
5
28
Olivier Deman
D
615
111
20
5
21
Niclas Füllkrug
F
580
108
8
2
21
Amos Pieper
D
568
105
17
9
14
Youri Regeer
M
506
96
16
11
23
Arthur
D
492
71
10
8
26
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (16 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Karl Hein
G
7
665
0
0.0
2
31
25
8.8
Marco Friedl
D
7
665
0
0.1
0
21
136
8.6
Marco Grüll
M
7
656
2
1.0
15
39
124
6.8
Olivier Deman
D
7
615
0
0.3
6
52
111
9.7
Ludovit Reis
M
7
596
2
0.8
4
3
113
2.2
Niclas Füllkrug
F
7
580
8
4.5
7
3
108
2.2
Amos Pieper
D
7
568
0
0.2
2
31
105
9.4
Chuki
M
7
561
0
0.9
10
23
60
6.1
Youri Regeer
M
6
506
0
0.1
8
33
96
7.6
Arthur
D
6
492
0
0.2
3
46
71
7.3
Eren Dinkçi
M
7
390
1
1.3
3
14
35
2.4
Mick Schmetgens
D
6
207
0
0.1
1
7
47
1.6
Mitchell Weiser
M
5
181
1
0.6
5
9
39
2.0
Dariusz Stalmach
M
5
136
1
0.1
1
4
32
0.9
Oskar Wójcik
D
3
134
0
0.1
0
3
28
1.0
Cedric Itten
F
5
117
0
0.2
2
1
29
0.3
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).