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 reportLa Liga 2026

Athletic Club

A possession-dominant side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a high-volume attack. Currently #8 of 20 on 12 points (3-3-3, 12:9). Tactical profile below is built from 9 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.

possession-dominantaggressive high-presshigh-volume attack
L
W
L
L
D
L
L
L
W
W
D
D
D
L
W
12
points
#8 of 20 · 9 games
12:9
goals
+3 GD
3-3-3
record
W-D-L
1.33
points/game
#8 in the league
1.53
xG for/game
rank #5
1.06
xG against/game
rank #3
#8
press rank
of 20 · most aggressive
60%
field tilt
#4
Athletic Club
League average
Expected goals for / game
1.531.35
Expected goals against / game
1.061.35
Field tilt
60%50%
Pass retention
83%82%
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 Athletic Club and how good was the season?
Read. Athletic Club currently sit #8 of 20 on 12 points (3W-3D-3L, 1.33 pts/game), scoring 12 and conceding 9 for a goal difference of +3. On the ball they are a possession-dominant team (60% field tilt, #4 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#8 of 20 for press intensity). Across the 9 matches of event data, they create 1.53 xG/game (#5) and concede 1.06 (#3), a net of +0.47 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.

Season Context — the league table

The question
Where did Athletic Club actually finish, and against whom?

The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Athletic Club.

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
5Real Sociedad106131918+119
6Sevilla94231416-214
7Alaves103341411+312
8Athletic Club9333129+312
9Celta Vigo10262107+312
10Villarreal103341514+112
11Deportivo102531313+011

Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger

The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Athletic Club 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+'+1.67-0.70
Vision AI Model Insight
Athletic Club tend to fade after a strong start — first-half net xG +3.47, second-half +0.76. Their strongest period is 16-30' (net +1.67 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 46-60' (net -0.70 xG against them).

xG Race — the season, match by match

Expected goals piling up over 9 matches: Athletic Club against what their opponents created. A line pulling away upwards is a side creating more than it gives away; the gap at the end is the season’s balance (+4.2 xG). Hover a point for that match.

05101513.79.5Sevilla (H) 1-3 · xG 1.37 to 0.72Barcelona (A) 0-2 · xG 0.31 to 3.12Celta Vigo (A) 2-0 · xG 2.58 to 0.53Atletico (H) 3-0 · xG 1.17 to 0.99Elche (H) 1-1 · xG 2.82 to 0.82Alaves (H) 0-0 · xG 1.92 to 0.09Valencia (A) 0-0 · xG 0.70 to 1.09Levante (A) 1-3 · xG 2.15 to 1.76Getafe (H) 4-0 · xG 0.72 to 0.39M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8M9
Athletic ClubOpponents against Athletic Club

Tactical DNA

The football question
In five genes, what is Athletic Club'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.

65
Build-Up
possession control from the back
78
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
68
Creation
manufacturing chances
70
Press
winning the ball high & hard
85
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Athletic Club are defined most by their Solidity DNA (85/100 · elite at resisting the opponent's threat), and least by their Build-Up DNA (65/100). Percentiles vs the 20 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).

Possess49Disrupt68Finish61Press87Defend84
Possess
Deep buildup
13%
Possession
48%
Field tilt
87%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
57%
Dribble tendency
61%
Progressive passes
87%
Finish
Final-third patience
61%
Shot quality
48%
Open-play xG
74%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
70%
High regains
96%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
96%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
87%
High line ~proxy
96%
PAdj defensive actions
70%
Athletic Club is defined most by Press (87% in the league) and weakest on Possess (49%). Percentiles vs the 23 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 Athletic Club actually control, relative to the rest of the league?

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

Barcelona: 73% tilt, 2.70 pts/gAtletico: 61% tilt, 2.50 pts/gReal Madrid: 52% tilt, 2.40 pts/gReal Betis: 51% tilt, 2.00 pts/gReal Sociedad: 47% tilt, 1.90 pts/gSevilla: 50% tilt, 1.56 pts/gAthletic Club: 60% tilt, 1.33 pts/gOsasuna: 45% tilt, 1.22 pts/gAlaves: 49% tilt, 1.20 pts/gVillarreal: 64% tilt, 1.20 pts/gCelta Vigo: 50% tilt, 1.20 pts/gDeportivo: 44% tilt, 1.10 pts/gRacing Santander: 47% tilt, 1.10 pts/gElche: 46% tilt, 1.00 pts/gRayo Vallecano: 47% tilt, 1.00 pts/gLevante: 43% tilt, 1.00 pts/gGetafe: 43% tilt, 0.90 pts/gEspanyol: 45% tilt, 0.80 pts/gValencia: 39% tilt, 0.60 pts/gMalaga: 46% tilt, 0.50 pts/gAthletic Club39%50%61%73%0.51.22.02.7FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
Vision AI Model Insight
Athletic Club post 60% field tilt, ranking #4 of 20 in the league — a genuinely territory-dominant side, and their 1.33 points/game sits below the league-average return — a real disconnect: their territorial control isn't showing up on the scoreboard the way it should.

Where the time goes — how long each phase lasts

The question
When Athletic Club has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?

The share of Athletic Club'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: 20.7% of the time on the ball21%Progression: 52.5% of the time on the ball53%Chance creation: 24.6% of the time on the ball25%Attacking transition: 2.2% of the time on the ball53%PROGRESSION
PhaseShare of the time
Build-up20.7%
Progression52.5%
Chance creation24.6%
Attacking transition2.2%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Athletic Club spends most of its time on the ball (53% 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.

Yuri Berchiche ↔ Aymeric Laporte: 147 passes, -0.4 combined xTAymeric Laporte ↔ Yeray Álvarez: 143 passes, 0.0 combined xTAymeric Laporte ↔ Aitor Paredes: 122 passes, -0.3 combined xTAymeric Laporte ↔ Unai Simón: 114 passes, -0.4 combined xTIñigo Ruiz de Galarreta ↔ Aymeric Laporte: 84 passes, 0.0 combined xTYuri Berchiche ↔ Nico Williams: 80 passes, 1.2 combined xTAitor Paredes ↔ Jesús Areso: 73 passes, 0.4 combined xTUnai Simón ↔ Aitor Paredes: 68 passes, -0.4 combined xTYuri Berchiche ↔ Aitor Paredes: 63 passes, -0.5 combined xTÁlex Berenguer ↔ Peio Canales: 57 passes, 0.7 combined xTYeray Álvarez ↔ Unai Simón: 55 passes, 0.0 combined xTYuri Berchiche ↔ Iñigo Ruiz de Galarreta: 55 passes, 0.5 combined xTAymeric Laporte ↔ Mikel Jauregizar: 53 passes, 0.0 combined xTAymeric Laporte ↔ Beñat Gerenabarrena: 46 passes, -0.3 combined xTYuri Berchiche ↔ Oihan Sancet: 44 passes, 1.3 combined xTYuri Berchiche ↔ Beñat Gerenabarrena: 43 passes, -0.6 combined xTRobert Navarro ↔ Jesús Areso: 41 passes, 0.7 combined xTIñigo Ruiz de Galarreta ↔ Robert Navarro: 40 passes, 0.7 combined xTYuri Berchiche ↔ Álex Berenguer: 40 passes, 0.1 combined xTAitor Paredes ↔ Peio Canales: 40 passes, 0.5 combined xTPeio Canales ↔ Beñat Gerenabarrena: 39 passes, 0.4 combined xTYuri Berchiche ↔ Peio Canales: 38 passes, 0.4 combined xTYeray Álvarez ↔ Jesús Areso: 37 passes, 0.1 combined xTYuri Berchiche ↔ Unai Simón: 36 passes, -0.5 combined xTÁlex Berenguer — isolate this player's connectionsBerenguerIñaki Williams — isolate this player's connectionsWilliamsUnai Simón — isolate this player's connectionsSimónIñigo Ruiz de Galarreta — isolate this player's connectionsGalarretaAymeric Laporte — isolate this player's connectionsLaporteNico Williams — isolate this player's connectionsWilliamsRobert Navarro — isolate this player's connectionsNavarroAitor Paredes — isolate this player's connectionsParedesYuri Berchiche — isolate this player's connectionsBerchicheMikel Jauregizar — isolate this player's connectionsJauregizarPeio Canales — isolate this player's connectionsCanalesBeñat Gerenabarrena — isolate this player's connectionsGerenabarrOihan Sancet — isolate this player's connectionsSancetJesús Areso — isolate this player's connectionsAresoJohaneko Louis-Jean — isolate this player's connectionsLouis-JeanYeray Álvarez — isolate this player's connectionsÁlvarez
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high

Top 10 combinations

Berchiche ↔ Laporte
147p · -0.4xT
Laporte ↔ Álvarez
143p · 0.0xT
Laporte ↔ Paredes
122p · -0.3xT
Laporte ↔ Simón
114p · -0.4xT
Galarreta ↔ Laporte
84p · 0.0xT
Berchiche ↔ Williams
80p · 1.2xT
Paredes ↔ Areso
73p · 0.4xT
Simón ↔ Paredes
68p · -0.4xT
Berchiche ↔ Paredes
63p · -0.5xT
Berenguer ↔ Canales
57p · 0.7xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Yuri Berchiche ↔ Aymeric Laporte (147 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Yuri Berchiche ↔ Oihan Sancet (0.03 xT/pass over 44 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.

Touch Density — where Athletic Club had the ball

Every touch across 98 matches. Brighter means more touches.

Which Zones Do They Attack Through?

The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Athletic Club 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
4988
ACTIONS
2%3%11%4%3%9%11%13%12%10%7%3%2%4%6%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
1184
ACTIONS
1%5%11%6%2%9%10%15%13%9%7%2%1%3%8%CARRIES
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the middle third (13.2% 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: 24% defensive, 54% middle, 22% 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. Athletic Club leaned on their left (40%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.

40%Left side23%Middle37%Right sideATTACKING →
Athletic Club
40%23%37%
League
38%23%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. Athletic Club made 467 this season (51.9 a match); 36% came into the left 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: 166 entries (36%)16636%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 69 entries (15%)6915%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 43 entries (9%)439%CENTRERight half-space: 53 entries (11%)5311%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 136 entries (29%)13629%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing16618.436%29%
Left half-space697.715%15%
Centre434.89%12%
Right half-space535.911%15%
Right wing13615.129%29%
Build-up2 sections

Build-Up — the pass map

The football question
How does Athletic Club 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.

1218build-up passes attempted
84%completed
30%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third

Pass types

468CB · 45%
71Long Wide · 7%
15Long Central · 1%
331Wide → FB · 32%
144Central · 14%

Sequence success — build-up

144build-up sequences this season
15%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
37%turned over with nothing to show
CB468 · 45%
left: 235 passes, most from Laporte235right: 233 passes, most from Laporte233
Long Wide71 · 7%
right: 37 passes, most from Simón37left: 34 passes, most from Simón34
Long Central15 · 1%
right: 10 passes, most from Simón10left: 5 passes, most from Simón5
Wide → FB331 · 32%
left: 189 passes, most from Simón189right: 142 passes, most from Simón142
Central144 · 14%
left: 100 passes, most from Simón100right: 44 passes, most from Simón44
◆ Vision AI Insight
Athletic Club build predominantly down the left, with Simón as the fulcrum (272 build-up passes). Only 33% of their build-up passes actually advance a third — the rest is lateral circulation, the hallmark of a possession-controlling side that circulates patiently in midfield before progressing. Their single most-repeated pattern is C def → RHS def (81×).

Pass Explorer

Every pass of Athletic Club’s last 9 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. 475 progressive passes across 9 matches (52.8/game).

Origin lane

Right wing
31%
Right half-space
12%
Central
15%
Left half-space
12%
Left wing
31%
Progression is right-dominant: 43% right side · 15% central · 42% left.

Who generates it

Yuri Berchiche
56 · 12%
Jesús Areso
49 · 10%
Unai Simón
42 · 9%
Hugo Rincón
41 · 9%
Álex Berenguer
41 · 9%
Top two — Yuri Berchiche & Jesús Areso — account for 22% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
52.8 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
27% reach final third
17% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 73% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it. 27% of progressive passes reached the final third and 17% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 22% 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 wingbalanced
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralbalanced
Left half-spacebalanced
Left wingbalanced

Progression — the pass map

The football question
Once Athletic Club 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.

2682progression passes attempted
88%completed
16%break into the final third
9%go backward into the defensive third

Pass types

891CB · 38%
71Long Wide · 3%
15Long Central · 1%
1072Wide → FB · 45%
320Central · 14%

Sequence success — progression

292progression sequences this season
33%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
37%turned over with nothing to show
CB891 · 38%
left: 473 passes, most from Laporte473right: 418 passes, most from Paredes418
Long Wide71 · 3%
right: 40 passes, most from Galarreta40left: 31 passes, most from Galarreta31
Long Central15 · 1%
left: 8 passes, most from Berchiche8right: 7 passes, most from Berchiche7
Wide → FB1072 · 45%
left: 612 passes, most from Berchiche612right: 460 passes, most from Areso460
Central320 · 14%
left: 171 passes, most from Berchiche171right: 149 passes, most from Galarreta149
◆ Vision AI Insight
Athletic Club progress predominantly down the left, with Laporte the busiest midfield outlet (320 progression passes). Only 16% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (75%) is recycled back into midfield or (9%) 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 (143×) — press that lane and midfield progression stalls.

Decision Quality — not all completed passes are equal

A 90% pass completion can hide a sideways habit. Grading every pass by the threat it adds separates value creation from safe circulation.

Excellent (high xT gain)
14%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
48%
Safe / backward
37%
16% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 84% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.

Carries Map — progressive ball-carries, squad-wide

The question
Where does Athletic Club actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?

298 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (25% of 1184 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 51m. Most active carrier: Laporte (47). Filter to one player below.

First (106)Second (78)Third (70)Fourth (44)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Chance creation4 sections

Chance creation — how the shots come

The question
Where do Athletic Club'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.

135shots
13.7xG
0.10xG per shot
8big chances (0.3+ xG)
12goals
#7key passes / game in the league
#8box entries / game in the league
Attacking transition: 25 shots (19%)19%25Settled attack: 82 shots (61%)61%82Set piece: 28 shots (21%)21%28135SHOTS
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set upShotsGoalsxGxG / shot
Attacking transition 19% of shots2531.960.08
Cross100.050.05
Long ball300.180.06
Pass into the box / short pass1431.370.10
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)700.360.05
Settled attack 61% of shots8258.160.10
Cross1501.360.09
Cut-back1000.920.09
Long ball400.330.08
Pass into the box / short pass3243.680.12
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)2111.870.09
Set piece 21% of shots2843.620.13
Corner2422.000.08
Free kick210.030.02
Penalty211.590.79

Every attempt to create — and what came of it

Every pass into the box, every cut-back and every pass before a shot. Red led to a shot, gold to a goal; grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball. Filter by outcome, type or player; tap an arrow for the detail.

Who sets the shots up

PlayerSet-upsxG createdGoals
Álex Berenguer81.493
Oihan Sancet90.990
Yuri Berchiche80.850
Jesús Areso80.710
Iñigo Ruiz de Galarreta60.561

Who takes them

PlayerShotsxGGoals
Iñaki Williams193.002
Oihan Sancet172.681
Robert Navarro111.482
Álex Berenguer131.453
Nico Williams151.121
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Athletic Club's chances, by xG, is settled attack (8.2 of 13.7 xG, 82 of 135 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 25 of the 135 shots (19%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 28 of the 135 shots came from set pieces; 12 goals from 13.7 xG (-1.7).

Chance Creation — the pass map

The football question
How does Athletic Club 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

7CB · 8%
6Long Wide · 6%
8Long Central · 9%
32Wide → FB · 34%
40Central · 43%

Sequence success — final-third

252final-third sequences this season
24%succeed — produce a shot
37%turned over with nothing to show

Danger Funnel — which service carries threat

Every key pass pooled by where it was played FROM, then drawn with its arrow width set by total xT rather than by count. A zone that produces a lot of cheap balls shrinks; one that produces a few decisive ones dominates. Where this disagrees with the volume map, the volume map is the misleading one.

0 key passes shown● low threat● mid● high threatarrow width = total xT, not count
CB7 · 8%
left: 5 passes, most from Álvarez5right: 2 passes, most from Paredes2
Long Wide6 · 6%
left: 3 passes, most from Navarro3right: 3 passes, most from Berchiche3
Long Central8 · 9%
left: 7 passes, most from Berenguer7
Wide → FB32 · 34%
left: 18 passes, most from Williams18right: 14 passes, most from Berenguer14
Central40 · 43%
left: 24 passes, most from Navarro24right: 16 passes, most from Areso16

Who creates — volume × threat

16Berenguer
10Navarro
9Berchiche
9Sancet
8Williams
7Galarreta
7Canales
93key passes #7 of 20
11.9box entries/game #8 of 20
43.8final-3rd entries/game #6 of 20
1.53xG/game #5 of 20
12goals #13 of 20
-1.7finishing vs xG #16 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Athletic Club lean left — 42% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (39 of 93), most often from Berchiche (7). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RW att → C att (15 key passes, most often from Areso). Berenguer is the primary source overall. They generate 1.53 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Álex Berenguer (3G), Iñaki Williams (2G), Robert Navarro (2G).

Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide

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

144 crosses: 50 found a team-mate (35%), 17 led to a shot (12%). 32 cut-backs: 13 found a team-mate (41%), 8 led to a shot (25%). 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 Athletic Club actually cross from?

144 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. 22% come from one territory, the byline right wing; 10 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.

deep right wing: 9 crosses (6%)6%9deep right half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1deep centre: 0 crosses (0%)deep left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep left wing: 8 crosses (6%)6%8advanced right wing: 27 crosses (19%)19%27advanced right half-space: 3 crosses (2%)2%3advanced centre: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left half-space: 1 crosses (1%)1%1advanced left wing: 30 crosses (21%)21%30byline right wing: 31 crosses (22%)22%31byline right half-space: 2 crosses (1%)1%2byline centre: 0 crosses (0%)byline left half-space: 3 crosses (2%)2%3byline left wing: 29 crosses (20%)20%29
TerritoryCrossesShareLed to a shot
byline · right wing3122%5
advanced · left wing3021%4
byline · left wing2920%3
advanced · right wing2719%3
deep · right wing96%0
deep · left wing86%1
advanced · right half-space32%0
byline · left half-space32%1
byline · right half-space21%0
deep · right half-space11%0
advanced · left half-space11%0
Finishing3 sections

Shot Map

135 shots for 13.7 xG (1.53/game, #5 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.

High-volume attack. 15.0 shots/game at 0.102 xG/shot. Box entries 12/game (#8). Threat created 12.6 xT/game (#5).

Goal Sequences

The move behind each of Athletic Club’s 12 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 — 12 goals traced.

How Do They Score?

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

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

By situation

Open play
8 · 67%
Set pieces
3 · 25%
Penalties
1 · 8%

By finish

Right foot
7 · 58%
Left foot
3 · 25%
Header
2 · 17%
Vision AI Model Insight
12 goals scored. 67% come in open play, but 25% from set pieces — a genuine dead-ball weapon that bypasses the open-play build-up.
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

34 of 119 pass attempts lost here (29%).29%34/119Areso24 of 167 pass attempts lost here (14%).14%24/167Simón85 of 552 pass attempts lost here (15%).15%85/552Simón24 of 215 pass attempts lost here (11%).11%24/215Laporte22 of 165 pass attempts lost here (13%).13%22/165Berchiche61 of 426 pass attempts lost here (14%).14%61/426Areso75 of 541 pass attempts lost here (14%).14%75/541Álvarez59 of 643 pass attempts lost here (9%).9%59/643Galarreta64 of 589 pass attempts lost here (11%).11%64/589Laporte54 of 483 pass attempts lost here (11%).11%54/483Berchiche89 of 330 pass attempts lost here (27%).27%89/330Areso57 of 162 pass attempts lost here (35%).35%57/162Navarro36 of 108 pass attempts lost here (33%).33%36/108Williams76 of 178 pass attempts lost here (43%).43%76/178Williams76 of 310 pass attempts lost here (25%).25%76/310Williamsattacking →

How they lose it

Incomplete pass — attacking third
334
Failed forward pass
229
Failed take-on
107
Lost in the defensive third
189
Their weakest zone is the left half-space in the attacking third: 43% of 178 pass attempts there are lost (76 times). Separately, 40% 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 Athletic Club 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.

76
Pressing Index
/100 · strong
Intensity62
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height85
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness88
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption72
opponent completion & progression allowed

Every defensive action & where it happens

Where they win the ball back — by lane

RW
20%
RHS
16%
C
19%
LHS
25%
LW
20%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 42%
Mid 43%
Att 15%
Read
Ranked #8 of 20 for press intensity, this is a high press. 58% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 41. Of recoveries, 59% are won high up the pitch.

Every pressing metric, ranked in the league

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)—#8/20lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game146#13/20
High-press share23%#7/20def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)40.8#3/20avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game24.9#3/20ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share59%#2/20share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed82%#7/20lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed8.0%#4/20of 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 Athletic Club win it back with a defensive action?

Counted over the 278 opposition possessions that Athletic Club 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 Athletic Club step in. Athletic Club win it after 4.4 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 4.9 after the hour mark (later).

PASSES THEY GET
4.6passes
median 3 · before Athletic Club win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
14sec
median 6s · 30.9 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
49%
23%
12%
16%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
4.3
11s
15–30′
4.7
15s
30–45+′
4.4
13s
45–60′
4.6
14s
60–75′
4.5
14s
75–90+′
5.2
15s
average passesaverage seconds

Attitude in each third

Every other style number here says how much Athletic Club 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 Athletic Club 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) 1,218 passes

narrow, central, played inside

Width of use-1.2918.32
Wide-channel share-1.010.24
Side bias+0.742.92
Pass length-0.0522.53
Long-ball share-0.180.21
Forward gain per pass-0.1510.80
Backward-pass share+0.310.21
Deep-pass share+0.010.29
Completion+0.630.85
Seconds between passes-0.363.11
Side used

left 27% · central 53% · right 20%

Progression (middle third) 2,682 passes

nothing unusual in this zone

Width of use-0.5424.42
Wide-channel share-0.550.36
Side bias+0.401.65
Pass length+0.2417.56
Long-ball share-0.420.08
Forward gain per pass-0.103.45
Backward-pass share+0.140.34
Deep-pass share-0.130.15
Completion+0.310.86
Seconds between passes-0.193.11
Side used

left 35% · central 33% · right 32%

Final third 1,088 passes

slower

Width of use+0.4432.69
Wide-channel share+0.420.62
Side bias+0.04-0.15
Pass length+0.1715.73
Long-ball share-0.230.09
Forward gain per pass-0.560.30
Backward-pass share+0.580.42
Deep-pass share-0.110.08
Completion-0.250.68
Seconds between passes+1.104.22
Side used

left 44% · central 13% · right 43%

Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Athletic Club'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 Athletic Club 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 share22%
#2 of 20 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share25%
#14 of 20 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)16.4s
#6 of 20 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.2
#14 of 20
Counter-attack shots /game0.98
#13 of 20 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.94
#1 of 20 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain11.1s
#2 of 20 · lower = faster break

Sequence success — attacking transition

12attacking transition sequences this season
33%succeed — produce a shot
8%turned over with nothing to show

Sequence success — defensive transition

57defensive transition sequences this season
58%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
4%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Athletic Club are a direct, fast-break side: 22% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#2 of 20), against 25% built patiently over 6+ passes (#14 of 20). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 0.98 times a game (#13), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.94 times a game (#1 of 20) — a genuine transition weapon.
Defending the box2 sections

Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them

The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Athletic Club? 320 opponent progressive passes and 92 shots faced (9.5 xG against) across the season.

Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Athletic Club)

Right wing
25%
Right half-space
14%
Central
18%
Left half-space
14%
Left wing
29%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the left wing (29% of the danger conceded).

How Do They Concede?

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

Every goal Athletic Club conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Athletic Club'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 (70 total)

1%1%1%4%3%7%17%14%19%19%13%PedriAnthony GordonRaphinhaXavi EspartPedriMarc BernalEric GarcíaRaphinhaLamine YamalLamine YamalRaphinhaLamine YamalLamine YamalPedriDani OlmoLamine YamalRodriArouna SanganteAndrés CastrínRobbie UreIsaac RomeroOsoFerran JutglàHugo GonzálezSergio CarreiraMiguel RománIago AspasÁlvaro NúñezMiguel RománPablo BarriosPablo BarriosJohan MojicaMorten HjulmandMorten HjulmandLee Kang-InÁlex BaenaGiuliano SimeoneMarcos LlorenteMarcos LlorenteÁlex BaenaJulián AlvarezÁlex BaenaPablo BarriosKokePablo IbáñezManu SánchezIván RomeroThiago FernándezThiago FernándezJon Ander OlasagastiVíctor GarcíaManu SánchezJavi GuerraJavi GuerraPablo MaffeoPablo MaffeoJosé GayàJavi GuerraJosé Luis GayàArnaut DanjumaJosé Luis GayàLuis RiojaArnaut DanjumaJosé GayàHarvey ElliottJosé GayàKiko FemeníaAndrés GarcíaMario MartínRamón Terrats← own goal

By situation

Open play
8 · 89%
Set pieces
0 · 0%
Penalties
1 · 11%
Vision AI Model Insight
9 goals conceded. 89% come in open play; set pieces account for only 0%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 0% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the centre of the attacking third (19% 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
8 g · 10.1 xG
Set pieces
3 g · 2.0 xG
Penalties
1 g
25% of goals come from set pieces (3 of 12), worth 2.0 xG from 26 shots. A genuine set-piece weapon — defend the box seriously.

Where do Athletic Club's corners go?

54 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 (25)

16%48%12%4%8%8%
Delivered into the box 96%Short 4%

Left side (29)

3%3%3%7%7%10%28%24%3%
Delivered into the box 90%Short 10%

Where opponents attack Athletic Club from set pieces

12 shots from opponent corners against Athletic Club, 0 conceded, split by the flag the corner came from — arrows from the flag, dots where the shot was taken (gold = goal), shaded by the % of that flag's shots in each zone. Tap or hover a shot for who took it, the minute and the match; filter to one match and the shading recomputes for just that game.

Right flag (6)

17%67%17%
Shot 6Goals 0

Left flag (6)

17%50%17%17%
Shot 6Goals 0

Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths (top-third vs league)
  • xG conceded /game — 1.06 (85th pct)
  • field tilt % — 59.61 (80th pct)
  • progression /game — 52.78 (80th pct)
  • xG created /game — 1.53 (75th pct)
  • threat created /game — 12.60 (75th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
  • none stand out

Style Archetype & Similar Teams

Team archetype: High-press possession side. Their closest stylistic matches in the league (cosine similarity on style metrics) — sides that play a similar way.

Atletico
77%
Villarreal
76%
Barcelona
73%
Real Madrid
49%
Celta Vigo
9%

Performance vs Opponent Styles

The question
Not just how Athletic Club 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 Athletic Club's own passing behaviour to the result.

Results

opponent typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (3m)1.331.671.00
vs mid-block opponents (3m)1.001.001.33
vs low-block opponents (3m)1.670.331.67

Behaviour — how Athletic Club actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents77%15%419.39.3
vs mid-block opponents84%12%5612.913.7
vs low-block opponents87%9%6215.612.7
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 77% vs 87% against a low block (10pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 15% 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. Athletic Club are possession-dominant with a aggressive high-press. Their attack creates 1.53 xG a game and they concede 1.06 a game. [Event-data based — no tracking, so off-ball structure and marking scheme need video.]
Squad

Players

Who drives the numbers.

Against Their Own Norm

For each of ten match numbers, the one match this season that departed furthest from Athletic Club’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.

Athletic Club
across 9 matches this season
Pass accuracyat Barcelona · 0-2 · 2026-08-2772%avg 82%
Passesat Barcelona · 0-2 · 2026-08-27293avg 554
Progressive passesvs Atletico · 3-0 · 2026-09-0530avg 53
Defensive actionsvs Elche · 1-1 · 2026-09-12124avg 146
Progressive carriesat Barcelona · 0-2 · 2026-08-2727avg 57
Final-third entriesat Barcelona · 0-2 · 2026-08-2716avg 52
Field tiltvs Atletico · 3-0 · 2026-09-0525%avg 60%
PPDAat Barcelona · 0-2 · 2026-08-2710.3avg 5.4

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 Athletic Club’s last 9 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).

+15.4on-ball value, 9 matches
Where the value came from
Passes4988 actions+4.56
Carries1184 actions+0.86
Dribbles172 actions+0.36
Shots135 actions+7.05
Ball wins558 actions+2.53
Most on-ball value (OBV)ActionsOBVper 100
Oihan Sancet266+2.42+0.91
Álex Berenguer444+1.78+0.40
Nico Williams351+1.67+0.47
Robert Navarro322+1.63+0.51
Aymeric Laporte795+1.26+0.16
Unai Simón454+1.15+0.25
Iñigo Ruiz de Galarreta466+1.02+0.22
Peio Canales390+0.97+0.25
123456
Biggest single movesOBV
1  Oihan Sancet · shot+0.815
2  Álex Berenguer · shot+0.708
3  Álex Berenguer · pass+0.473
4  Nico Williams · shot+0.391
5  Maroan Sannadi · shot+0.377
6  Robert Navarro · take-on+0.352

Set Pieces by Player

Who delivers Athletic Club’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 54 corners taken, most by Álex Berenguer (26); 26 shots from corners and free kicks, 3 goals, led by Aitor Paredes (2 goals, 0.25 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
Álex Berenguer2624 (92%)110.0211/1
Yuri Berchiche88 (100%)4—0.10——
Yeray Álvarez——4—0.47——
Nico Williams21 (50%)3—0.09——
Robert Navarro107 (70%)——0.00——
Aymeric Laporte——3—0.52——
Oihan Sancet——2—0.12—0/1
Iñigo Ruiz de Galarreta21 (50%)2—0.06——
Peio Canales43 (75%)1—0.011—
Aitor Paredes——220.25——
Iñaki Williams——2—0.32——
Johaneko Louis-Jean——1—0.02——
Maroan Sannadi——1—0.05——
Mikel Jauregizar11 (100%)——0.00——

Top Performers

Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 243 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.

playerposminVision AI Scorecapability blocks
Iñigo Ruiz de GalarretaCM4556.8Successful Dribble 84%Ball-Carrying 76%Progression 61%Chance Creation 54%
Yuri BerchicheFB6556.1Ball-Winning 60%Ball-Carrying 56%Wide Delivery 30%
Nico WilliamsW4695.8Ball-Carrying 75%Box Threat 62%Chance Creation 50%Wide Delivery 38%
Álex BerenguerAM5955.6Chance Creation 58%Box Threat 51%Ball-Carrying 34%
Aitor ParedesCB5145.5Ball-Carrying 78%Progression 60%Ball-Winning 55%Aerial & Box Defending 15%
Aymeric LaporteCB7014.5Ball-Carrying 86%Progression 58%Ball-Winning 52%Aerial & Box Defending 22%
Unai SimónGK8514.2Shot-Stopping 42%
Robert NavarroAM4903.4Box Threat 63%Ball-Carrying 62%Chance Creation 29%
Peio CanalesCM4693.1Ball-Carrying 65%Progression 45%Successful Dribble 40%Chance Creation 22%
Oihan SancetAM5382.8Box Threat 79%Ball-Carrying 49%Chance Creation 12%

Top Creators

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

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Álex BerenguerM5952.42218.9
Nico WilliamsM4691.54196.0
Robert NavarroM4901.84145.3
Oihan SancetM5381.5182.9
Yuri BerchicheD6551.24712.0
Jesús AresoD3811.4285.3
Peio CanalesM4691.3464.5
Iñigo Ruiz de GalarretaM4551.3856.6

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)
Nico WilliamsW46912 (50%)6 (33%)
Jesús AresoFB3811 (100%)10 (40%)
Hugo RincónFB3822 (100%)7 (71%)
Yuri BerchicheFB6558 (50%)0

Defensive Volume Leaders

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

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
Aymeric LaporteD7011199539
Yuri BerchicheD65510313639
Beñat GerenabarrenaM50998191319
Aitor ParedesD514878422
Yeray ÁlvarezD429835622
Iñigo Ruiz de GalarretaM455807627
Álex BerenguerM5958011822
Mikel JauregizarM3187012719

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (19 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Unai SimónG985100.00422711.6
Aymeric LaporteD870100.523411913.7
Yuri BerchicheD765510.595610312.0
Álex BerenguerM959531.41641808.9
Iñaki WilliamsF958623.044581.4
Oihan SancetM653812.798532.9
Aitor ParedesD751420.23308710.3
Beñat GerenabarrenaM750900.139983.5
Robert NavarroM749021.51031565.3
Peio CanalesM746900.4715524.5
Nico WilliamsM846911.1836656.0
Iñigo Ruiz de GalarretaM845500.3723806.6
Yeray ÁlvarezD542900.5211835.7
Hugo RincónD538200.1541596.2
Jesús AresoD638100.1649605.3
Mikel JauregizarM731800.2110702.9
Johaneko Louis-JeanD728900.3019572.8
Maroan SannadiF628100.601260.1
Gorka GuruzetaF518900.114350.7

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.

Unai Simón
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes851
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /904.4
key passes /900.00
def actions /902.9
pass accuracy75%
Aymeric Laporte
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes701
goals · xG0 · 0.5
prog passes /904.4
key passes /900.26
def actions /9015.3
pass accuracy93%
Yuri Berchiche
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes655
goals · xG1 · 0.5
prog passes /907.7
key passes /901.24
def actions /9014.2
pass accuracy89%
Álex Berenguer
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes595
goals · xG3 · 1.4
prog passes /906.2
key passes /902.42
def actions /9012.1
pass accuracy73%
Iñaki Williams
Poacher / finisher · Forward
minutes586
goals · xG2 · 3.0
prog passes /900.6
key passes /900.61
def actions /908.9
pass accuracy59%
Oihan Sancet
Creative forward · Forward
minutes538
goals · xG1 · 2.7
prog passes /901.3
key passes /901.51
def actions /908.9
pass accuracy78%
Aitor Paredes
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes514
goals · xG2 · 0.2
prog passes /905.3
key passes /900.53
def actions /9015.2
pass accuracy92%
Beñat Gerenabarrena
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes509
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /901.6
key passes /900.53
def actions /9017.3
pass accuracy83%
Robert Navarro
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes490
goals · xG2 · 1.5
prog passes /905.7
key passes /901.84
def actions /9010.3
pass accuracy80%

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 (83.24, 50th percentile vs the league).
Vision AI · building report