Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportSerie A 2026
Torino
A territorially-dominated side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Currently #8 of 20 on 13 points (4-1-3, 13:11). Tactical profile below is built from 8 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.
In one read, what kind of team is Torino and how good was the season?
Read. Torino currently sit #8 of 20 on 13 points (4W-1D-3L, 1.62 pts/game), scoring 13 and conceding 11 for a goal difference of +2.
On the ball they are a territorially-dominated team (42% field tilt, #17 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#10 of 20 for press intensity).
Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 1.03 xG/game (#16) and concede 1.36 (#10), a net of -0.33 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Torino actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Torino.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
5
Como
8
5
2
1
14
7
+7
17
6
Frosinone
8
4
2
2
17
13
+4
14
7
Juventus
8
4
2
2
11
8
+3
14
8
Torino
8
4
1
3
13
11
+2
13
9
Cagliari
8
4
1
3
6
9
-3
13
10
Napoli
8
3
2
3
13
10
+3
11
11
Atalanta
8
3
1
4
14
15
-1
10
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Torino 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
Torino tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG -1.92, second-half -0.75. Their strongest period is 76-90+' (net +0.75 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 31-45' (net -1.45 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Torino 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 (-2.7 xG). Hover a point for that match.
TorinoOpponents against Torino
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Torino'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.
22
Build-Up
possession control from the back
20
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
12
Creation
manufacturing chances
32
Press
winning the ball high & hard
50
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Torino are defined most by their Solidity DNA (50/100 · average at resisting the opponent's threat), and least by their Creation DNA (12/100). 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).
Possess
Deep buildup
26%
Possession
30%
Field tilt
17%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
35%
Dribble tendency
35%
Progressive passes
57%
Finish
Final-third patience
22%
Shot quality
39%
Open-play xG
35%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
26%
High regains
43%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
57%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
30%
High line ~proxy
39%
PAdj defensive actions
26%
Torino is defined most by Disrupt (42% in the league) and weakest on Possess (25%). 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.
How much of the pitch does Torino actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Torino'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; Torino highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Torino post 42% field tilt, ranking #17 of 20 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 1.62 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 Torino has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Torino'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
32.4%
Progression
47.4%
Chance creation
18.4%
Attacking transition
1.7%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Torino spends most of its time on the ball (47% 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
Coco ↔ Comuzzo
109p · -0.4xT
Ismajli ↔ Comuzzo
65p · -0.3xT
Ismajli ↔ Coco
64p · -0.4xT
Perri ↔ Coco
61p · -0.4xT
Mandragora ↔ Coco
60p · -0.0xT
Comuzzo ↔ Cacciamani
59p · -0.1xT
Vlasic ↔ Coco
57p · 0.1xT
Perri ↔ Ismajli
48p · -0.5xT
Vlasic ↔ Belghali
48p · 0.9xT
Mandragora ↔ Comuzzo
45p · 0.6xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Saúl Coco ↔ Pietro Comuzzo (109 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Nikola Vlasic ↔ Rafik Belghali (0.02 xT/pass over 48 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Torino had the ball
Every touch across 80 matches. Brighter means more touches.
Which Zones Do They Attack Through?
The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Torino 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
4022
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
978
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (15.7% of all actions). 67% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 33% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 34% defensive, 48% 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. Torino spread it evenly (no channel above 37%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Torino
37%28%35%
League
38%24%38%
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. Torino made 298 this season (37.2 a match); 27% 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
78
9.8
26%
28%
Left half-space
46
5.8
15%
15%
Centre
47
5.9
16%
13%
Right half-space
46
5.8
15%
16%
Right wing
81
10.1
27%
28%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Torino 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.
1386build-up passes attempted
80%completed
24%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third
Pass types
631CB · 57%
44Long Wide · 4%
18Long Central · 2%
295Wide → FB · 27%
117Central · 11%
Sequence success — build-up
131build-up sequences this season
10%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
41%turned over with nothing to show
CB631 · 57%
Long Wide44 · 4%
Long Central18 · 2%
Wide → FB295 · 27%
Central117 · 11%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Torino build predominantly down the right, with Coco as the fulcrum (222 build-up passes). Only 26% 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 (105×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Torino’s last 8 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. 306 progressive passes across 8 matches (38.2/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
25%
Right half-space
14%
Central
23%
Left half-space
16%
Left wing
23%
Progression is left-dominant: 39% right side · 23% central · 39% left.
Who generates it
Pietro Comuzzo
42 · 14%
Lucas Perri
40 · 13%
Saúl Coco
30 · 10%
Rafik Belghali
25 · 8%
Eray Cömert
20 · 7%
Top two — Pietro Comuzzo & Lucas Perri — account for 27% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
38.2 prog passes/game
mostly left
→
PENETRATION
31% reach final third
21% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 69% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.31% of progressive passes reached the final third and 21% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 27% of the progression ran through two players, mostly down the left 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 Torino 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.
1938progression passes attempted
87%completed
13%break into the final third
14%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
745CB · 44%
38Long Wide · 2%
13Long Central · 1%
619Wide → FB · 37%
268Central · 16%
Sequence success — progression
254progression sequences this season
25%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
43%turned over with nothing to show
CB745 · 44%
Long Wide38 · 2%
Long Central13 · 1%
Wide → FB619 · 37%
Central268 · 16%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Torino progress predominantly down the left, with Coco the busiest midfield outlet (211 progression passes). Only 13% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (73%) is recycled back into midfield or (14%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is LHS mid → C mid (114×) — 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)
12%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
47%
Safe / backward
40%
13% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 87% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.
Where does Torino actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
194 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (21% of 919 tracked carries total), grouped into up to 4 spatial patterns by where each carry starts and ends together — not just its origin zone. Median 15m, longest 60m. Most active carrier: Cacciamani (36). Filter to one player below.
First (52)Second (52)Third (46)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 Torino'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.
85shots
8.2xG
0.10xG per shot
4big chances (0.3+ xG)
13goals
#17key passes / game in the league
#17box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition18% of shots
15
2
1.26
0.08
Cross
1
0
0.07
0.07
Long ball
1
0
0.13
0.13
Pass into the box / short pass
7
1
0.70
0.10
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
6
1
0.36
0.06
Settled attack65% of shots
55
10
5.64
0.10
Cross
10
3
1.14
0.11
Cut-back
5
1
0.77
0.15
Long ball
1
1
0.05
0.05
Pass into the box / short pass
30
4
2.63
0.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
9
1
1.06
0.12
Set piece18% of shots
15
1
1.34
0.09
Corner
12
1
1.25
0.10
Free kick
3
0
0.09
0.03
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
Nikola Vlasic
7
1.00
1
Rafik Belghali
5
0.67
3
Kian Fitz-Jim
7
0.66
0
Rolando Mandragora
6
0.53
1
Emirhan Ilkhan
2
0.43
0
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Giovanni Simeone
17
1.98
2
Ché Adams
11
1.58
3
Pietro Comuzzo
6
0.82
1
Daniel Bragança
5
0.73
1
Sandro Kulenovic
5
0.49
2
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Torino's chances, by xG, is settled attack (5.6 of 8.2 xG, 55 of 85 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 15 of the 85 shots (18%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 15 of the 85 shots came from set pieces; 13 goals from 8.2 xG (+4.8).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Torino 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 · 11%
2Long Wide · 3%
6Long Central · 10%
17Wide → FB · 28%
29Central · 48%
Sequence success — final-third
152final-third sequences this season
21%succeed — produce a shot
31%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 · 11%
Long Wide2 · 3%
Long Central6 · 10%
Wide → FB17 · 28%
Central29 · 48%
Who creates — volume × threat
9Mandragora
8Fitz-Jim
7Vlasic
5Cacciamani
5Belghali
5Simeone
4Gineitis
61key passes #17 of 20
9.6box entries/game #17 of 20
30.2final-3rd entries/game #16 of 20
1.03xG/game #16 of 20
13goals #9 of 20
+4.8finishing vs xG #2 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Torino lean left — 43% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (26 of 61), most often from Fitz-Jim (6). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RHS att → C att (9 key passes, most often from Vlasic). Mandragora is the primary source overall. They generate 1.03 xG a game and finish it clinical — they beat their xG, led by Ché Adams (3G), Giovanni Simeone (2G), Sandro Kulenovic (2G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Torino deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
88 crosses: 33 found a team-mate (38%), 13 led to a shot (15%). 22 cut-backs: 8 found a team-mate (36%), 5 led to a shot (23%). 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 Torino actually cross from?
88 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. 34% come from one territory, the byline left wing; 4 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
byline · left wing
30
34%
2
byline · right wing
18
20%
3
advanced · left wing
16
18%
3
advanced · right wing
11
12%
2
deep · left wing
7
8%
2
deep · right wing
2
2%
0
byline · right half-space
2
2%
0
byline · left half-space
2
2%
1
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
85 shots for 8.2 xG (1.03/game, #16 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Moderate attack. 10.6 shots/game at 0.097 xG/shot. Box entries 10/game (#17). Threat created 10.0 xT/game (#14).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Torino’s 13 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 — 13 goals traced.
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal Torino scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
12 · 92%
Set pieces
1 · 8%
Penalties
0 · 0%
By finish
Right foot
7 · 54%
Left foot
4 · 31%
Header
2 · 15%
Vision AI Model Insight
13 goals scored. 92% come in open play; set pieces add 8%. 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
190
Failed forward pass
109
Failed take-on
76
Lost in the defensive third
281
Their weakest zone is the central in the attacking third: 34% of 106 pass attempts there are lost (36 times). Separately, 26% 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 Torino 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.
45
Pressing Index /100 · average
Intensity40
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height35
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness48
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption58
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
15%
RHS
17%
C
28%
LHS
23%
LW
17%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 46%
Mid 41%
Att 13%
Read
Ranked #10 of 20 for press intensity, this is a high press. 54% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 38. Of recoveries, 55% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#10/20
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
144
#11/20
High-press share
21%
#12/20
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
38.0
#13/20
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
20.2
#13/20
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
55%
#8/20
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
83%
#9/20
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
8.6%
#8/20
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 Torino win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 223 opposition possessions that Torino 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 Torino step in. Torino win it after 6.6 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 5.3 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
5.8passes
median 3 · before Torino win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
18sec
median 9s · 27.9 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
39%
27%
17%
17%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
7.5
24s
15–30′
5.5
17s
30–45+′
5.3
17s
45–60′
5.6
18s
60–75′
6.0
19s
75–90+′
4.9
15s
average passesaverage seconds
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Torino 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 Torino 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) 1,386 passes
narrow, central, played inside
Width of use-1.4617.98
Wide-channel share-0.970.24
Side bias+0.060.39
Pass length-0.0722.46
Long-ball share-0.230.21
Forward gain per pass-0.1310.90
Backward-pass share+0.650.23
Deep-pass share-0.110.28
Completion+0.000.79
Seconds between passes-0.543.00
Side used
left 23% · central 54% · right 23%
Progression (middle third) 1,938 passes
narrow, central, played inside, more recycling
Width of use-1.1923.05
Wide-channel share-1.110.33
Side bias+0.251.04
Pass length-0.5016.52
Long-ball share-0.570.08
Forward gain per pass-0.752.48
Backward-pass share+0.880.37
Deep-pass share-0.400.14
Completion+0.320.86
Seconds between passes-0.163.12
Side used
left 33% · central 36% · right 30%
Final third 698 passes
more recycling
Width of use-0.7429.79
Wide-channel share-0.640.53
Side bias+0.04-0.21
Pass length+0.0215.50
Long-ball share-0.560.07
Forward gain per pass-0.84-0.08
Backward-pass share+1.000.45
Deep-pass share-0.080.09
Completion+0.260.72
Seconds between passes+0.143.50
Side used
left 39% · central 22% · right 40%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Torino'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 Torino 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%
#6 of 20 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share25%
#15 of 20 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)15.9s
#4 of 20 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.2
#14 of 20
Counter-attack shots /game1.15
#4 of 20 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.33
#3 of 20 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain11.6s
#4 of 20 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
8attacking transition sequences this season
12%succeed — produce a shot
50%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
40defensive transition sequences this season
55%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
12%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Torino are a direct, fast-break side: 17% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#6 of 20), against 25% built patiently over 6+ passes (#15 of 20). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.15 times a game (#4), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.33 times a game (#3 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 Torino? 342 opponent progressive passes and 124 shots faced (10.9 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Torino)
Right wing
28%
Right half-space
14%
Central
14%
Left half-space
10%
Left wing
33%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the left wing (33% of the danger conceded).
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against Torino actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Torino conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Torino'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 (97 total)
By situation
Open play
10 · 100%
Set pieces
0 · 0%
Penalties
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
10 goals conceded. 100% 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 left wing of the attacking third (25% 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
12 g · 6.9 xG
Set pieces
1 g · 1.3 xG
Penalties
0 g
8% of goals come from set pieces (1 of 13), worth 1.3 xG from 15 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Torino's corners go?
26 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 (11)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Left side (15)
Delivered into the box 87%Short 13%
Where opponents attack Torino from set pieces
11 shots from opponent corners against Torino, 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 (8)
Shot 8Goals 0
Left flag (3)
Shot 3Goals 0
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
none stand out
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
shots /game — 10.62 (5th pct)
progression /game — 38.25 (10th pct)
box entries /game — 9.62 (10th pct)
field tilt % — 42.47 (15th pct)
xG created /game — 1.03 (20th 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.
Genoa
91%
Parma Calcio 1913
85%
Cagliari
64%
Bologna
62%
Monza
57%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Torino 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 Torino's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)
2.00
1.00
1.50
vs mid-block opponents (2m)
1.50
2.00
1.50
vs low-block opponents (4m)
1.50
1.25
1.75
Behaviour — how Torino actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
81%
12%
33
8.5
8.5
vs mid-block opponents
79%
14%
48
12.3
11.0
vs low-block opponents
83%
11%
36
9.6
9.5
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 81% vs 83% against a low block (2pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 12% when pressed vs 11% against a low block — their passing style barely changes regardless of how the opponent sets up, for better or worse.
Scouting Summary — the team in brief
In brief. Torino are territorially-dominated with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.03 xG a game and they concede 1.36 a game.
[Event-data based — no tracking, so off-ball structure and marking scheme need video.]
For each of ten match numbers, the one match this season that departed furthest from Torino’s own average, the eight biggest swings first. Bar right of centre means more than usual, left means less. It shows how much the way they play moves from game to game, and which opponent moved it.
Every pass, carry, take-on, shot and ball win is worth the change it made to the chance of scoring minus the chance of conceding in the next 10 seconds. This is Torino’s last 8 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).
+10.3on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes4022 actions+2.69
Carries919 actions+0.21
Dribbles132 actions+0.61
Shots85 actions+4.35
Ball wins429 actions+2.41
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Giovanni Simeone
210
+1.26
+0.60
Saúl Coco
649
+0.96
+0.15
Lucas Perri
354
+0.89
+0.25
Ché Adams
154
+0.83
+0.54
Pietro Comuzzo
493
+0.82
+0.17
Rolando Mandragora
400
+0.80
+0.20
Sandro Kulenovic
49
+0.72
+1.48
Nikola Vlasic
419
+0.58
+0.14
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Nikola Vlasic · take-on
+0.377
2 Ché Adams · shot
+0.366
3 Ché Adams · shot
+0.313
4 Sandro Kulenovic · shot
+0.284
5 Kian Fitz-Jim · carry
+0.243
6 Sandro Kulenovic · shot
+0.240
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Torino’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 26 corners taken, most by Rolando Mandragora (12); 15 shots from corners and free kicks, 1 goals, led by Daniel Bragança (1 goals, 0.54 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
Rolando Mandragora
12
11 (92%)
3
—
0.09
3
—
Saúl Coco
—
—
4
—
0.23
—
—
Kian Fitz-Jim
6
6 (100%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Pietro Comuzzo
—
—
2
—
0.16
—
—
Daniel Bragança
2
0 (0%)
1
1
0.54
—
—
Emirhan Ilkhan
1
1 (100%)
1
—
0.03
—
—
Giovanni Simeone
—
—
1
—
0.02
—
—
Nikola Vlasic
—
—
1
—
0.03
—
—
Ché Adams
—
—
1
—
0.18
—
—
Ardian Ismajli
—
—
1
—
0.07
—
—
Gvidas Gineitis
2
2 (100%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Gaetano Oristanio
1
0 (0%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Niccolò Fortini
1
1 (100%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Sandro Kulenovic
1
0 (0%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Top Performers
Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 216 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
Rolando Mandragora
M
478
1.69
11
6.9
Nikola Vlasic
M
651
0.97
11
4.9
Kian Fitz-Jim
M
463
1.56
6
5.0
Alessio Cacciamani
M
633
0.71
7
3.6
Pietro Comuzzo
D
625
0.43
6
8.5
Giovanni Simeone
F
603
0.75
4
1.1
Rafik Belghali
M
362
1.24
3
4.8
Ché Adams
F
419
0.64
4
1.7
Wide Delivery Leaders
Crosses and cutbacks — wingers and full-backs only (by real average position, not the raw D/M position code), ranked by combined volume.
player
pos
min
crosses (completed)
cutbacks (completed)
Alessio Cacciamani
W
633
4 (50%)
10 (20%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Ardian Ismajli
D
509
116
4
10
16
Saúl Coco
D
699
115
12
6
24
Pietro Comuzzo
D
625
107
18
9
27
Giovanni Simeone
F
603
96
6
4
17
Alessio Cacciamani
M
633
89
6
2
32
Rolando Mandragora
M
478
82
8
7
23
Nikola Vlasic
M
651
81
2
2
30
Rafik Belghali
M
362
49
10
1
17
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (19 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Saúl Coco
D
8
699
0
0.4
2
30
115
9.7
Nikola Vlasic
M
8
651
1
0.5
7
16
81
4.9
Alessio Cacciamani
M
8
633
0
0.1
5
18
89
3.6
Pietro Comuzzo
D
7
625
1
0.8
3
42
107
8.5
Giovanni Simeone
F
8
603
2
2.0
5
4
96
1.1
Lucas Perri
G
6
567
0
0.0
0
40
10
9.1
Ardian Ismajli
D
7
509
0
0.1
0
10
116
4.0
Rolando Mandragora
M
6
478
1
0.4
9
19
82
6.9
Kian Fitz-Jim
M
6
463
1
0.2
8
15
46
5.0
Ché Adams
F
6
419
3
1.6
3
9
36
1.7
Gvidas Gineitis
M
7
368
0
0.1
4
5
46
1.7
Rafik Belghali
M
6
362
1
0.1
5
25
49
4.8
Eray Cömert
D
4
322
0
0.0
1
20
45
6.7
Daniel Bragança
M
6
313
1
0.7
1
9
49
2.5
Niccolò Fortini
D
5
268
0
0.1
1
13
41
3.0
Diego Mascardi
G
2
187
0
0.0
0
3
5
1.3
Sandro Kulenovic
F
6
160
2
0.5
0
4
27
0.4
Emirhan Ilkhan
M
4
116
0
0.0
2
6
20
1.7
Nathan Patterson
M
3
113
0
0.1
0
6
22
1.2
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.
Saúl Coco
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes699
goals · xG0 · 0.4
prog passes /903.9
key passes /900.26
def actions /9014.8
pass accuracy90%
Nikola Vlasic
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes651
goals · xG1 · 0.5
prog passes /902.2
key passes /900.97
def actions /9011.2
pass accuracy86%
Alessio Cacciamani
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes633
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /902.6
key passes /900.71
def actions /9012.7
pass accuracy74%
Pietro Comuzzo
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes625
goals · xG1 · 0.8
prog passes /906.0
key passes /900.43
def actions /9015.4
pass accuracy87%
Giovanni Simeone
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes603
goals · xG2 · 2.0
prog passes /900.6
key passes /900.75
def actions /9014.3
pass accuracy64%
Lucas Perri
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes567
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /906.3
key passes /900.00
def actions /901.6
pass accuracy60%
Ardian Ismajli
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes509
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /901.8
key passes /900.00
def actions /9020.5
pass accuracy90%
Rolando Mandragora
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes478
goals · xG1 · 0.4
prog passes /903.6
key passes /901.69
def actions /9015.4
pass accuracy83%
Kian Fitz-Jim
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes463
goals · xG1 · 0.2
prog passes /902.9
key passes /901.56
def actions /908.9
pass accuracy85%
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: shots /game (5th pct)
Sign a shot-taking forward to raise shot volume. The data flags this because shot volume is low (10.62, 5th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: progression /game (10th pct)
Sign a progressive passer / ball-carrier to break lines. The data flags this because progression is limited (38.25, 10th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: box entries /game (10th pct)
Sign a penetrative wide player or runner to create box entries. The data flags this because few entries into the box (9.62, 10th percentile vs the league).