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 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.

territorially-dominatedaggressive high-pressmoderate attack
W
D
D
L
W
L
D
L
L
W
L
D
W
W
W
13
points
#8 of 20 · 8 games
13:11
goals
+2 GD
4-1-3
record
W-D-L
1.62
points/game
#8 in the league
1.03
xG for/game
rank #16
1.36
xG against/game
rank #10
#10
press rank
of 20 · most aggressive
42%
field tilt
#17
Torino
League average
Expected goals for / game
1.031.41
Expected goals against / game
1.361.41
Field tilt
42%50%
Pass retention
82%83%
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 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.

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
5Como8521147+717
6Frosinone84221713+414
7Juventus8422118+314
8Torino84131311+213
9Cagliari841369-313
10Napoli83231310+311
11Atalanta83141415-110

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)
even0-15'16-30'31-45'46-60'61-75'76-90+'+0.75-1.45
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.

048128.210.9AC Milan (H) 1-2 · xG 0.98 to 2.10Sassuolo (A) 1-2 · xG 0.99 to 1.69Fiorentina (A) 2-1 · xG 0.73 to 1.19Roma (H) 0-2 · xG 0.98 to 1.88Bologna (A) 1-1 · xG 0.77 to 0.73Udinese (H) 2-1 · xG 1.52 to 0.81Parma Calcio 1913 (A) 3-0 · xG 1.14 to 2.07Monza (H) 3-2 · xG 1.15 to 0.45M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8
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).

Possess25Disrupt42Finish32Press42Defend32
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.

Keeping the ball6 sections

Field Tilt — Territorial Control

The question
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.

Lazio: 55% tilt, 2.75 pts/gInter: 69% tilt, 2.75 pts/gRoma: 63% tilt, 2.25 pts/gAC Milan: 52% tilt, 2.25 pts/gComo: 60% tilt, 2.12 pts/gJuventus: 65% tilt, 1.75 pts/gFrosinone: 50% tilt, 1.75 pts/gTorino: 42% tilt, 1.62 pts/gCagliari: 33% tilt, 1.62 pts/gNapoli: 51% tilt, 1.38 pts/gAtalanta: 47% tilt, 1.25 pts/gLecce: 44% tilt, 1.12 pts/gBologna: 45% tilt, 1.00 pts/gSassuolo: 48% tilt, 1.00 pts/gGenoa: 39% tilt, 0.88 pts/gMonza: 48% tilt, 0.88 pts/gParma Calcio 1913: 34% tilt, 0.50 pts/gFiorentina: 50% tilt, 0.50 pts/gUdinese: 53% tilt, 0.50 pts/gVenezia: 54% tilt, 0.38 pts/gTorino33%45%57%69%0.41.22.02.8FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
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.

Build-up: 32.4% of the time on the ball32%Progression: 47.4% of the time on the ball47%Chance creation: 18.4% of the time on the ball18%Attacking transition: 1.7% of the time on the ball47%PROGRESSION
PhaseShare of the time
Build-up32.4%
Progression47.4%
Chance creation18.4%
Attacking transition1.7%
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.

Saúl Coco ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 109 passes, -0.4 combined xTArdian Ismajli ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 65 passes, -0.3 combined xTArdian Ismajli ↔ Saúl Coco: 64 passes, -0.4 combined xTLucas Perri ↔ Saúl Coco: 61 passes, -0.4 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Saúl Coco: 60 passes, -0.0 combined xTPietro Comuzzo ↔ Alessio Cacciamani: 59 passes, -0.1 combined xTNikola Vlasic ↔ Saúl Coco: 57 passes, 0.1 combined xTLucas Perri ↔ Ardian Ismajli: 48 passes, -0.5 combined xTNikola Vlasic ↔ Rafik Belghali: 48 passes, 0.9 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 45 passes, 0.6 combined xTSaúl Coco ↔ Rafik Belghali: 45 passes, -0.1 combined xTKian Fitz-Jim ↔ Saúl Coco: 39 passes, -0.2 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Kian Fitz-Jim: 38 passes, 0.3 combined xTArdian Ismajli ↔ Kian Fitz-Jim: 38 passes, 0.0 combined xTLucas Perri ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 36 passes, -0.2 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Nikola Vlasic: 32 passes, 0.6 combined xTKian Fitz-Jim ↔ Pietro Comuzzo: 32 passes, 0.2 combined xTDaniel Bragança ↔ Saúl Coco: 29 passes, 0.2 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Daniel Bragança: 28 passes, 0.4 combined xTChé Adams ↔ Nikola Vlasic: 28 passes, 0.4 combined xTDaniel Bragança ↔ Kian Fitz-Jim: 28 passes, -0.1 combined xTRolando Mandragora ↔ Ardian Ismajli: 26 passes, 0.1 combined xTNikola Vlasic ↔ Alessio Cacciamani: 25 passes, 0.3 combined xTSaúl Coco ↔ Gvidas Gineitis: 25 passes, 0.5 combined xTGiovanni Simeone — isolate this player's connectionsSimeoneRolando Mandragora — isolate this player's connectionsMandragoraNikola Vlasic — isolate this player's connectionsVlasicSaúl Coco — isolate this player's connectionsCocoAlessio Cacciamani — isolate this player's connectionsCacciamaniPietro Comuzzo — isolate this player's connectionsComuzzoAlieu Njie — isolate this player's connectionsNjieGvidas Gineitis — isolate this player's connectionsGineitisArdian Ismajli — isolate this player's connectionsIsmajliEnzo Ebosse — isolate this player's connectionsEbosseLucas Perri — isolate this player's connectionsPerriChé Adams — isolate this player's connectionsAdamsDaniel Bragança — isolate this player's connectionsBragançaRafik Belghali — isolate this player's connectionsBelghaliKian Fitz-Jim — isolate this player's connectionsFitz-JimIvan Ilic — isolate this player's connectionsIlic
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
4%5%16%5%4%7%10%13%11%7%5%3%3%3%4%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
978
ACTIONS
3%4%14%6%3%7%9%13%11%9%7%2%2%3%8%CARRIES
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.

37%Left side28%Middle35%Right sideATTACKING →
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.

Left wing: 78 entries (26%)7826%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 46 entries (15%)4615%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 47 entries (16%)4716%CENTRERight half-space: 46 entries (15%)4615%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 81 entries (27%)8127%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing789.826%28%
Left half-space465.815%15%
Centre475.916%13%
Right half-space465.815%16%
Right wing8110.127%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%
right: 334 passes, most from Coco334left: 297 passes, most from Coco297
Long Wide44 · 4%
left: 25 passes, most from Perri25right: 19 passes, most from Perri19
Long Central18 · 2%
left: 11 passes, most from Perri11right: 7 passes, most from Perri7
Wide → FB295 · 27%
left: 149 passes, most from Perri149right: 146 passes, most from Perri146
Central117 · 11%
left: 61 passes, most from Perri61right: 56 passes, most from Perri56
◆ 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.

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%
left: 380 passes, most from Comuzzo380right: 365 passes, most from Coco365
Long Wide38 · 2%
right: 20 passes, most from Ilkhan20left: 18 passes, most from Gineitis18
Long Central13 · 1%
right: 7 passes, most from Fitz-Jim7left: 6 passes, most from Mandragora6
Wide → FB619 · 37%
left: 311 passes, most from Cacciamani311right: 308 passes, most from Vlasic308
Central268 · 16%
left: 141 passes, most from Fitz-Jim141right: 127 passes, most from Mandragora127
◆ 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.

Carries Map — progressive ball-carries, squad-wide

The question
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
Attacking transition: 15 shots (18%)18%15Settled attack: 55 shots (65%)65%55Set piece: 15 shots (18%)18%1585SHOTS
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set upShotsGoalsxGxG / shot
Attacking transition 18% of shots1521.260.08
Cross100.070.07
Long ball100.130.13
Pass into the box / short pass710.700.10
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)610.360.06
Settled attack 65% of shots55105.640.10
Cross1031.140.11
Cut-back510.770.15
Long ball110.050.05
Pass into the box / short pass3042.630.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)911.060.12
Set piece 18% of shots1511.340.09
Corner1211.250.10
Free kick300.090.03

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

PlayerSet-upsxG createdGoals
Nikola Vlasic71.001
Rafik Belghali50.673
Kian Fitz-Jim70.660
Rolando Mandragora60.531
Emirhan Ilkhan20.430

Who takes them

PlayerShotsxGGoals
Giovanni Simeone171.982
Ché Adams111.583
Pietro Comuzzo60.821
Daniel Bragança50.731
Sandro Kulenovic50.492
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%
left: 4 passes, most from Coco4right: 3 passes, most from Cömert3
Long Wide2 · 3%
left: 2 passes, most from Mandragora2
Long Central6 · 10%
left: 5 passes, most from Mandragora5
Wide → FB17 · 28%
left: 11 passes, most from Cacciamani11right: 6 passes, most from Mandragora6
Central29 · 48%
right: 15 passes, most from Cacciamani15left: 14 passes, most from Fitz-Jim14

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.

deep right wing: 2 crosses (2%)2%2deep right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep centre: 0 crosses (0%)deep left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep left wing: 7 crosses (8%)8%7advanced right wing: 11 crosses (12%)12%11advanced right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)advanced centre: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left wing: 16 crosses (18%)18%16byline right wing: 18 crosses (20%)20%18byline right half-space: 2 crosses (2%)2%2byline centre: 0 crosses (0%)byline left half-space: 2 crosses (2%)2%2byline left wing: 30 crosses (34%)34%30
TerritoryCrossesShareLed to a shot
byline · left wing3034%2
byline · right wing1820%3
advanced · left wing1618%3
advanced · right wing1112%2
deep · left wing78%2
deep · right wing22%0
byline · right half-space22%0
byline · left half-space22%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

47 of 158 pass attempts lost here (30%).30%47/158Cömert24 of 203 pass attempts lost here (12%).12%24/203Perri145 of 652 pass attempts lost here (22%).22%145/652Perri27 of 207 pass attempts lost here (13%).13%27/207Comuzzo38 of 166 pass attempts lost here (23%).23%38/166Comuzzo53 of 286 pass attempts lost here (19%).19%53/286Belghali40 of 387 pass attempts lost here (10%).10%40/387Vlasic56 of 536 pass attempts lost here (10%).10%56/536Simeone54 of 428 pass attempts lost here (13%).13%54/428Mandragora52 of 301 pass attempts lost here (17%).17%52/301Cacciamani47 of 196 pass attempts lost here (24%).24%47/196Belghali24 of 115 pass attempts lost here (21%).21%24/115Vlasic36 of 106 pass attempts lost here (34%).34%36/106Fitz-Jim32 of 108 pass attempts lost here (30%).30%32/108Cacciamani51 of 173 pass attempts lost here (29%).29%51/173Cacciamaniattacking →

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.

Pressing2 sections

Pressing — the full picture

The football question
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

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)—#10/20lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game144#11/20
High-press share21%#12/20def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)38.0#13/20avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game20.2#13/20ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share55%#8/20share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed83%#9/20lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed8.6%#8/20of 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 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

← opponent shot at own goal

Every opponent key pass against them (97 total)

2%3%3%8%10%23%11%14%25%Josh DoigVasilije AdzicDarryl BakolaNemanja MaticDarryl BakolaCristian VolpatoDarryl BakolaVasilije AdzicArmand LaurientéVasilije AdzicCristian VolpatoKieron BowieCristian VolpatoVasilije AdzicKristian ThorstvedtFedde LeysenDomenico BerardiDomenico BerardiRuben Loftus-CheekRuben Loftus-CheekPervis EstupiñánSamuel ChukwuezeSamuel ChukwuezeArdon JashariRuben Loftus-CheekSamuel ChukwuezeAlphadjo CissèPervis EstupiñánMario GilaLuka ModricAdrien RabiotSamuel ChukwuezeDavide BartesaghiGonçalo RamosDavide BartesaghiAlieu NjieAlieu NjieRadu DragusinCher NdourAlieu NjieAlieu NjieJoão MárioNicolò FagioliMario HermosoPaulo DybalaPaulo DybalaMatías SouléPaulo DybalaDonyell MalenGianluca ManciniNiccolò PisilliRodrigo MoraNiccolò PisilliSamuele BirindelliJuan MirandaNicolò CambiaghiJuan MirandaJuan MirandaRoberto PiccoliJuan MirandaFederico BernardeschiNikola MoroJurgen EkkelenkampOier ZarragaEnzo EbosseMërgim VojvodaMërgim VojvodaEnzo EbosseGiorgi ChakvetadzeOier ZarragaDavid AlabaGiorgi ChakvetadzeEbenezer AkinsanmiroRicardo MangasDany MotaRicardo MangasEmanuele ValeriDavid RomeroGiovanni FabbianAdrián BernabéEmanuele ValeriEmanuele ValeriAdrián BernabéAdrián BernabéEmanuele ValeriAdrián BernabéAdrián BernabéEmanuele ValeriAdrián BernabéMariano TroiloEmanuele ValeriEnrico DelpratoEmanuele ValeriChristian OrdóñezMariano TroiloEmanuele ValeriDjibril Diallo← own goal

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.

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
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)

18%9%9%36%27%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Left side (15)

7%13%7%13%7%40%
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)

38%38%25%
Shot 8Goals 0

Left flag (3)

33%67%
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 typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)2.001.001.50
vs mid-block opponents (2m)1.502.001.50
vs low-block opponents (4m)1.501.251.75

Behaviour — how Torino actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents81%12%338.58.5
vs mid-block opponents79%14%4812.311.0
vs low-block opponents83%11%369.69.5
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.]
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 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.

Torino
across 8 matches this season
PPDAvs Udinese · 2-1 · 2026-10-1210.6avg 5.6
Expected goalsvs Udinese · 2-1 · 2026-10-121.52avg 1.03
Final-third entriesat Fiorentina · 2-1 · 2026-09-0564avg 37
Threat from passingvs Monza · 3-2 · 2026-10-236.88avg 4.31
Progressive passesvs Monza · 3-2 · 2026-10-2361avg 38
Pass accuracyat Sassuolo · 1-2 · 2026-08-2988%avg 82%
Passesat Fiorentina · 2-1 · 2026-09-05593avg 503
Field tiltat Bologna · 1-1 · 2026-09-1961%avg 42%

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 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)ActionsOBVper 100
Giovanni Simeone210+1.26+0.60
Saúl Coco649+0.96+0.15
Lucas Perri354+0.89+0.25
Ché Adams154+0.83+0.54
Pietro Comuzzo493+0.82+0.17
Rolando Mandragora400+0.80+0.20
Sandro Kulenovic49+0.72+1.48
Nikola Vlasic419+0.58+0.14
123456
Biggest single movesOBV
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.

PlayerCorners takenInto the boxSet-piece shotsGoalsxGFree-kick shotsPenalties
Rolando Mandragora1211 (92%)3—0.093—
Saúl Coco——4—0.23——
Kian Fitz-Jim66 (100%)——0.00——
Pietro Comuzzo——2—0.16——
Daniel Bragança20 (0%)110.54——
Emirhan Ilkhan11 (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 Gineitis22 (100%)——0.00——
Gaetano Oristanio10 (0%)——0.00——
Niccolò Fortini11 (100%)——0.00——
Sandro Kulenovic10 (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.

playerposminVision AI Scorecapability blocks
Kian Fitz-JimCM4635.5Successful Dribble 95%Ball-Carrying 79%Progression 44%Chance Creation 44%
Rolando MandragoraCM4785.2Progression 39%Chance Creation 38%Successful Dribble 10%Ball-Carrying 8%
Nikola VlasicCM6515.0Successful Dribble 64%Ball-Carrying 54%Progression 46%Chance Creation 41%
Ardian IsmajliCB5095.0Ball-Winning 54%Aerial & Box Defending 49%Progression 37%Ball-Carrying 29%
Saúl CocoCB6994.7Ball-Carrying 46%Progression 42%Ball-Winning 40%Aerial & Box Defending 36%
Giovanni SimeoneST6034.5Ball-Carrying 58%Finishing 51%Box Threat 33%Aerial Threat 0%
Lucas PerriGK5674.0Shot-Stopping 40%
Pietro ComuzzoCB6253.0Ball-Winning 52%Progression 46%Aerial & Box Defending 32%Ball-Carrying 29%
Alessio CacciamaniW6331.2Ball-Carrying 59%Chance Creation 12%Wide Delivery 0%Box Threat 0%

Top Creators

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

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Rolando MandragoraM4781.69116.9
Nikola VlasicM6510.97114.9
Kian Fitz-JimM4631.5665.0
Alessio CacciamaniM6330.7173.6
Pietro ComuzzoD6250.4368.5
Giovanni SimeoneF6030.7541.1
Rafik BelghaliM3621.2434.8
Ché AdamsF4190.6441.7

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.

playerposmincrosses (completed)cutbacks (completed)
Alessio CacciamaniW6334 (50%)10 (20%)

Defensive Volume Leaders

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

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
Ardian IsmajliD50911641016
Saúl CocoD69911512624
Pietro ComuzzoD62510718927
Giovanni SimeoneF603966417
Alessio CacciamaniM633896232
Rolando MandragoraM478828723
Nikola VlasicM651812230
Rafik BelghaliM3624910117

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (19 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Saúl CocoD869900.42301159.7
Nikola VlasicM865110.5716814.9
Alessio CacciamaniM863300.1518893.6
Pietro ComuzzoD762510.83421078.5
Giovanni SimeoneF860322.054961.1
Lucas PerriG656700.0040109.1
Ardian IsmajliD750900.10101164.0
Rolando MandragoraM647810.4919826.9
Kian Fitz-JimM646310.2815465.0
Ché AdamsF641931.639361.7
Gvidas GineitisM736800.145461.7
Rafik BelghaliM636210.1525494.8
Eray CömertD432200.0120456.7
Daniel BragançaM631310.719492.5
Niccolò FortiniD526800.1113413.0
Diego MascardiG218700.00351.3
Sandro KulenovicF616020.504270.4
Emirhan IlkhanM411600.026201.7
Nathan PattersonM311300.106221.2

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).
Vision AI · building report