Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportSerie A 2025/26
Torino
A territorially-dominated side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Finished #10 of 23 on 58 points (16-10-21, 58:77). Tactical profile below is built from 47 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 finished #10 of 23 on 58 points (16W-10D-21L, 1.23 pts/game), scoring 58 and conceding 77 for a goal difference of -19.
On the ball they are a territorially-dominated team (44% field tilt, #19 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#18 of 23 for press intensity).
Across the 47 matches of event data, they create 1.13 xG/game (#14) and concede 1.38 (#15), a net of -0.26 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
7
Lazio
47
22
13
12
63
47
+16
79
8
Atalanta
46
18
15
13
65
51
+14
69
9
Bologna
47
19
10
18
61
58
+3
67
10
Torino
47
16
10
21
58
77
-19
58
11
Sassuolo
47
16
9
22
60
72
-12
57
12
Cagliari
47
15
11
21
48
66
-18
56
13
Udinese
47
15
10
22
54
66
-12
55
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 -12.19, second-half +0.19. Their strongest period is 76-90+' (net +4.23 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 31-45' (net -6.22 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 47 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 (-12.0 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.
24
Build-Up
possession control from the back
46
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
35
Creation
manufacturing chances
20
Press
winning the ball high & hard
35
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Torino are defined most by their Progression DNA (46/100 · average at moving the ball upfield with threat), and least by their Press DNA (20/100). Percentiles vs the 23 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
26%
Field tilt
17%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
35%
Dribble tendency
35%
Progressive passes
57%
Finish
Final-third patience
17%
Shot quality
39%
Open-play xG
35%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
22%
High regains
43%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
57%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
26%
High line ~proxy
30%
PAdj defensive actions
22%
Torino is defined most by Disrupt (42% in the league) and weakest on Possess (23%). 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 44% field tilt, ranking #19 of 23 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 1.23 points/game sits below the league-average return — territory is genuinely converting into results.
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
27.7%
Progression
45.8%
Chance creation
24.0%
Attacking transition
2.5%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Torino spends most of its time on the ball (46% 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
Maripán ↔ Coco
264p · 5.0xT
Lazaro ↔ Coco
255p · 13.1xT
Ismajli ↔ Coco
251p · 6.6xT
Paleari ↔ Coco
244p · 8.4xT
Paleari ↔ Ismajli
189p · 5.2xT
Lazaro ↔ Vlasic
184p · 10.4xT
Vlasic ↔ Coco
164p · 11.6xT
Vlasic ↔ Pedersen
156p · 8.8xT
Maripán ↔ Ismajli
140p · 2.6xT
Lazaro ↔ Ismajli
130p · 6.5xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Guillermo Maripán ↔ Saúl Coco (264 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Valentino Lazaro ↔ Ché Adams (0.10 xT/pass over 94 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 468 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
20048
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
5411
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (12.9% of all actions). 61% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 39% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 32% defensive, 48% middle, 20% 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 leaned on their right (39%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Torino
38%24%39%
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. Torino made 1632 this season (34.7 a match); 28% 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
423
9.0
26%
28%
Left half-space
264
5.6
16%
15%
Centre
221
4.7
14%
13%
Right half-space
270
5.7
17%
15%
Right wing
454
9.7
28%
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.
6582build-up passes attempted
78%completed
28%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third
Pass types
2594CB · 51%
373Long Wide · 7%
87Long Central · 2%
1608Wide → FB · 31%
447Central · 9%
Sequence success — build-up
1181build-up sequences this season
8%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
45%turned over with nothing to show
CB2594 · 51%
Long Wide373 · 7%
Long Central87 · 2%
Wide → FB1608 · 31%
Central447 · 9%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Torino build predominantly down the left, with Coco as the fulcrum (827 build-up passes). Only 31% 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 (349×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Torino’s last 10 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. 1996 progressive passes across 47 matches (42.5/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
30%
Right half-space
12%
Central
18%
Left half-space
11%
Left wing
28%
Progression is right-dominant: 42% right side · 18% central · 39% left.
Who generates it
Valentino Lazaro
228 · 11%
Alberto Paleari
167 · 8%
Nikola Vlasic
144 · 7%
Saúl Coco
129 · 6%
Marcus Pedersen
124 · 6%
Top two — Valentino Lazaro & Alberto Paleari — account for 20% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
42.5 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
30% reach final third
18% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 70% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.30% of progressive passes reached the final third and 18% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 20% of the progression ran through two players, mostly down the right side.
Which lanes actually create the threat
Share of passes played from each lane against its share of the threat (xT) they add. Efficient = more threat than volume, sterile = lots of the ball, little damage.
Per lane — volume vs threat
Right wingefficient
Right half-spacebalanced
Centralbalanced
Left half-spacebalanced
Left wingefficient
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.
9584progression passes attempted
84%completed
15%break into the final third
13%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
3071CB · 38%
341Long Wide · 4%
54Long Central · 1%
3466Wide → FB · 43%
1078Central · 13%
Sequence success — progression
2096progression sequences this season
26%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
45%turned over with nothing to show
CB3071 · 38%
Long Wide341 · 4%
Long Central54 · 1%
Wide → FB3466 · 43%
Central1078 · 13%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Torino progress predominantly down the left, with Coco the busiest midfield outlet (883 progression passes). Only 15% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (72%) is recycled back into midfield or (13%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is RW mid → RHS mid (447×) — 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
49%
Safe / backward
36%
15% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 85% 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?
984 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (23% of 4363 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: Vlasic (99). Filter to one player below.
First (312)Second (258)Third (218)Fourth (196)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.
545shots
53.1xG
0.10xG per shot
23big chances (0.3+ xG)
56goals
#15key 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 transition28% of shots
150
14
12.62
0.08
Cross
12
0
1.24
0.10
Cut-back
8
1
0.77
0.10
Long ball
9
2
0.97
0.11
Pass into the box / short pass
81
8
6.64
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
40
3
3.00
0.08
Settled attack55% of shots
300
29
27.65
0.09
Cross
60
9
6.66
0.11
Cut-back
33
1
4.01
0.12
Long ball
11
1
0.88
0.08
Pass into the box / short pass
130
11
10.28
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
66
7
5.82
0.09
Set piece17% of shots
95
13
12.82
0.13
Corner
76
8
6.93
0.09
Free kick
12
0
0.32
0.03
Penalty
7
5
5.56
0.79
Every attempt to create — and what came of it
Every pass into the box, every cut-back and every pass before a shot. Red led to a shot, gold to a goal; grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball. Filter by outcome, type or player; tap an arrow for the detail.
Who sets the shots up
Player
Set-ups
xG created
Goals
Nikola Vlasic
61
5.76
5
Giovanni Simeone
26
2.34
2
Gvidas Gineitis
21
2.24
3
Ché Adams
28
2.17
1
Marcus Pedersen
20
2.08
2
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Giovanni Simeone
99
10.35
13
Nikola Vlasic
59
7.67
9
Ché Adams
65
7.32
10
Cesare Casadei
35
3.92
6
Duván Zapata
34
3.84
3
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Torino's chances, by xG, is settled attack (27.7 of 53.1 xG, 300 of 545 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 150 of the 545 shots (28%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 95 of the 545 shots came from set pieces; 56 goals from 53.1 xG (+2.9).
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
45CB · 12%
17Long Wide · 4%
33Long Central · 9%
102Wide → FB · 26%
188Central · 49%
Sequence success — final-third
1220final-third sequences this season
22%succeed — produce a shot
40%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
CB45 · 12%
Long Wide17 · 4%
Long Central33 · 9%
Wide → FB102 · 26%
Central188 · 49%
Who creates — volume × threat
62Vlasic
31Lazaro
30Gineitis
29Adams
25Simeone
19Pedersen
14Asllani
385key passes #15 of 23
10.5box entries/game #17 of 23
28.0final-3rd entries/game #16 of 23
1.13xG/game #14 of 23
56goals #11 of 23
+2.9finishing vs xG #7 of 23
◆ Vision AI Insight
Torino lean left — 39% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (150 of 385), most often from Vlasic (24). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via LW att → C att (52 key passes, most often from Gineitis). Vlasic is the primary source overall. They generate 1.13 xG a game and finish it clinical — they beat their xG, led by Giovanni Simeone (13G), Ché Adams (10G), Nikola Vlasic (9G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Torino deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
614 crosses: 204 found a team-mate (33%), 70 led to a shot (11%). 127 cut-backs: 66 found a team-mate (52%), 42 led to a shot (33%). 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?
614 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. 25% come from one territory, the byline left wing; 18 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
byline · left wing
156
25%
21
byline · right wing
135
22%
14
advanced · left wing
128
21%
16
advanced · right wing
110
18%
11
deep · right wing
40
7%
1
deep · left wing
27
4%
3
byline · left half-space
7
1%
2
advanced · right half-space
5
1%
1
byline · right half-space
3
0%
0
deep · left half-space
2
0%
0
advanced · left half-space
1
0%
1
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
545 shots for 53.1 xG (1.13/game, #14 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Moderate attack. 11.6 shots/game at 0.097 xG/shot. Box entries 11/game (#17). Threat created 9.5 xT/game (#15).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Torino’s 58 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 — 58 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
43 · 77%
Set pieces
8 · 14%
Penalties
5 · 9%
By finish
Right foot
33 · 59%
Left foot
11 · 20%
Header
12 · 21%
Vision AI Model Insight
56 goals scored. 77% come in open play; set pieces add 14%. 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
1230
Failed forward pass
808
Failed take-on
393
Lost in the defensive third
1473
Their weakest zone is the right half-space in the attacking third: 34% of 609 pass attempts there are lost (207 times). Separately, 29% 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.
36
Pressing Index /100 · passive
Intensity33
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height30
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness41
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption39
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
19%
RHS
19%
C
24%
LHS
21%
LW
18%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 50%
Mid 37%
Att 13%
Read
Ranked #18 of 23 for press intensity, this is a high press. Note the tension: 50% of their raw defensive actions still occur in their own third — a possession effect, not a passive one. Dominating the ball (20% high-press share) means that when they do defend, it is often deep. 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)
—
#18/23
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
134
#9/23
High-press share
20%
#14/23
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
36.8
#16/23
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
19.9
#17/23
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
55%
#10/23
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
83%
#16/23
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
9.2%
#12/23
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 1287 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 6.8 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 4.5 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
5.6passes
median 4 · before Torino win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
17sec
median 8s · 27.4 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
39%
27%
15%
19%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
7.0
21s
15–30′
6.5
20s
30–45+′
5.8
17s
45–60′
5.1
15s
60–75′
4.5
13s
75–90+′
4.6
15s
average passesaverage seconds
Phases of play
Every moment of the match read twice — what Torino were doing with the
ball, and what the opposition were doing about it at that exact moment. Built from the
real action sequence in time order, so one possession is split across the phases it
genuinely passed through rather than labelled once by where it began.
6,562phase segments analysed
7.0smedian time before the opposition engage
2.0their passes per defensive action when pressed
#13of 20 for share of defending spent pressing high
High press 5.7%Mid block 10.4%Low block 51.9%Unopposed 32.1%
What opponents do against Torino
The mirror image, and the part no other section can show: whether teams come
out to press Torino or sit in and invite them on. A side that is always faced with a low
block is playing a different sport from one that is pressed every week.
High press 7.8%Mid block 11.0%Low block 51.7%Unopposed 29.5%
Which phases actually produce
Phase
Segments
Avg length
Avg actions
Ends in shot
Turned over
Build-up
2,221
4.3s
2.8
0.2%
52.3%
Progression
2,748
5.8s
3.5
0.8%
47.5%
Chance creation
1,464
5.7s
3.1
27.8%
52.7%
Attacking transition
129
6.7s
4.3
2.3%
47.3%
Most common routes through the phases
How a possession actually travelled, in order. The chain is the tactical signature — a move that climbs all three thirds is a different thing from one that never leaves the first.
Route
Times
Ends in shot
build_up
915
0.0%
progression
725
1.0%
build_up → progression
368
0.8%
chance_creation
339
34.2%
progression → chance_creation
329
31.6%
build_up → progression → chance_creation
175
30.3%
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) 6,582 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.3320.31
Wide-channel share-0.150.30
Side bias+0.060.37
Pass length+0.3623.98
Long-ball share+0.300.26
Forward gain per pass+0.2812.65
Backward-pass share-0.110.19
Deep-pass share+0.270.31
Completion-0.280.77
Seconds between passes-0.193.21
Side used
left 27% · central 48% · right 25%
Progression (middle third) 9,584 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.0025.57
Wide-channel share+0.070.41
Side bias-0.13-0.46
Pass length+0.2817.61
Long-ball share+0.160.11
Forward gain per pass-0.013.59
Backward-pass share+0.220.34
Deep-pass share+0.170.17
Completion-0.230.83
Seconds between passes-0.253.09
Side used
left 35% · central 30% · right 36%
Final third 3,882 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.0131.58
Wide-channel share-0.050.58
Side bias+0.04-0.19
Pass length+0.4216.12
Long-ball share+0.340.11
Forward gain per pass-0.230.73
Backward-pass share+0.170.40
Deep-pass share+0.150.09
Completion-0.270.67
Seconds between passes+0.233.57
Side used
left 41% · central 17% · right 42%
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%
#9 of 23 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share25%
#15 of 23 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)15.8s
#7 of 23 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.2
#15 of 23
Counter-attack shots /game1.15
#5 of 23 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.32
#5 of 23 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain11.5s
#6 of 23 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
132attacking transition sequences this season
19%succeed — produce a shot
48%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
370defensive transition sequences this season
62%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 (#9 of 23), against 25% built patiently over 6+ passes (#15 of 23). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.15 times a game (#5), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.32 times a game (#5 of 23) — 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? 2275 opponent progressive passes and 669 shots faced (65.1 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Torino)
Right wing
30%
Right half-space
14%
Central
15%
Left half-space
13%
Left wing
28%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (30% 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 (497 total)
By situation
Open play
61 · 80%
Set pieces
11 · 14%
Penalties
4 · 5%
Vision AI Model Insight
76 goals conceded. 80% come in open play; set pieces account for only 14%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 17% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the right half-space 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.
How much of the goal threat is manufactured from dead balls — a route to goal that bypasses their open-play mechanism entirely.
Open play
43 g · 40.3 xG
Set pieces
8 g · 7.3 xG
Penalties
5 g
14% of goals come from set pieces (8 of 56), worth 7.3 xG from 88 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Torino's corners go?
177 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 (82)
Delivered into the box 98%Short 2%
Left side (95)
Delivered into the box 95%Short 5%
Where opponents attack Torino from set pieces
94 shots from opponent corners against Torino, 11 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 (49)
Shot 49Goals 4
Left flag (45)
Shot 45Goals 7
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
none stand out
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
field tilt % — 43.60 (17th pct)
press intensity (PPDA) — 7.35 (22th pct)
box entries /game — 10.53 (26th pct)
pass retention % — 78.67 (30th pct)
xG conceded /game — 1.38 (35th 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.
Cremonese
94%
Pisa
89%
Parma Calcio 1913
88%
Cagliari
86%
Hellas Verona
76%
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 (15m)
1.13
0.93
1.67
vs mid-block opponents (15m)
0.80
1.93
0.73
vs low-block opponents (17m)
1.71
2.00
1.29
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
75%
18%
39
8.5
8.5
vs mid-block opponents
78%
16%
44
9.9
11.3
vs low-block opponents
81%
14%
44
10.0
11.6
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 75% vs 81% against a low block (6pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 18% when pressed vs 14% 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. Torino are territorially-dominated with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.13 xG a game and they concede 1.38 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.
Threat from passingvs Genoa · 2-1 · 2025-10-269.02avg 5.12
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 12 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).
+15.8on-ball value, 12 matches
Where the value came from
Passes5731 actions+4.77
Carries1353 actions-0.60
Dribbles189 actions+0.77
Shots136 actions+7.37
Ball wins621 actions+3.51
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Giovanni Simeone
330
+1.71
+0.52
Ché Adams
223
+1.66
+0.75
Nikola Vlasic
667
+1.11
+0.17
Lucas Perri
391
+1.05
+0.27
Saúl Coco
914
+1.04
+0.11
Emirhan Ilkhan
208
+0.88
+0.42
Pietro Comuzzo
550
+0.84
+0.15
Rolando Mandragora
400
+0.80
+0.20
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Marcus Pedersen · shot
+0.399
2 Nikola Vlasic · take-on
+0.377
3 Ché Adams · shot
+0.366
4 Emirhan Ilkhan · shot
+0.331
5 Ché Adams · shot
+0.313
6 Sandro Kulenovic · shot
+0.284
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Torino’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 177 corners taken, most by Valentino Lazaro (43); 88 shots from corners and free kicks, 8 goals, led by Cesare Casadei (2 goals, 0.91 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
Nikola Vlasic
2
0 (0%)
12
—
0.43
2
5/5
Valentino Lazaro
43
40 (93%)
1
—
0.06
—
—
Gvidas Gineitis
26
25 (96%)
5
—
0.13
4
—
Kristjan Asllani
31
30 (97%)
2
—
0.06
1
0/1
Saúl Coco
—
—
10
1
0.75
1
—
Guillermo Maripán
—
—
9
1
1.03
—
—
Cesare Casadei
1
0 (0%)
8
2
0.91
—
—
Rafa Obrador
16
13 (81%)
2
1
0.08
—
—
Rolando Mandragora
12
11 (92%)
3
—
0.09
3
—
Giovanni Simeone
—
—
7
—
0.49
—
—
Cristiano Biraghi
18
14 (78%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Emirhan Ilkhan
3
2 (67%)
4
1
0.82
—
—
Ardian Ismajli
—
—
5
—
0.43
—
—
Ché Adams
1
0 (0%)
4
1
0.44
—
—
Top Performers
Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 300 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
Nikola Vlasic
M
3897
1.43
65
34.8
Valentino Lazaro
M
2337
1.19
58
37.3
Gvidas Gineitis
M
2234
1.21
42
18.0
Ché Adams
F
2492
1.05
27
12.6
Marcus Pedersen
M
2297
0.74
34
18.6
Giovanni Simeone
F
2966
0.76
18
6.8
Kristjan Asllani
M
1168
1.08
24
19.1
Cristiano Biraghi
M
578
1.09
20
11.8
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)
Marcus Pedersen
W
2297
32 (22%)
35 (31%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Saúl Coco
D
4044
660
74
50
114
Ardian Ismajli
D
2613
513
38
46
78
Nikola Vlasic
M
3897
509
69
24
215
Guillermo Maripán
D
2269
445
51
28
74
Cesare Casadei
M
2230
376
38
11
89
Giovanni Simeone
F
2966
342
24
9
97
Valentino Lazaro
M
2337
312
47
22
94
Gvidas Gineitis
M
2234
312
53
22
95
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (34 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Saúl Coco
D
44
4044
1
1.6
9
129
660
36.8
Nikola Vlasic
M
46
3897
9
7.7
62
144
509
34.8
Giovanni Simeone
F
41
2966
13
10.4
25
26
342
6.8
Alberto Paleari
G
29
2743
0
0.0
0
167
70
34.1
Ardian Ismajli
D
33
2613
0
0.6
4
77
513
21.7
Ché Adams
F
40
2492
10
7.3
29
50
222
12.6
Valentino Lazaro
M
31
2337
0
0.5
31
228
312
37.3
Marcus Pedersen
M
30
2297
1
1.3
19
124
178
18.6
Guillermo Maripán
D
27
2269
2
1.9
7
77
445
19.3
Gvidas Gineitis
M
37
2234
0
1.4
30
70
312
18.0
Cesare Casadei
M
35
2230
6
3.9
14
59
376
12.0
Duván Zapata
F
31
1221
3
3.8
8
15
144
4.6
Emirhan Ilkhan
M
24
1208
1
1.7
12
40
182
11.4
Adrien Tamèze
D
24
1196
0
0.3
8
59
182
12.3
Kristjan Asllani
M
15
1168
0
1.4
14
68
132
19.1
Franco Israel
G
9
861
0
0.0
0
56
17
10.8
Pietro Comuzzo
D
8
719
2
2.0
3
46
124
9.2
Alessio Cacciamani
M
9
687
0
0.1
5
18
96
3.7
Lucas Perri
G
7
661
0
0.0
0
44
10
9.8
Matteo Prati
M
13
641
1
1.9
4
24
91
4.6
Zakaria Aboukhlal
M
19
623
0
0.9
4
32
100
5.7
Cristiano Biraghi
M
14
578
0
0.1
7
66
58
11.8
Sandro Kulenovic
F
20
529
2
1.0
5
7
76
1.5
Kian Fitz-Jim
M
7
517
1
0.2
9
16
56
5.5
Rolando Mandragora
M
6
478
8
4.8
9
19
82
6.9
Rafik Belghali
M
7
450
3
2.5
5
26
62
5.0
Daniel Bragança
M
7
401
1
0.7
3
14
65
3.4
Niels Nkounkou
M
11
398
0
0.3
6
38
73
6.3
Tino Anjorin
M
15
345
0
0.5
3
11
53
2.8
Eray Cömert
D
4
322
0
0.0
1
20
45
6.7
Niccolò Fortini
D
5
268
0
0.4
1
13
41
3.0
Adam Masina
D
5
259
0
0.0
2
7
40
2.0
Diego Mascardi
G
2
187
0
0.0
0
3
5
1.3
Nathan Patterson
M
4
153
0
0.1
0
6
32
1.3
Player Role Architecture
The question
Who does what — and what tactical job does each key player actually perform?
The nine most-used players (450+ minutes), each with the role their event fingerprint points to — not just their listed position.
Saúl Coco
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes4044
goals · xG1 · 1.6
prog passes /902.9
key passes /900.20
def actions /9014.7
pass accuracy86%
Nikola Vlasic
Poacher / finisher · Forward
minutes3897
goals · xG9 · 7.7
prog passes /903.3
key passes /901.43
def actions /9011.8
pass accuracy82%
Giovanni Simeone
Poacher / finisher · Forward
minutes2966
goals · xG13 · 10.4
prog passes /900.8
key passes /900.76
def actions /9010.4
pass accuracy70%
Alberto Paleari
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes2743
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /905.5
key passes /900.00
def actions /902.3
pass accuracy70%
Ardian Ismajli
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes2613
goals · xG0 · 0.6
prog passes /902.7
key passes /900.14
def actions /9017.7
pass accuracy88%
Ché Adams
Poacher / finisher · Forward
minutes2492
goals · xG10 · 7.3
prog passes /901.8
key passes /901.05
def actions /908.0
pass accuracy75%
Valentino Lazaro
Deep-lying playmaker · Midfielder
minutes2337
goals · xG0 · 0.5
prog passes /908.8
key passes /901.19
def actions /9012.0
pass accuracy74%
Marcus Pedersen
Box-to-box midfielder · Midfielder
minutes2297
goals · xG1 · 1.3
prog passes /904.9
key passes /900.74
def actions /907.0
pass accuracy71%
Guillermo Maripán
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes2269
goals · xG2 · 1.9
prog passes /903.1
key passes /900.28
def actions /9017.7
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: field tilt % (17th pct)
Sign a possession-controlling midfielder to win the territorial battle. The data flags this because they get pinned back (43.60, 17th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: press intensity (PPDA) (22th pct)
Sign a high-energy presser to lift defensive intensity. The data flags this because the press is passive (7.35, 22th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: box entries /game (26th pct)
Sign a penetrative wide player or runner to create box entries. The data flags this because few entries into the box (10.53, 26th percentile vs the league).
← BACK TO SEARCHSeason
