A territorially-dominated side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a low-output attack. Finished #19 of 20 on 21 points (3-12-23, 25:61). Tactical profile below is built from 38 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.
In one read, what kind of team is Hellas Verona and how good was the season?
Read. Hellas Verona finished #19 of 20 on 21 points (3W-12D-23L, 0.55 pts/game), scoring 25 and conceding 61 for a goal difference of -36.
On the ball they are a territorially-dominated team (44% field tilt, #18 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#13 of 23 for press intensity).
Across the 38 matches of event data, they create 0.96 xG/game (#20) and concede 1.23 (#8), a net of -0.27 xG/game — the underlying performance diverges from the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Hellas Verona actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Hellas Verona.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
16
Genoa
38
10
11
17
41
51
-10
41
17
Lecce
38
10
8
20
28
50
-22
38
18
Cremonese
38
8
10
20
32
57
-25
34
19
Hellas Verona
38
3
12
23
25
61
-36
21
20
Pisa
38
2
12
24
26
71
-45
18
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Hellas Verona 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
Hellas Verona tend to fade after a strong start — first-half net xG +0.39, second-half -10.67. Their strongest period is 16-30' (net +2.77 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 46-60' (net -7.14 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 38 matches: Hellas Verona 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 (-10.3 xG). Hover a point for that match.
Hellas VeronaOpponents against Hellas Verona
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Hellas Verona'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.
13
Build-Up
possession control from the back
7
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
16
Creation
manufacturing chances
33
Press
winning the ball high & hard
65
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Hellas Verona are defined most by their Solidity DNA (65/100 · average at resisting the opponent's threat), and least by their Progression DNA (7/100). 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
4%
Possession
0%
Field tilt
22%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
22%
Dribble tendency
83%
Progressive passes
9%
Finish
Final-third patience
13%
Shot quality
4%
Open-play xG
26%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
43%
High regains
30%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
39%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
26%
High line ~proxy
30%
PAdj defensive actions
48%
Hellas Verona is defined most by Disrupt (38% in the league) and weakest on Possess (9%). 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 Hellas Verona actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Hellas Verona'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; Hellas Verona highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Hellas Verona post 44% field tilt, ranking #18 of 23 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 0.55 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 Hellas Verona has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Hellas Verona'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
21.3%
Progression
50.7%
Chance creation
25.5%
Attacking transition
2.6%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Hellas Verona spends most of its time on the ball (51% 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
Gagliardini ↔ Nelsson
186p · 5.9xT
Bella-Kotchap ↔ Nelsson
180p · 2.9xT
Bernede ↔ Frese
176p · 11.3xT
Gagliardini ↔ Bernede
157p · 7.5xT
Gagliardini ↔ Belghali
141p · 9.2xT
Bradaric ↔ Frese
138p · 7.5xT
Montipò ↔ Nelsson
130p · 3.9xT
Montipò ↔ Bella-Kotchap
114p · 3.7xT
Nelsson ↔ Frese
110p · 2.2xT
Giovane ↔ Belghali
106p · 7.9xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Roberto Gagliardini ↔ Victor Nelsson (186 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Roberto Gagliardini ↔ Giovane (0.10 xT/pass over 59 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Hellas Verona had the ball
Every touch across 460 matches. Brighter means more touches.
Which Zones Do They Attack Through?
The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Hellas Verona 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
13909
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
3405
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the right wing of the middle third (10.7% of all actions). 59% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 41% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 28% defensive, 51% middle, 21% 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. Hellas Verona leaned on their right (44%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Hellas Verona
34%22%44%
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. Hellas Verona made 1225 this season (32.2 a match); 32% 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
316
8.3
26%
28%
Left half-space
147
3.9
12%
15%
Centre
172
4.5
14%
13%
Right half-space
204
5.4
17%
15%
Right wing
386
10.2
32%
29%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Hellas Verona 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.
3911build-up passes attempted
69%completed
33%reach the middle third
3%go long into the final third
Pass types
1113CB · 41%
294Long Wide · 11%
65Long Central · 2%
958Wide → FB · 36%
264Central · 10%
Sequence success — build-up
986build-up sequences this season
7%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
47%turned over with nothing to show
CB1113 · 41%
Long Wide294 · 11%
Long Central65 · 2%
Wide → FB958 · 36%
Central264 · 10%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Hellas Verona build predominantly down the left, with Montipò as the fulcrum (530 build-up passes). Only 37% 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 → LHS def (151×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Hellas Verona’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. 1426 progressive passes across 38 matches (37.5/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
32%
Right half-space
14%
Central
19%
Left half-space
11%
Left wing
23%
Progression is right-dominant: 46% right side · 19% central · 34% left.
Who generates it
Lorenzo Montipò
201 · 14%
Martin Frese
129 · 9%
Antoine Bernede
99 · 7%
Domagoj Bradaric
94 · 7%
Roberto Gagliardini
91 · 6%
Top two — Lorenzo Montipò & Martin Frese — account for 23% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
37.5 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
33% reach final third
19% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 67% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.33% of progressive passes reached the final third and 19% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 23% 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 wingbalanced
Progression — the pass map
The football question
Once Hellas Verona 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.
7094progression passes attempted
79%completed
17%break into the final third
12%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
1804CB · 32%
217Long Wide · 4%
42Long Central · 1%
2787Wide → FB · 50%
739Central · 13%
Sequence success — progression
2090progression sequences this season
22%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
48%turned over with nothing to show
CB1804 · 32%
Long Wide217 · 4%
Long Central42 · 1%
Wide → FB2787 · 50%
Central739 · 13%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Hellas Verona progress predominantly down the right, with Nelsson the busiest midfield outlet (627 progression passes). Only 17% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (72%) is recycled back into midfield or (12%) played backward, the hallmark of a side that carries progression itself through midfield rather than just passing through it. Their most-repeated pattern is RHS mid → RW mid (290×) — 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
52%
Safe / backward
33%
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 Hellas Verona actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
647 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (22% of 2884 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 64m. Most active carrier: Bernede (57). Filter to one player below.
First (198)Second (184)Third (133)Fourth (132)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 Hellas Verona'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.
422shots
36.3xG
0.09xG per shot
16big chances (0.3+ xG)
24goals
#20key passes / game in the league
#20box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition29% of shots
123
10
10.94
0.09
Cross
9
1
1.09
0.12
Cut-back
7
1
0.97
0.14
Long ball
10
1
0.98
0.10
Pass into the box / short pass
60
4
4.73
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
37
3
3.18
0.09
Settled attack56% of shots
237
9
19.32
0.08
Cross
48
3
5.43
0.11
Cut-back
14
2
1.47
0.10
Long ball
10
1
0.68
0.07
Pass into the box / short pass
90
1
7.18
0.08
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
75
2
4.57
0.06
Set piece15% of shots
62
5
6.05
0.10
Corner
47
2
3.37
0.07
Free kick
12
0
0.29
0.02
Penalty
3
3
2.38
0.79
Every attempt to create — and what came of it
Every pass into the box, every cut-back and every pass before a shot. Red led to a shot, gold to a goal; grey ones were tried but no shot came: solid found a team-mate, dashed lost the ball. Filter by outcome, type or player; tap an arrow for the detail.
Who sets the shots up
Player
Set-ups
xG created
Goals
Rafik Belghali
27
2.34
0
Giovane
21
2.25
3
Domagoj Bradaric
21
2.16
1
Martin Frese
19
1.96
0
Antoine Bernede
28
1.75
2
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Gift Orban
85
9.67
7
Giovane
47
3.59
3
Kieron Bowie
33
3.38
4
Suat Serdar
19
2.30
2
Rafik Belghali
21
2.22
2
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Hellas Verona's chances, by xG, is settled attack (19.3 of 36.3 xG, 237 of 422 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 123 of the 422 shots (29%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 62 of the 422 shots came from set pieces; 24 goals from 36.3 xG (-12.3).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Hellas Verona 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
13CB · 5%
23Long Wide · 8%
31Long Central · 11%
96Wide → FB · 35%
112Central · 41%
Sequence success — final-third
1038final-third sequences this season
21%succeed — produce a shot
43%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
CB13 · 5%
Long Wide23 · 8%
Long Central31 · 11%
Wide → FB96 · 35%
Central112 · 41%
Who creates — volume × threat
28Bernede
28Frese
27Bradaric
27Belghali
24Giovane
17Orban
14Gagliardini
275key passes #20 of 23
9.4box entries/game #20 of 23
26.8final-3rd entries/game #19 of 23
0.96xG/game #20 of 23
24goals #20 of 23
-12.3finishing vs xG #22 of 23
◆ Vision AI Insight
Hellas Verona lean right — 44% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (122 of 275), most often from Belghali (16). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via LW att → C att (34 key passes, most often from Frese). Bernede is the primary source overall. They generate 0.96 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Gift Orban (7G), Kieron Bowie (4G), Giovane (3G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Hellas Verona deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
526 crosses: 166 found a team-mate (32%), 57 led to a shot (11%). 77 cut-backs: 37 found a team-mate (48%), 21 led to a shot (27%). 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 Hellas Verona actually cross from?
526 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. 23% come from one territory, the byline right wing; 23 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
byline · right wing
119
23%
15
advanced · right wing
116
22%
11
byline · left wing
96
18%
19
advanced · left wing
91
17%
6
deep · left wing
50
10%
1
deep · right wing
31
6%
4
byline · right half-space
7
1%
0
byline · left half-space
5
1%
1
advanced · right half-space
4
1%
0
deep · right half-space
3
1%
0
deep · left half-space
2
0%
0
advanced · left half-space
2
0%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
422 shots for 36.3 xG (0.96/game, #20 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Low-output attack. 11.1 shots/game at 0.086 xG/shot. Box entries 9/game (#20). Threat created 8.6 xT/game (#22).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Hellas Verona’s 25 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 — 25 goals traced.
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal Hellas Verona scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
19 · 79%
Set pieces
2 · 8%
Penalties
3 · 12%
By finish
Right foot
13 · 54%
Left foot
10 · 42%
Header
1 · 4%
Vision AI Model Insight
24 goals scored. 79% 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
1020
Failed forward pass
719
Failed take-on
315
Lost in the defensive third
1217
Their weakest zone is the right wing in the defensive third: 39% of 549 pass attempts there are lost (213 times). Separately, 27% 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 Hellas Verona 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.
46
Pressing Index /100 · average
Intensity46
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height30
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness46
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption63
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
19%
RHS
22%
C
20%
LHS
20%
LW
19%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 50%
Mid 38%
Att 12%
Read
Ranked #13 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, 53% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#13/23
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
151
#3/23
High-press share
20%
#16/23
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
36.9
#16/23
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
21.2
#11/23
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
53%
#14/23
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
81%
#11/23
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
8.6%
#6/23
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 Hellas Verona win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 1189 opposition possessions that Hellas Verona 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 Hellas Verona step in. Hellas Verona win it after 6.6 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 4.4 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
5.7passes
median 3 · before Hellas Verona win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
18sec
median 9s · 31.3 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
40%
25%
16%
19%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
6.5
20s
15–30′
6.8
20s
30–45+′
6.9
22s
45–60′
5.3
16s
60–75′
4.8
15s
75–90+′
4.1
15s
average passesaverage seconds
Phases of play
Every moment of the match read twice — what Hellas Verona 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.
6,545phase segments analysed
5.0smedian time before the opposition engage
2.0their passes per defensive action when pressed
#12of 20 for share of defending spent pressing high
How Hellas Verona defend when the opponent has it.
High press 6.5%Mid block 10.8%Low block 53.0%Unopposed 29.7%
What opponents do against Hellas Verona
The mirror image, and the part no other section can show: whether teams come
out to press Hellas Verona 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 8.2%Mid block 12.6%Low block 49.1%Unopposed 30.0%
Which phases actually produce
Phase
Segments
Avg length
Avg actions
Ends in shot
Turned over
Build-up
2,175
2.8s
2.2
0.2%
55.5%
Progression
2,801
5.1s
3.3
0.7%
55.5%
Chance creation
1,460
4.9s
2.9
26.4%
56.6%
Attacking transition
109
6.6s
3.9
0.9%
48.6%
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
999
0.4%
progression
971
0.3%
build_up → progression
393
1.0%
chance_creation
386
31.9%
progression → chance_creation
379
28.2%
build_up → progression → chance_creation
159
31.4%
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Hellas Verona 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 Hellas Verona 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) 3,911 passes
riskier, attacking the next line, more direct
Width of use-0.0520.89
Wide-channel share+0.070.31
Side bias-0.020.08
Pass length+1.1626.87
Long-ball share+1.300.36
Forward gain per pass+1.3617.36
Backward-pass share-0.880.16
Deep-pass share+1.280.41
Completion-1.370.68
Seconds between passes+0.373.55
Side used
left 28% · central 46% · right 26%
Progression (middle third) 7,094 passes
riskier, attacking the next line, trying to break lines
Width of use+0.4326.49
Wide-channel share+0.330.43
Side bias-0.42-1.61
Pass length+0.1917.48
Long-ball share+0.740.13
Forward gain per pass+1.035.17
Backward-pass share-0.740.30
Deep-pass share+0.850.20
Completion-1.070.78
Seconds between passes+0.033.21
Side used
left 34% · central 28% · right 38%
Final third 2,904 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use+0.4232.64
Wide-channel share+0.280.61
Side bias-0.71-5.49
Pass length+0.1215.65
Long-ball share+0.580.13
Forward gain per pass+0.341.49
Backward-pass share-0.450.36
Deep-pass share+0.160.09
Completion-0.620.65
Seconds between passes+0.173.53
Side used
left 36% · central 15% · right 49%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Hellas Verona'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 Hellas Verona 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 share20%
#3 of 23 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share17%
#21 of 23 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)12.9s
#2 of 23 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession3.3
#21 of 23
Counter-attack shots /game1.61
#3 of 23 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game2.76
#15 of 23 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain9.7s
#3 of 23 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
141attacking transition sequences this season
21%succeed — produce a shot
40%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
354defensive transition sequences this season
53%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
17%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Hellas Verona are a direct, fast-break side: 20% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#3 of 23), against 17% built patiently over 6+ passes (#21 of 23). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.61 times a game (#3), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 2.76 times a game (#15 of 23) — not yet a major source of chances.
Defending the box2 sections
Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them
The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Hellas Verona? 1793 opponent progressive passes and 513 shots faced (46.6 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Hellas Verona)
Right wing
29%
Right half-space
15%
Central
13%
Left half-space
14%
Left wing
29%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (29% of the danger conceded).
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against Hellas Verona actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Hellas Verona conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Hellas Verona'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 (337 total)
By situation
Open play
47 · 82%
Set pieces
8 · 14%
Penalties
2 · 4%
Vision AI Model Insight
57 goals conceded. 82% come in open play; set pieces account for only 14%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 21% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the left half-space of the attacking third (18% 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
19 g · 30.3 xG
Set pieces
2 g · 3.7 xG
Penalties
3 g
8% of goals come from set pieces (2 of 24), worth 3.7 xG from 59 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Hellas Verona's corners go?
151 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 (90)
Delivered into the box 98%Short 2%
Left side (61)
Delivered into the box 98%Short 2%
Where opponents attack Hellas Verona from set pieces
90 shots from opponent corners against Hellas Verona, 7 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 (45)
Shot 45Goals 3
Left flag (45)
Shot 45Goals 4
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
xG conceded /game — 1.23 (65th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
threat created /game — 8.65 (4th pct)
pass retention % — 73.10 (4th pct)
progression /game — 37.53 (9th pct)
xG created /game — 0.96 (13th pct)
box entries /game — 9.45 (13th 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.
Lecce
95%
Pisa
92%
Cremonese
82%
Genoa
77%
Parma Calcio 1913
76%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Hellas Verona 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 Hellas Verona's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (12m)
0.92
1.33
1.08
vs mid-block opponents (12m)
0.75
1.58
0.42
vs low-block opponents (14m)
0.36
1.86
0.21
Behaviour — how Hellas Verona actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
68%
23%
38
8.4
11.1
vs mid-block opponents
71%
20%
36
8.0
8.2
vs low-block opponents
77%
15%
39
9.4
9.1
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 68% vs 77% against a low block (9pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 23% when pressed vs 15% 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. Hellas Verona are territorially-dominated with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 0.96 xG a game and they concede 1.23 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 Hellas Verona’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 Hellas Verona’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).
+14.6on-ball value, 12 matches
Where the value came from
Passes4178 actions+6.43
Carries924 actions-0.36
Dribbles173 actions-0.31
Shots141 actions+5.04
Ball wins757 actions+3.83
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Kieron Bowie
327
+2.18
+0.67
Rafik Belghali
373
+1.60
+0.43
Martin Frese
408
+1.24
+0.30
Domagoj Bradaric
187
+1.17
+0.63
Lorenzo Montipò
388
+1.09
+0.28
Andrias Edmundsson
599
+1.07
+0.18
Gift Orban
183
+0.91
+0.50
Sandi Lovric
146
+0.90
+0.62
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Domagoj Bradaric · pass
+0.481
2 Sandi Lovric · shot
+0.330
3 Kieron Bowie · shot
+0.314
4 Nicolás Valentini · shot
+0.291
5 Kieron Bowie · shot
+0.260
6 Kieron Bowie · shot
+0.225
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Hellas Verona’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 151 corners taken, most by Domagoj Bradaric (31); 59 shots from corners and free kicks, 2 goals, led by Suat Serdar (1 goals, 0.85 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
Martin Frese
31
30 (97%)
6
—
0.14
3
—
Giovane
29
26 (90%)
4
—
0.13
1
—
Gift Orban
2
2 (100%)
8
—
0.32
7
2/2
Domagoj Bradaric
31
29 (94%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Sandi Lovric
18
16 (89%)
1
—
0.02
—
—
Nicolás Valentini
1
1 (100%)
6
—
0.27
—
—
Tomás Suslov
12
12 (100%)
2
—
0.04
1
—
Victor Nelsson
—
—
6
—
0.35
—
—
Abdou Harroui
11
8 (73%)
—
—
0.00
—
1/1
Roberto Gagliardini
1
0 (0%)
4
—
0.23
—
—
Suat Serdar
—
—
4
1
0.85
—
—
Jean-Daniel Akpa Akpro
—
—
4
1
0.36
—
—
Rafik Belghali
8
6 (75%)
1
—
0.06
—
—
Unai Núñez
—
—
3
—
0.14
—
—
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
Martin Frese
M
2516
1.00
51
29.4
Domagoj Bradaric
M
2054
1.18
39
17.9
Antoine Bernede
M
2367
1.06
31
22.6
Gift Orban
F
2183
0.70
16
5.7
Amin Sarr
F
1276
0.99
16
5.1
Suat Serdar
M
1165
1.00
15
13.3
Abdou Harroui
M
960
1.22
10
7.1
Cheikh Niasse
M
1028
0.88
12
7.1
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)
Daniel Oyegoke
W
630
7 (29%)
12 (0%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Victor Nelsson
D
3491
730
72
68
112
Martin Frese
M
2516
379
84
29
65
Antoine Bernede
M
2367
355
70
14
150
Andrias Edmundsson
D
1388
332
26
27
58
Nicolás Valentini
D
1549
306
31
15
55
Jean-Daniel Akpa Akpro
M
1562
273
44
23
83
Unai Núñez
D
1335
238
24
23
54
Domagoj Bradaric
M
2054
215
30
9
77
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (23 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Victor Nelsson
D
38
3491
0
0.5
2
86
730
23.5
Lorenzo Montipò
G
35
3325
0
0.0
3
201
45
40.7
Martin Frese
M
31
2516
2
1.9
28
129
379
29.4
Antoine Bernede
M
32
2367
1
1.4
28
99
355
22.6
Gift Orban
F
28
2183
7
9.7
17
21
175
5.7
Domagoj Bradaric
M
29
2054
0
0.9
27
94
215
17.9
Jean-Daniel Akpa Akpro
M
22
1562
1
0.9
7
39
273
8.5
Nicolás Valentini
D
21
1549
0
0.9
4
43
306
12.3
Andrias Edmundsson
D
15
1388
0
0.2
2
53
332
12.9
Unai Núñez
D
17
1335
0
0.4
4
60
238
14.4
Amin Sarr
F
34
1276
0
1.5
14
22
188
5.1
Suat Serdar
M
20
1165
2
2.3
13
61
152
13.3
Cheikh Niasse
M
20
1028
0
0.3
10
32
172
7.1
Abdou Harroui
M
23
960
1
1.4
13
34
119
7.1
Al Musrati
M
18
908
0
0.4
7
29
146
9.7
Daniel Mosquera
F
22
675
0
1.1
5
4
100
1.0
Daniel Oyegoke
M
15
630
0
0.1
3
43
90
6.5
Tomás Suslov
M
11
485
0
0.7
4
12
46
3.5
Tobias Slotsager
D
8
483
0
0.2
0
14
99
4.5
Pol Lirola
M
6
320
0
0.0
0
25
39
3.6
Simone Perilli
G
3
281
0
0.0
0
12
2
2.6
Fallou Cham
M
6
245
0
0.4
3
17
41
2.6
Ioan Vermesan
M
6
108
0
0.2
0
2
13
0.4
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.
Victor Nelsson
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes3491
goals · xG0 · 0.5
prog passes /902.2
key passes /900.05
def actions /9018.8
pass accuracy83%
Lorenzo Montipò
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes3325
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /905.4
key passes /900.08
def actions /901.2
pass accuracy52%
Martin Frese
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes2516
goals · xG2 · 1.9
prog passes /904.6
key passes /901.00
def actions /9013.6
pass accuracy67%
Antoine Bernede
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes2367
goals · xG1 · 1.4
prog passes /903.8
key passes /901.06
def actions /9013.5
pass accuracy76%
Gift Orban
Box-to-box midfielder · Midfielder
minutes2183
goals · xG7 · 9.7
prog passes /900.9
key passes /900.70
def actions /907.2
pass accuracy70%
Domagoj Bradaric
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes2054
goals · xG0 · 0.9
prog passes /904.1
key passes /901.18
def actions /909.4
pass accuracy68%
Jean-Daniel Akpa Akpro
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes1562
goals · xG1 · 0.9
prog passes /902.2
key passes /900.40
def actions /9015.7
pass accuracy72%
Nicolás Valentini
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes1549
goals · xG0 · 0.9
prog passes /902.5
key passes /900.23
def actions /9017.8
pass accuracy70%
Andrias Edmundsson
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes1388
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /903.4
key passes /900.13
def actions /9021.5
pass accuracy75%
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: threat created /game (4th pct)
Sign a threat-generating creator between the lines. The data flags this because little threat is manufactured (8.65, 4th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: pass retention % (4th pct)
Sign a secure ball-retaining midfielder. The data flags this because possession is turned over cheaply (73.10, 4th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: progression /game (9th pct)
Sign a progressive passer / ball-carrier to break lines. The data flags this because progression is limited (37.53, 9th percentile vs the league).
