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

Lecce

A territorially-dominated side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Currently #12 of 20 on 9 points (3-0-5, 9:14). Tactical profile below is built from 8 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.

territorially-dominatedaggressive high-pressmoderate attack
L
D
D
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
W
L
9
points
#12 of 20 · 8 games
9:14
goals
-5 GD
3-0-5
record
W-D-L
1.12
points/game
#12 in the league
1.28
xG for/game
rank #14
1.55
xG against/game
rank #12
#7
press rank
of 20 · most aggressive
44%
field tilt
#16
Lecce
League average
Expected goals for / game
1.281.43
Expected goals against / game
1.551.43
Field tilt
44%50%
Pass retention
76%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 Lecce and how good was the season?
Read. Lecce currently sit #12 of 20 on 9 points (3W-0D-5L, 1.12 pts/game), scoring 9 and conceding 14 for a goal difference of -5. On the ball they are a territorially-dominated team (44% field tilt, #16 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#7 of 20 for press intensity). Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 1.28 xG/game (#14) and concede 1.55 (#12), a net of -0.27 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.

Season Context — the league table

The question
Where did Lecce actually finish, and against whom?

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

#teamPWDLGFGAGDPts
9Cagliari9414813-513
10Napoli83231310+311
11Atalanta83141415-110
12Lecce8305914-59
13Bologna8224810-28
14Sassuolo92251422-88
15Monza82151518-37

Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger

The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Lecce actually dominate for chances — and which periods hurt them?

Net xG (created minus conceded) in each 15-minute window, summed across the whole season's matches — above the line is time they dominate for chances, below is time it hurts them. Real on-clock shot timing.

dominant (net xG for)conceding (net xG against)
even0-15'16-30'31-45'46-60'61-75'76-90+'+1.40-2.02
Vision AI Model Insight
Lecce tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG -1.88, second-half -0.32. Their strongest period is 76-90+' (net +1.40 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 16-30' (net -2.02 xG against them).

xG Race — the season, match by match

Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Lecce 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 (-2.2 xG). Hover a point for that match.

0491310.212.4Venezia (A) 2-0 · xG 1.96 to 1.85Roma (H) 0-4 · xG 1.18 to 2.15Cagliari (A) 0-1 · xG 0.71 to 1.31Monza (H) 3-2 · xG 0.94 to 2.52AC Milan (A) 0-3 · xG 0.30 to 1.39Bologna (H) 1-2 · xG 1.15 to 1.83Udinese (A) 3-0 · xG 2.93 to 0.60Juventus (H) 0-2 · xG 1.04 to 0.77M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8
LecceOpponents against Lecce

Tactical DNA

The football question
In five genes, what is Lecce'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.

12
Build-Up
possession control from the back
20
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
22
Creation
manufacturing chances
42
Press
winning the ball high & hard
40
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Lecce are defined most by their Press DNA (42/100 · average at winning the ball high & hard), and least by their Build-Up 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).

Possess14Disrupt59Finish35Press72Defend57
Possess
Deep buildup
0%
Possession
9%
Field tilt
35%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
57%
Dribble tendency
96%
Progressive passes
26%
Finish
Final-third patience
83%
Shot quality
17%
Open-play xG
4%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
61%
High regains
65%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
91%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
65%
High line ~proxy
48%
PAdj defensive actions
57%
Lecce is defined most by Press (72% in the league) and weakest on Possess (14%). 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 Lecce actually control, relative to the rest of the league?

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

Lazio: 56% tilt, 2.78 pts/gInter: 69% tilt, 2.75 pts/gRoma: 64% tilt, 2.33 pts/gAC Milan: 52% tilt, 2.25 pts/gComo: 62% tilt, 2.22 pts/gJuventus: 65% tilt, 1.75 pts/gFrosinone: 50% tilt, 1.75 pts/gTorino: 40% tilt, 1.44 pts/gCagliari: 33% tilt, 1.44 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: 47% tilt, 0.89 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/gLecce33%45%57%69%0.41.22.02.8FIELD TILT %POINTS / GAME
Vision AI Model Insight
Lecce post 44% field tilt, ranking #16 of 20 in the league — below the league mid-point, spending more of the game defending their own territory than dictating it, and their 1.12 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 Lecce has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?

The share of Lecce'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: 25.6% of the time on the ball26%Progression: 50.2% of the time on the ball50%Chance creation: 21.9% of the time on the ball22%Attacking transition: 2.3% of the time on the ball50%PROGRESSION
PhaseShare of the time
Build-up25.6%
Progression50.2%
Chance creation21.9%
Attacking transition2.3%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Lecce spends most of its time on the ball (50% 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.

Danilo Veiga ↔ Kialonda Gaspar: 68 passes, 0.6 combined xTDanilo Veiga ↔ Oumar Ngom: 48 passes, 0.5 combined xTAntonino Gallo ↔ Tiago Gabriel: 47 passes, 0.2 combined xTSantiago Pierotti ↔ Danilo Veiga: 46 passes, 1.0 combined xTWladimiro Falcone ↔ Tiago Gabriel: 43 passes, 0.1 combined xTLassana Coulibaly ↔ Danilo Veiga: 43 passes, 1.2 combined xTKialonda Gaspar ↔ Tiago Gabriel: 43 passes, -0.1 combined xTYoussef Maleh ↔ Antonino Gallo: 37 passes, 0.1 combined xTIvan Ilic ↔ Kialonda Gaspar: 36 passes, 0.2 combined xTWladimiro Falcone ↔ Jamil Siebert: 35 passes, 0.3 combined xTKonan N’Dri ↔ Danilo Veiga: 35 passes, 1.7 combined xTIvan Ilic ↔ Tiago Gabriel: 35 passes, -0.1 combined xTWladimiro Falcone ↔ Kialonda Gaspar: 33 passes, -0.4 combined xTJamil Siebert ↔ Tiago Gabriel: 32 passes, -0.1 combined xTJamil Siebert ↔ Danilo Veiga: 31 passes, 0.5 combined xTYoussef Maleh ↔ Ivan Ilic: 30 passes, 0.2 combined xTJamil Siebert ↔ Kialonda Gaspar: 30 passes, 0.1 combined xTWladimiro Falcone ↔ Antonino Gallo: 28 passes, -0.1 combined xTLassana Coulibaly ↔ Santiago Pierotti: 27 passes, -0.0 combined xTLassana Coulibaly ↔ Jamil Siebert: 27 passes, 0.0 combined xTLassana Coulibaly ↔ Oumar Ngom: 26 passes, 0.2 combined xTIvan Ilic ↔ Danilo Veiga: 26 passes, 0.2 combined xTLassana Coulibaly ↔ Youssef Maleh: 23 passes, 0.7 combined xTYoussef Maleh ↔ Jamil Siebert: 23 passes, -0.1 combined xTWladimiro Falcone — isolate this player's connectionsFalconeYoussef Maleh — isolate this player's connectionsMalehKonan N’Dri — isolate this player's connectionsN’DriJamil Siebert — isolate this player's connectionsSiebertDanilo Veiga — isolate this player's connectionsVeigaOumar Ngom — isolate this player's connectionsNgomAmar Fatah — isolate this player's connectionsFatahSantiago Pierotti — isolate this player's connectionsPierottiAntonino Gallo — isolate this player's connectionsGalloLassana Coulibaly — isolate this player's connectionsCoulibalyTiago Gabriel — isolate this player's connectionsGabrielJoël Monteiro — isolate this player's connectionsMonteiroKialonda Gaspar — isolate this player's connectionsGasparNikola Stulic — isolate this player's connectionsStulicWillem Geubbels — isolate this player's connectionsGeubbelsIvan Ilic — isolate this player's connectionsIlic
width = passes between the paircolour = xT per pass: low → high

Top 10 combinations

Veiga ↔ Gaspar
68p · 0.6xT
Veiga ↔ Ngom
48p · 0.5xT
Gallo ↔ Gabriel
47p · 0.2xT
Pierotti ↔ Veiga
46p · 1.0xT
Falcone ↔ Gabriel
43p · 0.1xT
Coulibaly ↔ Veiga
43p · 1.2xT
Gaspar ↔ Gabriel
43p · -0.1xT
Maleh ↔ Gallo
37p · 0.1xT
Ilic ↔ Gaspar
36p · 0.2xT
Falcone ↔ Siebert
35p · 0.3xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Danilo Veiga ↔ Kialonda Gaspar (68 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Konan N’Dri ↔ Danilo Veiga (0.05 xT/pass over 35 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.

Touch Density — where Lecce had the ball

Every touch across 83 matches. Brighter means more touches.

Which Zones Do They Attack Through?

The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Lecce 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
3093
ACTIONS
4%6%12%4%3%11%10%12%10%10%6%3%2%3%5%PASSES
Carries
the ball moved with a player
674
ACTIONS
2%4%13%5%3%11%9%11%12%9%6%2%2%3%6%CARRIES
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (11.9% 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: 29% defensive, 52% middle, 19% 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. Lecce leaned on their right (39%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.

37%Left side23%Middle39%Right sideATTACKING →
Lecce
37%23%39%
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. Lecce made 268 this season (33.5 a match); 33% 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: 63 entries (24%)6324%LEFT WINGLeft half-space: 47 entries (18%)4718%LEFT HALF-SPACECentre: 35 entries (13%)3513%CENTRERight half-space: 35 entries (13%)3513%RIGHT HALF-SPACERight wing: 88 entries (33%)8833%RIGHT WINGATTACKING ↑
ChannelEntriesPer matchShareLeague share
Left wing637.924%29%
Left half-space475.918%15%
Centre354.413%13%
Right half-space354.413%16%
Right wing8811.033%28%
Build-up2 sections

Build-Up — the pass map

The football question
How does Lecce 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.

916build-up passes attempted
73%completed
38%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third

Pass types

274CB · 41%
67Long Wide · 10%
12Long Central · 2%
235Wide → FB · 35%
80Central · 12%

Sequence success — build-up

59build-up sequences this season
2%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
42%turned over with nothing to show
CB274 · 41%
right: 147 passes, most from Gaspar147left: 127 passes, most from Gabriel127
Long Wide67 · 10%
left: 39 passes, most from Falcone39right: 28 passes, most from Falcone28
Long Central12 · 2%
left: 6 passes, most from Falcone6right: 6 passes, most from Falcone6
Wide → FB235 · 35%
right: 128 passes, most from Falcone128left: 107 passes, most from Falcone107
Central80 · 12%
right: 44 passes, most from Falcone44left: 36 passes, most from Falcone36
◆ Vision AI Insight
Lecce build predominantly down the right, with Falcone as the fulcrum (151 build-up passes). Only 40% 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 RHS def → C def (43×).

Pass Explorer

Every pass of Lecce’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. 339 progressive passes across 8 matches (42.4/game).

Origin lane

Right wing
32%
Right half-space
10%
Central
18%
Left half-space
13%
Left wing
27%
Progression is right-dominant: 42% right side · 18% central · 40% left.

Who generates it

Danilo Veiga
68 · 20%
Antonino Gallo
45 · 13%
Wladimiro Falcone
45 · 13%
Jamil Siebert
26 · 8%
Konan N’Dri
18 · 5%
Top two — Danilo Veiga & Antonino Gallo — account for 33% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
42.4 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
28% reach final third
19% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 72% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it. 28% of progressive passes reached the final third and 19% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 33% 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-spacesterile
Centralbalanced
Left half-spacesterile
Left wingbalanced

Progression — the pass map

The football question
Once Lecce 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.

1605progression passes attempted
82%completed
15%break into the final third
10%go backward into the defensive third

Pass types

291CB · 22%
56Long Wide · 4%
12Long Central · 1%
749Wide → FB · 57%
208Central · 16%

Sequence success — progression

120progression sequences this season
22%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
45%turned over with nothing to show
CB291 · 22%
left: 148 passes, most from Gabriel148right: 143 passes, most from Gaspar143
Long Wide56 · 4%
left: 31 passes, most from Gallo31right: 25 passes, most from Veiga25
Long Central12 · 1%
left: 7 passes, most from Gallo7right: 5 passes, most from Veiga5
Wide → FB749 · 57%
right: 382 passes, most from Veiga382left: 367 passes, most from Gallo367
Central208 · 16%
right: 106 passes, most from Ngom106left: 102 passes, most from Ngom102
◆ Vision AI Insight
Lecce progress predominantly down the right, with Veiga the busiest midfield outlet (146 progression passes). Only 15% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (74%) is recycled back into midfield or (10%) 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 (73×) — 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)
15%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
52%
Safe / backward
32%
16% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 84% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.

Carries Map — progressive ball-carries, squad-wide

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

193 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (29% of 674 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 53m. Most active carrier: N’Dri (23). Filter to one player below.

First (71)Second (43)Third (42)Fourth (37)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 Lecce'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.

94shots
10.2xG
0.11xG per shot
9big chances (0.3+ xG)
9goals
#20key passes / game in the league
#17box entries / game in the league
Attacking transition: 28 shots (30%)30%28Settled attack: 47 shots (50%)50%47Set piece: 19 shots (20%)20%1994SHOTS
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set upShotsGoalsxGxG / shot
Attacking transition 30% of shots2813.000.11
Cross200.190.10
Long ball100.090.09
Pass into the box / short pass1101.550.14
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)1411.170.08
Settled attack 50% of shots4734.490.10
Cross921.020.11
Cut-back210.120.06
Long ball100.210.21
Pass into the box / short pass2001.760.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)1501.380.09
Set piece 20% of shots1952.730.14
Corner1752.670.16
Free kick200.060.03

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
Danilo Veiga100.972
Youssef Maleh40.760
Amar Fatah20.500
Antonino Gallo50.490
Santiago Pierotti20.450

Who takes them

PlayerShotsxGGoals
Willem Geubbels112.100
Konan N’Dri121.241
Lassana Coulibaly91.022
Tiago Gabriel60.972
Nikola Stulic50.870
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Lecce's chances, by xG, is settled attack (4.5 of 10.2 xG, 47 of 94 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 28 of the 94 shots (30%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 19 of the 94 shots came from set pieces; 9 goals from 10.2 xG (-1.2).

Chance Creation — the pass map

The football question
How does Lecce 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

5CB · 9%
3Long Wide · 5%
12Long Central · 21%
18Wide → FB · 32%
18Central · 32%

Sequence success — final-third

61final-third sequences this season
15%succeed — produce a shot
46%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
CB5 · 9%
left: 4 passes, most from Siebert4
Long Wide3 · 5%
left: 2 passes, most from Monteiro2
Long Central12 · 21%
left: 10 passes, most from Veiga10right: 2 passes, most from Maleh2
Wide → FB18 · 32%
left: 11 passes, most from Coulibaly11right: 7 passes, most from Veiga7
Central18 · 32%
right: 12 passes, most from Veiga12left: 6 passes, most from Ngom6

Who creates — volume × threat

12Veiga
6Gallo
5Maleh
5Coulibaly
3Fatah
3Siebert
3Monteiro
56key passes #20 of 20
9.6box entries/game #17 of 20
26.8final-3rd entries/game #18 of 20
1.28xG/game #14 of 20
9goals #13 of 20
-1.2finishing vs xG #14 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Lecce lean right — 54% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (30 of 56), most often from Veiga (12). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via RW att → C att (12 key passes, most often from Veiga). Veiga is the primary source overall. They generate 1.28 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Lassana Coulibaly (2G), Tiago Gabriel (2G), Olaf Gorter (1G).

Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide

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

101 crosses: 33 found a team-mate (33%), 12 led to a shot (12%). 15 cut-backs: 5 found a team-mate (33%), 3 led to a shot (20%). 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 Lecce actually cross from?

101 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. 27% come from one territory, the byline right wing; 2 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.

deep right wing: 5 crosses (5%)5%5deep right half-space: 2 crosses (2%)2%2deep centre: 0 crosses (0%)deep left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)deep left wing: 9 crosses (9%)9%9advanced right wing: 24 crosses (24%)24%24advanced right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)advanced centre: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)advanced left wing: 16 crosses (16%)16%16byline right wing: 27 crosses (27%)27%27byline right half-space: 0 crosses (0%)byline centre: 0 crosses (0%)byline left half-space: 0 crosses (0%)byline left wing: 18 crosses (18%)18%18
TerritoryCrossesShareLed to a shot
byline · right wing2727%5
advanced · right wing2424%3
byline · left wing1818%1
advanced · left wing1616%1
deep · left wing99%0
deep · right wing55%0
deep · right half-space22%2
Finishing3 sections

Shot Map

94 shots for 10.2 xG (1.28/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. 11.8 shots/game at 0.109 xG/shot. Box entries 10/game (#17). Threat created 9.3 xT/game (#18).

Goal Sequences

The move behind each of Lecce’s 9 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 — 9 goals traced.

How Do They Score?

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

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

By situation

Open play
4 · 44%
Set pieces
5 · 56%
Penalties
0 · 0%

By finish

Right foot
3 · 33%
Left foot
0 · 0%
Header
5 · 56%
Other
1 · 11%
Vision AI Model Insight
9 goals scored. 44% come in open play, but 56% from set pieces — a genuine dead-ball weapon that bypasses the open-play build-up.
When they lose it1 section

Ball-Loss Map — where attacks die

Every turnover has a location and a cause. This is a rate, not a raw count — the share of pass attempts from each zone that end in a turnover, so a zone they simply play through more often doesn't automatically look riskier. Grey cells are real zones with too few attempts to trust a rate.

Loss rate by zone

41 of 122 pass attempts lost here (34%).34%41/122Veiga39 of 191 pass attempts lost here (20%).20%39/191Falcone98 of 363 pass attempts lost here (27%).27%98/363Falcone18 of 135 pass attempts lost here (13%).13%18/135Falcone52 of 105 pass attempts lost here (50%).50%52/105Gallo83 of 340 pass attempts lost here (24%).24%83/340Veiga41 of 298 pass attempts lost here (14%).14%41/298Ngom46 of 357 pass attempts lost here (13%).13%46/357Ngom44 of 304 pass attempts lost here (14%).14%44/304Ngom75 of 306 pass attempts lost here (25%).25%75/306Gallo61 of 177 pass attempts lost here (34%).34%61/177Veiga43 of 90 pass attempts lost here (48%).48%43/90N’Dri22 of 68 pass attempts lost here (32%).32%22/68Pierotti32 of 80 pass attempts lost here (40%).40%32/80Monteiro56 of 157 pass attempts lost here (36%).36%56/157Galloattacking →

How they lose it

Incomplete pass — attacking third
214
Failed forward pass
140
Failed take-on
95
Lost in the defensive third
248
Their weakest zone is the left wing in the defensive third: 50% of 105 pass attempts there are lost (52 times). Separately, 28% 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 Lecce 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.

77
Pressing Index
/100 · strong
Intensity77
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height80
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness88
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
22%
RHS
26%
C
21%
LHS
17%
LW
14%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 42%
Mid 42%
Att 16%
Read
Ranked #7 of 20 for press intensity, this is a high press. 58% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 40. Of recoveries, 61% are won high up the pitch.

Every pressing metric, ranked in the league

metricvaluerankmeaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)—#7/20lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game169#2/20
High-press share23%#4/20def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)40.4#4/20avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game26.4#2/20ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share61%#2/20share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed83%#11/20lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed8.4%#6/20of 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 Lecce win it back with a defensive action?

Counted over the 263 opposition possessions that Lecce 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 Lecce step in. Lecce win it after 6.4 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 5.1 after the hour mark (sooner).

PASSES THEY GET
5.6passes
median 4 · before Lecce win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
17sec
median 12s · 32.9 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
35%
28%
18%
19%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
6.3
20s
15–30′
6.4
19s
30–45+′
6.2
18s
45–60′
4.6
14s
60–75′
5.2
15s
75–90+′
5.0
16s
average passesaverage seconds

Attitude in each third

Every other style number here says how much Lecce 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 Lecce 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) 916 passes

trying to break lines, less recycling, attacking the next line

Width of use-0.3320.32
Wide-channel share-0.540.27
Side bias-0.50-1.72
Pass length+0.7725.46
Long-ball share+0.950.32
Forward gain per pass+1.0015.77
Backward-pass share-1.030.15
Deep-pass share+1.080.39
Completion-0.970.71
Seconds between passes+0.913.88
Side used

left 24% · central 47% · right 30%

Progression (middle third) 1,605 passes

nothing unusual in this zone

Width of use+0.1925.98
Wide-channel share+0.310.43
Side bias-0.31-1.16
Pass length-0.4216.63
Long-ball share-0.060.10
Forward gain per pass+0.554.43
Backward-pass share-0.540.31
Deep-pass share+0.370.18
Completion-0.440.82
Seconds between passes-0.443.00
Side used

left 34% · central 29% · right 37%

Final third 572 passes

riskier

Width of use+0.2532.22
Wide-channel share+0.120.60
Side bias-0.17-1.69
Pass length+0.5616.34
Long-ball share+0.750.13
Forward gain per pass+0.561.79
Backward-pass share-0.470.36
Deep-pass share+0.480.11
Completion-0.950.62
Seconds between passes+0.473.75
Side used

left 40% · central 16% · right 44%

Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Lecce'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 Lecce 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 share19%
#2 of 20 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share17%
#19 of 20 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)13.5s
#2 of 20 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession3.3
#19 of 20
Counter-attack shots /game1.00
#11 of 20 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game3.11
#7 of 20 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain9.6s
#2 of 20 · lower = faster break

Sequence success — attacking transition

6attacking transition sequences this season
17%succeed — produce a shot
50%turned over with nothing to show

Sequence success — defensive transition

18defensive transition sequences this season
56%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
6%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Lecce are a direct, fast-break side: 19% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#2 of 20), against 17% built patiently over 6+ passes (#19 of 20). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.00 times a game (#11), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 3.11 times a game (#7 of 20) — a modest but real source of chances.
Defending the box2 sections

Vulnerability Map — how opponents hurt them

The report flipped: where do opponents create their threat against Lecce? 380 opponent progressive passes and 115 shots faced (12.4 xG against) across the season.

Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Lecce)

Right wing
21%
Right half-space
13%
Central
17%
Left half-space
19%
Left wing
30%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the left wing (30% of the danger conceded).

How Do They Concede?

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

Every goal Lecce conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Lecce'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 (81 total)

1%1%10%6%1%7%17%16%20%20%Zé PedroJacopo FazziniJacopo FazziniDaniel MaldiniJacopo FazziniMichel AdopoMattia FeliciPaul MendyAdam ObertAlieu FaderaAlessandro RomanoRaphael KoflerRoberto GagliardiniJoël SchingtiennePaulo DybalaThierry CorreiaRidgeciano HapsJohn YeboahKike PérezGianluca BusioToma BasicJohn YeboahAntoine HainautToma BasicToma BasicGustavo VarelaSamuele BirindelliEbenezer AkinsanmiroRicardo MangasGustavo VarelaAndrea ColpaniMichael FolorunshoEbenezer AkinsanmiroSamuele BirindelliSamuele BirindelliOmari ForsonManu KonéWesleyDonyell MalenEmanuele LulliPaulo DybalaManu KonéPaulo DybalaMatías SouléManu KonéRodrigo MoraGianluca ManciniEmanuele LulliPaulo DybalaLuka ModricMërgim VojvodaJurgen EkkelenkampMërgim VojvodaMërgim VojvodaJesper KarlströmOumar SoletOumar SoletJurgen EkkelenkampJuan ArizalaMërgim VojvodaJurgen EkkelenkampJurgen EkkelenkampDouglas LuizDouglas LuizAndrea CambiasoFederico GattiPape Matar SarrJhon LucumíChristian PulisicAlexis SaelemaekersGonçalo RamosStrahinja PavlovicNicolò CambiaghiRoberto PiccoliNicolò CambiaghiNicolò CambiaghiRiccardo OrsoliniOussama El AzzouziNicolò CambiaghiNicolò CambiaghiChristian Pulisic← own goal

By situation

Open play
12 · 86%
Set pieces
2 · 14%
Penalties
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
14 goals conceded. 86% come in open play; set pieces account for only 14%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 7% 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 (20% 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
4 g · 7.5 xG
Set pieces
5 g · 2.7 xG
Penalties
0 g
56% of goals come from set pieces (5 of 9), worth 2.7 xG from 19 shots. A genuine set-piece weapon — defend the box seriously.

Where do Lecce's corners go?

36 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 (21)

10%10%10%14%5%19%19%10%5%
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%

Left side (15)

33%13%7%7%13%13%
Delivered into the box 87%Short 13%

Where opponents attack Lecce from set pieces

14 shots from opponent corners against Lecce, 1 conceded, split by the flag the corner came from — arrows from the flag, dots where the shot was taken (gold = goal), shaded by the % of that flag's shots in each zone. Tap or hover a shot for who took it, the minute and the match; filter to one match and the shading recomputes for just that game.

Right flag (6)

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

Left flag (8)

12%12%38%38%
Shot 8Goals 1

Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses

Strengths (top-third vs league)
  • press intensity (PPDA) — 5.32 (65th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
  • pass retention % — 75.72 (5th pct)
  • threat created /game — 9.26 (10th pct)
  • box entries /game — 9.62 (15th pct)
  • field tilt % — 43.54 (20th pct)
  • shots /game — 11.75 (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.

Monza
85%
Fiorentina
81%
Frosinone
78%
Genoa
75%
Parma Calcio 1913
65%

Performance vs Opponent Styles

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

Results

opponent typegoals for/ggoals against/gpoints/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)2.500.003.00
vs mid-block opponents (2m)1.503.001.50
vs low-block opponents (4m)0.252.000.00

Behaviour — how Lecce actually play against each

opponent typeretentiondirectness (long balls)prog. passes/gxT/gbox entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents69%19%397.49.5
vs mid-block opponents74%19%347.94.0
vs low-block opponents78%15%4810.812.5
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 69% vs 78% against a low block (9pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 19% 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. Lecce are territorially-dominated with a aggressive high-press. Their attack creates 1.28 xG a game and they concede 1.55 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 Lecce’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.

Lecce
across 8 matches this season
Expected goalsat Udinese · 3-0 · 2026-10-182.93avg 1.28
Passesat Cagliari · 0-1 · 2026-09-07564avg 387
Progressive passesvs Roma · 0-4 · 2026-08-3126avg 42
Field tiltvs Bologna · 1-2 · 2026-10-1164%avg 44%
Progressive carriesat Cagliari · 0-1 · 2026-09-0757avg 36
PPDAvs Roma · 0-4 · 2026-08-318.6avg 5.3
Threat from passingvs Bologna · 1-2 · 2026-10-118.21avg 5.78
Defensive actionsvs Monza · 3-2 · 2026-09-13201avg 169

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 Lecce’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).

+13.7on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes3093 actions+5.69
Carries674 actions+0.12
Dribbles147 actions-0.39
Shots94 actions+5.52
Ball wins515 actions+2.73
Most on-ball value (OBV)ActionsOBVper 100
Wladimiro Falcone341+1.90+0.56
Konan N’Dri237+1.53+0.65
Kialonda Gaspar316+1.27+0.40
Willem Geubbels88+1.25+1.42
Tiago Gabriel312+0.95+0.30
Danilo Veiga466+0.88+0.19
Jamil Siebert304+0.87+0.29
Amar Fatah136+0.79+0.58
123456
Biggest single movesOBV
1  Tiago Gabriel · shot+0.646
2  Konan N’Dri · shot+0.629
3  Wladimiro Falcone · pass_fail+0.538
4  Danilo Veiga · pass+0.468
5  Kialonda Gaspar · shot+0.390
6  Kialonda Gaspar · pass+0.375

Set Pieces by Player

Who delivers Lecce’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 36 corners taken, most by Youssef Maleh (12); 19 shots from corners and free kicks, 5 goals, led by Tiago Gabriel (2 goals, 0.80 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
Lassana Coulibaly——510.28——
Ivan Ilic97 (78%)1—0.031—
Youssef Maleh1210 (83%)——0.00——
Kialonda Gaspar——410.78——
Oumar Ngom——3—0.081—
Tiago Gabriel——320.80——
Antonino Gallo77 (100%)——0.00——
Danilo Veiga32 (67%)——0.00——
Willem Geubbels——1—0.06——
Jamil Siebert——1—0.07——
Konan N’Dri——110.63——
Olaf Gorter22 (100%)——0.00——
Medon Berisha22 (100%)——0.00——
Amar Fatah11 (100%)——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
Wladimiro FalconeGK7547.4Shot-Stopping 74%
Tiago GabrielCB5035.5Ball-Winning 58%Breaking Pressure 52%Aerial & Box Defending 44%Ball-Carrying 38%
Danilo VeigaFB7544.5Ball-Winning 67%Breaking Pressure 53%Wide Delivery 34%Ball-Carrying 6%
Jamil SiebertCB5633.9Breaking Pressure 69%Aerial & Box Defending 46%Ball-Winning 35%Progression 34%
Lassana CoulibalyCM6073.5Successful Dribble 64%Ball-Carrying 41%Progression 16%Chance Creation 7%
Antonino GalloFB6113.4Ball-Winning 39%Breaking Pressure 36%Wide Delivery 31%Ball-Carrying 12%
Kialonda GasparCB5333.0Breaking Pressure 51%Aerial & Box Defending 44%Ball-Winning 33%Progression 19%
Oumar NgomCM5092.8Successful Dribble 53%Ball-Carrying 30%Progression 16%Chance Creation 14%
Youssef MalehCM5211.0Chance Creation 32%Progression 21%Successful Dribble 18%Ball-Carrying 11%
Santiago PierottiW4580.8Ball-Carrying 23%Box Threat 5%Chance Creation 3%Wide Delivery 0%

Top Creators

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

playerposminkey P /90box entriesxT
Danilo VeigaD7541.431612.8
Antonino GalloD6110.88138.7
Youssef MalehM5210.86113.4
Konan N’DriF4120.6672.7
Lassana CoulibalyM6070.7443.2
Amar FatahF3120.8741.8
Ivan IlicM2581.0534.1
Santiago PierottiF4580.3932.4

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)
Danilo VeigaFB75417 (18%)5 (40%)
Antonino GalloFB61114 (29%)3 (0%)
Konan N’DriW4123 (67%)6 (17%)
Santiago PierottiW4581 (0%)1 (0%)
Joël MonteiroW2851 (100%)1 (0%)
Amar FatahW31201 (100%)

Defensive Volume Leaders

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

playerposmindef actionstacklesinterceptrecoveries
Danilo VeigaD75415422930
Jamil SiebertD56312716924
Tiago GabrielD503114141016
Kialonda GasparD53311318514
Oumar NgomM50911015840
Lassana CoulibalyM6071019436
Santiago PierottiF4589213334
Antonino GalloD6119011726

Full Squad Data

Every player with 100+ minutes (20 players).

playerposappsmingoalsxGkey PprogdefxT
Wladimiro FalconeG875400.0045229.2
Danilo VeigaD875400.0126815412.8
Antonino GalloD761100.0645908.7
Lassana CoulibalyM760721.05121013.2
Jamil SiebertD856310.43261275.6
Kialonda GasparD653310.8171134.0
Youssef MalehM852100.4512703.4
Oumar NgomM850900.23161105.0
Tiago GabrielD750321.01171144.4
Santiago PierottiF745800.4210922.4
Konan N’DriF841211.2318802.7
Amar FatahF731210.5311331.8
Willem GeubbelsF529902.125380.8
Nikola StulicF628600.912300.2
Joël MonteiroF628500.3310591.7
Ivan IlicM525800.1314314.1
Corrie NdabaM317800.0012232.3
Paco EstebanF517800.511230.2
Mohamed KabaM413200.106241.1
Olaf GorterM210510.11190.4

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.

Wladimiro Falcone
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes754
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /905.4
key passes /900.00
def actions /902.6
pass accuracy58%
Danilo Veiga
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes754
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /908.1
key passes /901.43
def actions /9018.4
pass accuracy72%
Antonino Gallo
Ball-playing defender · Defender
minutes611
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /906.6
key passes /900.88
def actions /9013.3
pass accuracy62%
Lassana Coulibaly
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes607
goals · xG2 · 1.0
prog passes /901.8
key passes /900.74
def actions /9015.0
pass accuracy81%
Jamil Siebert
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes563
goals · xG1 · 0.4
prog passes /904.2
key passes /900.48
def actions /9020.3
pass accuracy81%
Kialonda Gaspar
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes533
goals · xG1 · 0.8
prog passes /901.2
key passes /900.17
def actions /9019.1
pass accuracy87%
Youssef Maleh
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes521
goals · xG0 · 0.4
prog passes /902.1
key passes /900.86
def actions /9012.1
pass accuracy78%
Oumar Ngom
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes509
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /902.8
key passes /900.53
def actions /9019.4
pass accuracy80%
Tiago Gabriel
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes503
goals · xG2 · 1.0
prog passes /903.0
key passes /900.18
def actions /9020.4
pass accuracy94%

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: pass retention % (5th pct)
Sign a secure ball-retaining midfielder. The data flags this because possession is turned over cheaply (75.72, 5th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: threat created /game (10th pct)
Sign a threat-generating creator between the lines. The data flags this because little threat is manufactured (9.26, 10th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: box entries /game (15th pct)
Sign a penetrative wide player or runner to create box entries. The data flags this because few entries into the box (9.62, 15th percentile vs the league).
Vision AI · building report