A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Currently #20 of 20 on 3 points (1-0-7, 6:17). Tactical profile below is built from 8 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.
In one read, what kind of team is Venezia and how good was the season?
Read. Venezia currently sit #20 of 20 on 3 points (1W-0D-7L, 0.38 pts/game), scoring 6 and conceding 17 for a goal difference of -11.
On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (54% field tilt, #8 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#4 of 23 for press intensity).
Across the 8 matches of event data, they create 1.48 xG/game (#7) and concede 1.92 (#22), a net of -0.44 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Venezia actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Venezia.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
17
Udinese
8
1
1
6
9
18
-9
4
18
Fiorentina
8
1
1
6
9
19
-10
4
19
Parma Calcio 1913
8
1
1
6
5
15
-10
4
20
Venezia
8
1
0
7
6
17
-11
3
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Venezia 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
Venezia tend to come alive after the break — first-half net xG -2.47, second-half -1.02. Their strongest period is 61-75' (net +0.33 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 76-90+' (net -1.60 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 8 matches: Venezia 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 (-3.5 xG). Hover a point for that match.
VeneziaOpponents against Venezia
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Venezia'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.
67
Build-Up
possession control from the back
74
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
67
Creation
manufacturing chances
74
Press
winning the ball high & hard
4
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Venezia are defined most by their Press DNA (74/100 · strong at winning the ball high & hard), and least by their Solidity DNA (4/100). 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
74%
Possession
74%
Field tilt
65%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
91%
Dribble tendency
52%
Progressive passes
74%
Finish
Final-third patience
65%
Shot quality
70%
Open-play xG
78%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
83%
High regains
78%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
26%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
48%
High line ~proxy
70%
PAdj defensive actions
83%
Venezia is defined most by Disrupt (72% in the league) and weakest on Press (62%). 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 Venezia actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Venezia'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; Venezia highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Venezia post 54% field tilt, ranking #8 of 23 in the league — comfortably above the league mid-point for territorial control, and their 0.38 points/game sits below the league-average return — a real disconnect: their territorial control isn't showing up on the scoreboard the way it should.
Where the time goes — how long each phase lasts
The question
When Venezia has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Venezia'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
29.9%
Progression
42.6%
Chance creation
25.0%
Attacking transition
2.5%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Venezia spends most of its time on the ball (43% 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
Pérez ↔ Hainaut
126p · 2.9xT
Jesus ↔ Moreno
84p · -0.6xT
Schingtienne ↔ Hainaut
80p · 0.6xT
Pérez ↔ Schingtienne
70p · -0.2xT
Sohm ↔ Pérez
69p · -0.4xT
Jesus ↔ Stankovic
69p · -0.2xT
Yeboah ↔ Pérez
67p · 1.0xT
Stankovic ↔ Moreno
60p · -0.3xT
Yeboah ↔ Hainaut
54p · 2.1xT
Jesus ↔ Sohm
53p · -0.3xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Kike Pérez ↔ Antoine Hainaut (126 passes). Most dangerous per pass: John Yeboah ↔ Antoine Hainaut (0.04 xT/pass over 54 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Venezia had the ball
Every touch across 463 matches. Brighter means more touches.
Which Zones Do They Attack Through?
The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Venezia 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
4241
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
2016
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the defensive third (12.9% of all actions). 63% of actions run through the inside lanes (centre + both half-spaces) versus 37% down the two wings — an inside-dominant, half-space build. By third: 32% defensive, 47% 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. Venezia leaned on their right (41%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Venezia
37%22%41%
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. Venezia made 353 this season (44.1 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.
Channel
Entries
Per match
Share
League share
Left wing
87
10.9
25%
28%
Left half-space
51
6.4
14%
15%
Centre
48
6.0
14%
13%
Right half-space
51
6.4
14%
15%
Right wing
116
14.5
33%
28%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Venezia 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.
1302build-up passes attempted
83%completed
25%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third
Pass types
418CB · 39%
87Long Wide · 8%
8Long Central · 1%
408Wide → FB · 38%
159Central · 15%
CB418 · 39%
Long Wide87 · 8%
Long Central8 · 1%
Wide → FB408 · 38%
Central159 · 15%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Venezia build predominantly down the left, with Stankovic as the fulcrum (317 build-up passes). Only 27% 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 (88×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Venezia’s last 8 matches as an arrow, theirs first and the opponents’ with other team, each side attacking left to right (solid = completed, dashed grey = failed). Eight families per team — click any map to open it wide, then filter by channel or third, from one to another (or click a cell of the flow grids), by outcome, half, minute and passer. Channels: right wing, right half-space, centre, left half-space, left wing.
From channel
To channel
From third
To third
Outcome
Minutes
Channel to channel · click a cell
Third to third · click a cell
Progression4 sections
How They Progress — the mechanism
Not just how many progressive passes, but where they start, who plays them, and whether they actually penetrate. 374 progressive passes across 8 matches (46.8/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
35%
Right half-space
11%
Central
14%
Left half-space
11%
Left wing
29%
Progression is right-dominant: 46% right side · 14% central · 40% left.
Who generates it
Antoine Hainaut
69 · 18%
Kike Pérez
52 · 14%
Filip Stankovic
39 · 10%
Ridgeciano Haps
23 · 6%
John Yeboah
23 · 6%
Top two — Antoine Hainaut & Kike Pérez — account for 32% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
46.8 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
26% reach final third
17% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 74% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.26% of progressive passes reached the final third and 17% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 32% 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-spacesterile
Left wingbalanced
Progression — the pass map
The football question
Once Venezia 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.
1917progression passes attempted
87%completed
14%break into the final third
10%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
539CB · 32%
68Long Wide · 4%
9Long Central · 1%
804Wide → FB · 48%
250Central · 15%
CB539 · 32%
Long Wide68 · 4%
Long Central9 · 1%
Wide → FB804 · 48%
Central250 · 15%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Venezia progress predominantly down the left, with Pérez the busiest midfield outlet (216 progression passes). Only 14% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (75%) 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 LHS mid → LW mid (98×) — 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)
13%
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 Venezia actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
239 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (21% of 1137 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 55m. Most active carrier: Pérez (35). Filter to one player below.
First (80)Second (68)Third (47)Fourth (44)grouped by carry pattern (start + end position), largest group first
startendown goal left, attacking →
Chance creation4 sections
Chance creation — how the shots come
The question
Where do Venezia'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.
117shots
11.9xG
0.10xG per shot
5big chances (0.3+ xG)
6goals
#5key passes / game in the league
#10box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition21% of shots
24
3
2.78
0.12
Cross
3
1
0.42
0.14
Long ball
3
1
0.44
0.15
Pass into the box / short pass
13
1
1.56
0.12
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
5
0
0.35
0.07
Settled attack56% of shots
66
3
6.68
0.10
Cross
13
1
1.80
0.14
Cut-back
4
0
0.38
0.09
Long ball
4
0
0.23
0.06
Pass into the box / short pass
29
2
2.61
0.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
16
0
1.66
0.10
Set piece23% of shots
27
0
2.42
0.09
Corner
21
0
1.45
0.07
Free kick
5
0
0.18
0.04
Penalty
1
0
0.79
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
Antoine Hainaut
12
2.01
1
John Yeboah
11
1.00
0
Akor Adams
6
0.79
0
Ridgeciano Haps
5
0.66
1
Kike Pérez
8
0.66
0
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
John Yeboah
24
3.27
1
Akor Adams
29
2.89
2
Antoine Hainaut
10
1.11
2
Richie Sagrado
4
0.97
1
Albion Rrahmani
6
0.58
0
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Venezia's chances, by xG, is settled attack (6.7 of 11.9 xG, 66 of 117 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 24 of the 117 shots (21%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 27 of the 117 shots came from set pieces; 6 goals from 11.9 xG (-5.9).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Venezia 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 · 6%
9Long Wide · 10%
15Long Central · 17%
23Wide → FB · 26%
36Central · 41%
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 · 6%
Long Wide9 · 10%
Long Central15 · 17%
Wide → FB23 · 26%
Central36 · 41%
Who creates — volume × threat
16Pérez
12Yeboah
12Hainaut
8Basic
7Adams
5Haps
5Sohm
88key passes #5 of 23
11.9box entries/game #10 of 23
32.6final-3rd entries/game #7 of 23
1.48xG/game #7 of 23
6goals #23 of 23
-5.9finishing vs xG #20 of 23
◆ Vision AI Insight
Venezia lean left — 43% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (38 of 88), most often from Haps (5). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via LW att → C att (15 key passes, most often from Basic). Pérez is the primary source overall. They generate 1.48 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Akor Adams (2G), Antoine Hainaut (2G), Richie Sagrado (1G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Venezia deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
112 crosses: 35 found a team-mate (31%), 18 led to a shot (16%). 28 cut-backs: 11 found a team-mate (39%), 4 led to a shot (14%). 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 Venezia actually cross from?
112 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 advanced left wing; 4 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
advanced · left wing
30
27%
6
byline · right wing
28
25%
6
advanced · right wing
25
22%
2
byline · left wing
20
18%
3
deep · right wing
4
4%
1
byline · left half-space
2
2%
0
deep · left wing
1
1%
0
advanced · right half-space
1
1%
0
byline · right half-space
1
1%
0
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
117 shots for 11.9 xG (1.48/game, #7 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Moderate attack. 14.6 shots/game at 0.101 xG/shot. Box entries 12/game (#10). Threat created 11.4 xT/game (#6).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Venezia’s 6 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 — 6 goals traced.
How Do They Score?
The question
Where do the goals actually come from — open play, dead balls, which foot?
Every goal Venezia scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
6 · 100%
Set pieces
0 · 0%
Penalties
0 · 0%
By finish
Right foot
3 · 50%
Left foot
2 · 33%
Header
1 · 17%
Vision AI Model Insight
6 goals scored. 100% come in open play; set pieces add 0%. 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
240
Failed forward pass
175
Failed take-on
90
Lost in the defensive third
222
Their weakest zone is the left wing in the attacking third: 28% of 258 pass attempts there are lost (72 times). Separately, 34% 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 Venezia 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.
54
Pressing Index /100 · average
Intensity78
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height70
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness37
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption26
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
17%
RHS
19%
C
22%
LHS
23%
LW
19%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 48%
Mid 37%
Att 15%
Read
Ranked #4 of 23 for press intensity, this is a high press. 52% of defensive actions happen in the middle & attacking thirds, at an average height of 38. Of recoveries, 51% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#4/23
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
144
#5/23
High-press share
22%
#7/23
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
38.3
#7/23
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
21.1
#12/23
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
51%
#17/23
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
82%
#15/23
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
9.8%
#19/23
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 Venezia win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 243 opposition possessions that Venezia 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 Venezia step in. Venezia win it after 6.4 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 3.6 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
4.8passes
median 3 · before Venezia win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
14sec
median 6s · 30.4 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
49%
26%
9%
16%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
7.3
21s
15–30′
5.4
15s
30–45+′
6.0
18s
45–60′
3.7
10s
60–75′
4.5
14s
75–90+′
3.0
9s
average passesaverage seconds
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Venezia 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 Venezia are genuinely unusual, and a verdict is only written where something clears
0.85 sd — a side that is ordinary in a third is told so rather than given a label
for average play.
Build-up (own third) 1,302 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.1720.65
Wide-channel share-0.230.29
Side bias+0.281.22
Pass length-0.3921.31
Long-ball share-0.250.20
Forward gain per pass-0.3110.12
Backward-pass share+0.020.20
Deep-pass share-0.410.25
Completion+0.310.82
Seconds between passes-0.133.25
Side used
left 30% · central 45% · right 26%
Progression (middle third) 1,917 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use+0.0225.60
Wide-channel share-0.020.40
Side bias-0.09-0.28
Pass length-0.4616.58
Long-ball share-0.730.07
Forward gain per pass-0.223.27
Backward-pass share-0.140.33
Deep-pass share-0.220.15
Completion+0.310.86
Seconds between passes-0.163.12
Side used
left 35% · central 30% · right 35%
Final third 1,022 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.0531.48
Wide-channel share-0.020.58
Side bias-0.29-2.53
Pass length-0.3614.92
Long-ball share-0.520.08
Forward gain per pass-0.240.73
Backward-pass share-0.000.39
Deep-pass share-0.280.08
Completion+0.800.76
Seconds between passes-0.702.88
Side used
left 39% · central 18% · right 44%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Venezia'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 Venezia 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 share16%
#15 of 23 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share30%
#10 of 23 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)19.2s
#15 of 23 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession5.1
#7 of 23
Counter-attack shots /game1.75
#2 of 23 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game2.62
#17 of 23 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain12.3s
#11 of 23 · lower = faster break
Vision AI Model Insight
Venezia are a patient build-up side: 16% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#15 of 23), against 30% built patiently over 6+ passes (#10 of 23). Winning the ball back leads to a shot inside 12 seconds 1.75 times a game (#2), and a high regain converts to a shot within 8 seconds 2.62 times a game (#17 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 Venezia? 359 opponent progressive passes and 130 shots faced (15.4 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Venezia)
Right wing
27%
Right half-space
10%
Central
15%
Left half-space
14%
Left wing
34%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the left wing (34% of the danger conceded).
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against Venezia actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Venezia conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Venezia'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 (96 total)
By situation
Open play
13 · 81%
Set pieces
2 · 12%
Penalties
1 · 6%
Vision AI Model Insight
16 goals conceded. 81% come in open play; set pieces account for only 12%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 31% are headers — a real weakness in the air. Their supply line runs mainly through the left wing 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.
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
6 g · 9.5 xG
Set pieces
0 g · 1.6 xG
Penalties
0 g
0% of goals come from set pieces (0 of 6), worth 1.6 xG from 26 shots. Set pieces are a secondary threat; the danger is in open play.
Where do Venezia'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 (19)
Delivered into the box 74%Short 26%
Left side (17)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Where opponents attack Venezia from set pieces
24 shots from opponent corners against Venezia, 2 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 (14)
Shot 14Goals 2
Left flag (10)
Shot 10Goals 0
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
press intensity (PPDA) — 5.50 (83th pct)
progression /game — 46.75 (74th pct)
threat created /game — 11.42 (74th pct)
shots /game — 14.62 (74th pct)
xG created /game — 1.48 (70th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
xG conceded /game — 1.92 (4th 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.
Frosinone
53%
Atalanta
34%
Como
24%
Napoli
24%
Inter
23%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Venezia 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 Venezia's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (2m)
1.00
2.50
0.00
vs mid-block opponents (2m)
0.50
1.00
1.50
vs low-block opponents (4m)
0.75
2.50
0.00
Behaviour — how Venezia actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
79%
14%
44
9.7
9.0
vs mid-block opponents
79%
15%
43
8.9
9.5
vs low-block opponents
86%
10%
50
13.6
14.5
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 79% vs 86% against a low block (7pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 14% when pressed vs 10% against a low block — a mild adjustment, not a wholesale change.
Scouting Summary — the team in brief
In brief. Venezia are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.48 xG a game and they concede 1.92 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 Venezia’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.
Venezia
across 8 matches this season
Field tiltvs Napoli · 1-0 · 2026-10-1722%avg 54%
PPDAvs Napoli · 1-0 · 2026-10-1710.8avg 5.5
Pass accuracyvs Napoli · 1-0 · 2026-10-1775%avg 82%
Threat from passingat Frosinone · 2-3 · 2026-09-068.77avg 6.13
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 Venezia’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).
+12.2on-ball value, 8 matches
Where the value came from
Passes4241 actions+3.43
Carries1137 actions+0.35
Dribbles145 actions-0.33
Shots117 actions+6.58
Ball wins452 actions+2.18
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
John Yeboah
403
+2.89
+0.72
Antoine Hainaut
527
+2.50
+0.47
Akor Adams
208
+2.06
+0.99
Filip Stankovic
559
+0.92
+0.16
Gianluca Busio
306
+0.79
+0.26
Kike Pérez
698
+0.60
+0.09
Ridgeciano Haps
273
+0.57
+0.21
Matías Moreno
363
+0.47
+0.13
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 John Yeboah · shot
+0.768
2 Antoine Hainaut · pass
+0.484
3 Antoine Hainaut · shot
+0.412
4 Antoine Hainaut · pass
+0.388
5 Akor Adams · shot
+0.373
6 Ridgeciano Haps · pass
+0.354
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Venezia’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 36 corners taken, most by Kike Pérez (14); 26 shots from corners and free kicks, 0 goals. “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
Kike Pérez
14
10 (71%)
1
—
0.02
—
—
Simon Sohm
3
2 (67%)
3
—
0.18
—
—
Matías Moreno
—
—
4
—
0.42
—
—
Gianluca Busio
5
3 (60%)
2
—
0.07
2
—
Toma Basic
5
5 (100%)
2
—
0.08
2
—
John Yeboah
—
—
2
—
0.07
1
0/1
Akor Adams
—
—
3
—
0.18
—
—
Matteo Dagasso
6
4 (67%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Redouane Halhal
—
—
2
—
0.16
—
—
Bartol Franjic
—
—
2
—
0.21
—
—
Antoine Hainaut
2
0 (0%)
1
—
0.02
—
—
Thórir Helgason
1
1 (100%)
1
—
0.04
—
—
Juan Jesus
—
—
1
—
0.08
—
—
Thierry Correia
—
—
1
—
0.03
—
—
Top Performers
Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 216 minutes). Coloured chips are that player's strongest capability blocks.
Chance creation leaders — key passes /90 and box entries.
player
pos
min
key P /90
box entries
xT
Kike Pérez
M
714
2.02
14
12.5
Antoine Hainaut
M
726
1.49
16
9.9
John Yeboah
F
640
1.69
13
6.5
Toma Basic
M
370
1.95
7
5.1
Akor Adams
F
692
0.91
6
1.0
Simon Sohm
M
498
0.90
5
5.1
Ridgeciano Haps
M
403
1.12
5
5.1
Richie Sagrado
M
263
1.03
7
2.7
Wide Delivery Leaders
Crosses and cutbacks — wingers and full-backs only (by real average position, not the raw D/M position code), ranked by combined volume.
player
pos
min
crosses (completed)
cutbacks (completed)
Antoine Hainaut
W
726
10 (20%)
14 (50%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
Antoine Hainaut
M
726
127
12
5
30
Kike Pérez
M
714
114
18
5
29
Matías Moreno
D
431
89
5
9
18
Joël Schingtienne
D
504
81
11
3
25
Juan Jesus
D
401
77
6
11
21
Redouane Halhal
D
426
72
6
4
13
Akor Adams
F
692
71
1
1
14
Ridgeciano Haps
M
403
66
5
5
21
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (19 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Filip Stankovic
G
8
752
0
0.0
0
39
36
10.3
Antoine Hainaut
M
8
726
2
1.1
12
69
127
9.9
Kike Pérez
M
8
714
0
0.2
16
52
114
12.5
Akor Adams
F
8
692
2
2.9
7
4
71
1.0
John Yeboah
F
8
640
1
3.3
12
23
53
6.5
Joël Schingtienne
D
7
504
0
0.1
2
12
81
5.4
Simon Sohm
M
7
498
0
1.0
5
16
64
5.1
Matías Moreno
D
6
431
0
0.5
2
12
89
4.3
Redouane Halhal
D
5
426
0
0.2
0
15
72
3.6
Ridgeciano Haps
M
6
403
0
0.2
5
23
66
5.1
Juan Jesus
D
5
401
0
0.6
1
11
77
3.5
Toma Basic
M
5
370
2
1.8
8
16
40
5.1
Gianluca Busio
M
4
326
0
0.2
4
15
48
4.9
Richie Sagrado
M
5
263
1
1.0
3
18
24
2.7
Armel Bella-Kotchap
D
3
201
0
0.4
0
5
49
1.7
Thierry Correia
M
5
199
0
0.4
3
14
40
2.4
Thórir Helgason
M
4
159
0
0.3
1
4
17
1.0
Albion Rrahmani
F
7
145
0
0.6
1
2
17
0.5
Bartol Franjic
D
2
140
0
0.2
0
12
22
2.5
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.
Filip Stankovic
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes752
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /904.7
key passes /900.00
def actions /904.3
pass accuracy78%
Antoine Hainaut
Deep-lying playmaker · Midfielder
minutes726
goals · xG2 · 1.1
prog passes /908.6
key passes /901.49
def actions /9015.7
pass accuracy81%
Kike Pérez
Deep-lying playmaker · Midfielder
minutes714
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /906.6
key passes /902.02
def actions /9014.4
pass accuracy82%
Akor Adams
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes692
goals · xG2 · 2.9
prog passes /900.5
key passes /900.91
def actions /909.2
pass accuracy63%
John Yeboah
Creative forward · Forward
minutes640
goals · xG1 · 3.3
prog passes /903.2
key passes /901.69
def actions /907.5
pass accuracy83%
Joël Schingtienne
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes504
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /902.1
key passes /900.36
def actions /9014.5
pass accuracy88%
Simon Sohm
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes498
goals · xG0 · 1.0
prog passes /902.9
key passes /900.90
def actions /9011.6
pass accuracy89%
Matías Moreno
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes431
goals · xG0 · 0.5
prog passes /902.5
key passes /900.42
def actions /9018.6
pass accuracy86%
Redouane Halhal
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes426
goals · xG0 · 0.2
prog passes /903.2
key passes /900.00
def actions /9015.2
pass accuracy91%
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: xG conceded /game (4th pct)
Sign a defensive organiser / shot-suppressing centre-back. The data flags this because too much xG is conceded (1.92, 4th percentile vs the league).