Combining every season — this one is larger, give it a moment.
Team reportSerie A 2026
Udinese
A balanced-territory side, aggressive high-press out of possession, with a moderate attack. Currently #17 of 20 on 5 points (1-2-6, 9:18). Tactical profile below is built from 9 matches of ball-by-ball event data, contextualised against the league.
In one read, what kind of team is Udinese and how good was the season?
Read. Udinese currently sit #17 of 20 on 5 points (1W-2D-6L, 0.56 pts/game), scoring 9 and conceding 18 for a goal difference of -9.
On the ball they are a balanced-territory team (54% field tilt, #6 in the league); off it they defend with a aggressive high-press (#15 of 20 for press intensity).
Across the 9 matches of event data, they create 1.07 xG/game (#17) and concede 1.82 (#17), a net of -0.75 xG/game — the underlying performance matches the actual goal difference.
Season Context — the league table
The question
Where did Udinese actually finish, and against whom?
The authoritative final table (full season), centred on Udinese.
#
team
P
W
D
L
GF
GA
GD
Pts
14
Lecce
8
3
0
5
9
14
-5
9
15
Sassuolo
9
2
2
5
14
22
-8
8
16
Monza
9
2
1
6
16
22
-6
7
17
Udinese
9
1
2
6
9
18
-9
5
18
Parma Calcio 1913
9
1
2
6
5
15
-10
5
19
Fiorentina
8
1
1
6
9
19
-10
4
20
Venezia
9
1
0
8
6
19
-13
3
Match Momentum — when they create and concede danger
The question
Across a whole game, which periods does Udinese 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
Udinese tend to fade after a strong start — first-half net xG -2.93, second-half -3.83. Their strongest period is 46-60' (net +0.23 xG); their most dangerous period to face is 61-75' (net -3.30 xG against them).
xG Race — the season, match by match
Expected goals piling up over 9 matches: Udinese 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 (-6.8 xG). Hover a point for that match.
UdineseOpponents against Udinese
Tactical DNA
The football question
In five genes, what is Udinese'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.
52
Build-Up
possession control from the back
48
Progression
moving the ball upfield with threat
43
Creation
manufacturing chances
48
Press
winning the ball high & hard
15
Solidity
resisting the opponent's threat
Genetic identity
Udinese are defined most by their Build-Up DNA (52/100 · average at possession control from the back), and least by their Solidity DNA (15/100). 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).
Possess
Deep buildup
48%
Possession
43%
Field tilt
43%
Disrupt
Central progression ~proxy
70%
Dribble tendency
87%
Progressive passes
17%
Finish
Final-third patience
39%
Shot quality
9%
Open-play xG
30%
Press
Forward press ~proxy
43%
High regains
39%
Pressing efficiency ~proxy
48%
Defend
Def-mid press ~proxy
48%
High line ~proxy
39%
PAdj defensive actions
43%
Udinese is defined most by Disrupt (58% in the league) and weakest on Finish (26%). 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 Udinese actually control, relative to the rest of the league?
Field tilt = share of final-third touches between the two sides across Udinese'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; Udinese highlighted. Hover any dot for the team.
Vision AI Model Insight
Udinese post 54% field tilt, ranking #6 of 20 in the league — comfortably above the league mid-point for territorial control, and their 0.56 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 Udinese has the ball, how much of that time is spent building, progressing and creating?
The share of Udinese'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
23.0%
Progression
48.4%
Chance creation
25.6%
Attacking transition
3.0%
Vision AI Model Insight
Progression is where Udinese spends most of its time on the ball (48% 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
Vojvoda ↔ Abankwah
115p · -0.5xT
Kamara ↔ Ebosse
114p · -0.6xT
Vojvoda ↔ Karlström
90p · 1.2xT
Ebosse ↔ Okoye
83p · -0.2xT
Ebosse ↔ Karlström
61p · -0.1xT
Vojvoda ↔ Ekkelenkamp
58p · 0.3xT
Kabasele ↔ Abankwah
57p · -0.2xT
Karlström ↔ Abankwah
56p · 0.1xT
Okoye ↔ Abankwah
49p · -0.4xT
Kabasele ↔ Ebosse
46p · 0.0xT
Vision AI Model Insight
Busiest connection: Mërgim Vojvoda ↔ James Abankwah (115 passes). Most dangerous per pass: Hassane Kamara ↔ Keinan Davis (0.07 xT/pass over 22 passes) — the combination that hurts opponents most when it fires, not just the one used most.
Touch Density — where Udinese had the ball
Every touch across 88 matches. Brighter means more touches.
Which Zones Do They Attack Through?
The question
Across the whole pitch, where does Udinese 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
4511
ACTIONS
Carries
the ball moved with a player
1247
ACTIONS
Vision AI Model Insight
Their single busiest zone is the centre of the middle third (11.8% 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: 25% defensive, 51% middle, 24% 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. Udinese leaned on their right (40%). The bars under the pitch put the league’s share beside theirs.
Udinese
37%24%40%
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. Udinese made 406 this season (45.1 a match); 28% came into the right wing. Longer, bolder arrows mean more entries. Entries by carrying the ball in count as well as completed passes; dribbles are not counted.
Channel
Entries
Per match
Share
League share
Left wing
113
12.6
28%
29%
Left half-space
69
7.7
17%
15%
Centre
52
5.8
13%
13%
Right half-space
57
6.3
14%
15%
Right wing
115
12.8
28%
28%
Build-up2 sections
Build-Up — the pass map
The football question
How does Udinese 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.
1153build-up passes attempted
82%completed
27%reach the middle third
2%go long into the final third
Pass types
457CB · 48%
57Long Wide · 6%
25Long Central · 3%
307Wide → FB · 32%
102Central · 11%
Sequence success — build-up
70build-up sequences this season
16%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
46%turned over with nothing to show
CB457 · 48%
Long Wide57 · 6%
Long Central25 · 3%
Wide → FB307 · 32%
Central102 · 11%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Udinese build predominantly down the right, with Okoye as the fulcrum (234 build-up passes). Only 28% 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 (73×).
Pass Explorer
Every pass of Udinese’s last 9 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. 395 progressive passes across 9 matches (43.9/game).
Origin lane
Right wing
32%
Right half-space
15%
Central
15%
Left half-space
10%
Left wing
28%
Progression is right-dominant: 47% right side · 15% central · 38% left.
Who generates it
Mërgim Vojvoda
84 · 21%
Maduka Okoye
50 · 13%
Hassane Kamara
39 · 10%
Jurgen Ekkelenkamp
27 · 7%
Enzo Ebosse
27 · 7%
Top two — Mërgim Vojvoda & Maduka Okoye — account for 34% of all progression.
PROGRESSION
43.9 prog passes/game
mostly right
→
PENETRATION
25% reach final third
20% reach the box
→
THREAT
the other 75% is recycled
progress ≠ danger
What came of it.25% of progressive passes reached the final third and 20% the box; the rest was recycled in front of the block. 34% 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 Udinese 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.
2265progression passes attempted
86%completed
14%break into the final third
10%go backward into the defensive third
Pass types
799CB · 41%
61Long Wide · 3%
11Long Central · 1%
830Wide → FB · 43%
250Central · 13%
Sequence success — progression
182progression sequences this season
32%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
40%turned over with nothing to show
CB799 · 41%
Long Wide61 · 3%
Long Central11 · 1%
Wide → FB830 · 43%
Central250 · 13%
◆ Vision AI Insight
Udinese progress predominantly down the left, with Karlström the busiest midfield outlet (242 progression passes). Only 14% of passes that start in midfield actually break the final-third line — the rest (76%) 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 (127×) — press that lane and midfield progression stalls.
Decision Quality — not all completed passes are equal
A 90% pass completion can hide a sideways habit. Grading every pass by the threat it adds separates value creation from safe circulation.
Excellent (high xT gain)
12%
Progressive
1%
Neutral / sideways
50%
Safe / backward
37%
13% of passes are progressive-or-better; the remaining 87% keep possession without advancing it. A control-first side — safe in build-up, reliant on a few players for the incision.
Where does Udinese actually progress the ball with their feet, not a pass?
287 progressive carries this season across the whole squad (24% of 1217 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 61m. Most active carrier: Kamara (37). Filter to one player below.
First (93)Second (84)Third (55)Fourth (55)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 Udinese'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.
132shots
9.6xG
0.07xG per shot
1big chances (0.3+ xG)
9goals
#9key passes / game in the league
#9box entries / game in the league
Kind of attack, then how the shot was set up
Shots
Goals
xG
xG / shot
Attacking transition20% of shots
27
3
2.40
0.09
Cross
2
1
0.16
0.08
Cut-back
2
0
0.15
0.08
Long ball
1
0
0.07
0.07
Pass into the box / short pass
17
2
1.59
0.09
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
5
0
0.43
0.09
Settled attack67% of shots
88
3
5.95
0.07
Cross
17
0
1.60
0.09
Cut-back
3
0
0.39
0.13
Long ball
3
0
0.21
0.07
Pass into the box / short pass
50
2
2.96
0.06
Own creation (carry, dribble, rebound)
15
1
0.80
0.05
Set piece13% of shots
17
3
1.28
0.08
Corner
16
3
1.27
0.08
Free kick
1
0
0.01
0.01
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
Keinan Davis
9
1.15
3
Mërgim Vojvoda
16
0.98
0
Jurgen Ekkelenkamp
8
0.85
1
Nicolò Zaniolo
8
0.73
0
Giorgi Chakvetadze
10
0.58
0
Who takes them
Player
Shots
xG
Goals
Jurgen Ekkelenkamp
23
1.49
3
Keinan Davis
16
1.44
0
Idrissa Gueye
10
0.92
1
Hassane Kamara
13
0.91
2
Unai Gómez
7
0.61
0
Vision AI Model Insight
The biggest source of Udinese's chances, by xG, is settled attack (6.0 of 9.6 xG, 88 of 132 shots), mostly pass into the box / short pass. 27 of the 132 shots (20%) came within 15 seconds of winning the ball. 17 of the 132 shots came from set pieces; 9 goals from 9.6 xG (-0.6).
Chance Creation — the pass map
The football question
How does Udinese 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
14CB · 14%
3Long Wide · 3%
5Long Central · 5%
35Wide → FB · 36%
40Central · 41%
Sequence success — final-third
116final-third sequences this season
28%succeed — produce a shot
41%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
CB14 · 14%
Long Wide3 · 3%
Long Central5 · 5%
Wide → FB35 · 36%
Central40 · 41%
Who creates — volume × threat
17Vojvoda
10Chakvetadze
8Ekkelenkamp
8Davis
7Karlström
7Zaniolo
6Ebosse
97key passes #9 of 20
13.3box entries/game #9 of 20
32.7final-3rd entries/game #7 of 20
1.07xG/game #17 of 20
9goals #14 of 20
-0.6finishing vs xG #14 of 20
◆ Vision AI Insight
Udinese lean right — 42% of their key passes come from that flank and its half-space (41 of 97), most often from Vojvoda (11). They funnel chances into the c of the final third, most often via LHS att → C att (14 key passes, most often from Chakvetadze). Vojvoda is the primary source overall. They generate 1.07 xG a game and finish it wasteful — they under-perform their xG, led by Jurgen Ekkelenkamp (3G), Hassane Kamara (2G), Jesper Karlström (1G).
Crosses & Cutbacks — squad-wide
The question
How does Udinese deliver into the box from wide areas, and what comes of it?
151 crosses: 46 found a team-mate (30%), 17 led to a shot (11%). 23 cut-backs: 13 found a team-mate (57%), 6 led to a shot (26%). 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 Udinese actually cross from?
151 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. 26% come from one territory, the advanced right wing; 11 come from the half-spaces and 0 from the centre.
Territory
Crosses
Share
Led to a shot
advanced · right wing
39
26%
4
byline · right wing
32
21%
3
byline · left wing
32
21%
4
advanced · left wing
19
13%
2
deep · left wing
11
7%
0
deep · right wing
7
5%
0
advanced · right half-space
3
2%
1
advanced · left half-space
3
2%
1
byline · left half-space
3
2%
1
deep · left half-space
1
1%
0
byline · right half-space
1
1%
1
Finishing3 sections
Shot Map
132 shots for 9.6 xG (1.07/game, #17 in the league). Click an area of the box to see who shoots from there; filter by outcome, player or match.
Moderate attack. 14.7 shots/game at 0.073 xG/shot. Box entries 13/game (#9). Threat created 10.7 xT/game (#10).
Goal Sequences
The move behind each of Udinese’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 Udinese scored across the loaded matches, broken down by how it was created and finished.
By situation
Open play
6 · 67%
Set pieces
3 · 33%
Penalties
0 · 0%
By finish
Right foot
4 · 44%
Left foot
4 · 44%
Header
1 · 11%
Vision AI Model Insight
9 goals scored. 67% come in open play, but 33% 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
How they lose it
Incomplete pass — attacking third
283
Failed forward pass
191
Failed take-on
77
Lost in the defensive third
205
Their weakest zone is the left wing in the defensive third: 29% of 150 pass attempts there are lost (43 times). Separately, 35% 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 Udinese 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.
65
Pressing Index /100 · strong
Intensity40
PPDA, high-press share, high-zone actions
Height75
how high up the pitch they defend
Effectiveness78
high recoveries & high-regain share
Disruption75
opponent completion & progression allowed
Every defensive action & where it happens
Where they win the ball back — by lane
RW
20%
RHS
18%
C
30%
LHS
16%
LW
16%
By third (high / mid / low regain)
Def 42%
Mid 44%
Att 14%
Read
Ranked #15 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, 59% are won high up the pitch.
Every pressing metric, ranked in the league
metric
value
rank
meaning
PPDA (opp passes per def action)
—
#15/20
lower = more intense; rank is what matters
Defensive actions / game
144
#11/20
High-press share
22%
#10/20
def actions won high up
Defensive-action height (0–100)
39.9
#5/20
avg pitch height of actions
High recoveries / game
24.4
#5/20
ball won in mid+att third
High-recovery share
59%
#4/20
share of recoveries won high
Opponent completion allowed
83%
#8/20
lower = more disruptive
Opponent progressive allowed
7.6%
#2/20
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 Udinese win it back with a defensive action?
Counted over the 279 opposition possessions that Udinese 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 Udinese step in. Udinese win it after 5.4 opponent passes in the first half-hour and after 4.4 after the hour mark (sooner).
PASSES THEY GET
4.8passes
median 3 · before Udinese win it
TIME THEY KEEP IT
13sec
median 6s · 31.0 wins per game
How many passes the opponent got in before the ball was won
45%
27%
14%
14%
0–2 passes3–5 passes6–9 passes10+ passes
Through the match — every 15 minutes
0–15′
4.5
11s
15–30′
6.2
16s
30–45+′
4.8
13s
45–60′
4.7
14s
60–75′
5.1
14s
75–90+′
3.9
10s
average passesaverage seconds
Attitude in each third
Every other style number here says how much Udinese 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 Udinese 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) 1,153 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.3920.19
Wide-channel share-0.370.28
Side bias-0.41-1.40
Pass length+0.0622.93
Long-ball share-0.040.23
Forward gain per pass-0.0911.04
Backward-pass share+0.250.21
Deep-pass share-0.060.28
Completion+0.310.82
Seconds between passes+0.013.33
Side used
left 24% · central 47% · right 28%
Progression (middle third) 2,265 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.3124.91
Wide-channel share-0.250.39
Side bias-0.21-0.78
Pass length-0.1217.05
Long-ball share-0.080.10
Forward gain per pass-0.293.17
Backward-pass share-0.130.33
Deep-pass share-0.580.13
Completion+0.190.86
Seconds between passes+0.813.56
Side used
left 33% · central 31% · right 35%
Final third 1,093 passes
nothing unusual in this zone
Width of use-0.3630.73
Wide-channel share-0.220.57
Side bias-0.34-2.87
Pass length+0.3516.01
Long-ball share+0.030.10
Forward gain per pass+0.021.07
Backward-pass share+0.230.40
Deep-pass share+0.530.11
Completion+0.340.72
Seconds between passes+0.213.56
Side used
left 39% · central 16% · right 45%
Reference measured across roughly 3,500 match-teams
in this competition, per third, so the comparison is with Udinese'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 Udinese 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 share18%
#4 of 20 · reaches final third in ≤3 passes
Patient build-up share25%
#14 of 20 · spells of 6+ passes
Tempo (possession length)17.9s
#8 of 20 · shorter = faster tempo
Passes per possession4.2
#14 of 20
Counter-attack shots /game1.00
#11 of 20 · shot within 12s of a regain in own half
Press→shot /game2.91
#12 of 20 · shot within 8s of a high regain
Speed to final third after regain11.8s
#5 of 20 · lower = faster break
Sequence success — attacking transition
14attacking transition sequences this season
21%succeed — produce a shot
57%turned over with nothing to show
Sequence success — defensive transition
42defensive transition sequences this season
62%succeed — reach the next third or a shot
7%turned over with nothing to show
Vision AI Model Insight
Udinese are a direct, fast-break side: 18% of possessions reach the final third in 3 passes or fewer (#4 of 20), against 25% built patiently over 6+ passes (#14 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 2.91 times a game (#12 of 20) — 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 Udinese? 340 opponent progressive passes and 142 shots faced (16.4 xG against) across the season.
Opponent threat by lane (attacking into Udinese)
Right wing
26%
Right half-space
16%
Central
23%
Left half-space
11%
Left wing
24%
Where the danger came from. Opponents generated most of their threat through the right wing (26% of the danger conceded).
How Do They Concede?
The question
Where do the goals against Udinese actually come from — open play, dead balls, and who supplies them?
Every goal Udinese conceded across the loaded matches — the opponent's shots in Udinese'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 (97 total)
By situation
Open play
14 · 78%
Set pieces
4 · 22%
Penalties
0 · 0%
Vision AI Model Insight
18 goals conceded. 78% come in open play; set pieces account for only 22%, so dead-ball defending is not the main issue. 17% are headers — aerial defending is not where the damage comes from. Their supply line runs mainly through the right half-space of the attacking third (23% 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 · 8.4 xG
Set pieces
3 g · 1.3 xG
Penalties
0 g
33% of goals come from set pieces (3 of 9), worth 1.3 xG from 17 shots. A genuine set-piece weapon — defend the box seriously.
Where do Udinese's corners go?
39 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 (22)
Delivered into the box 100%Short 0%
Left side (17)
Delivered into the box 82%Short 18%
Where opponents attack Udinese from set pieces
33 shots from opponent corners against Udinese, 4 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 (12)
Shot 12Goals 1
Left flag (21)
Shot 21Goals 3
Tactical Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths (top-third vs league)
field tilt % — 54.30 (70th pct)
Weaknesses (bottom-third vs league)
xG created /game — 1.07 (15th pct)
xG conceded /game — 1.82 (15th pct)
press intensity (PPDA) — 6.00 (25th pct)
pass retention % — 82.22 (35th pct)
Style Archetype & Similar Teams
Team archetype: Direct / counter high-press. Their closest stylistic matches in the league (cosine similarity on style metrics) — sides that play a similar way.
Venezia
67%
Fiorentina
48%
Atalanta
44%
Frosinone
33%
Parma Calcio 1913
31%
Performance vs Opponent Styles
The question
Not just how Udinese 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 Udinese's own passing behaviour to the result.
Results
opponent type
goals for/g
goals against/g
points/g
vs high-pressing opponents (3m)
1.00
3.33
0.00
vs mid-block opponents (3m)
0.67
1.00
0.67
vs low-block opponents (3m)
1.33
1.67
1.00
Behaviour — how Udinese actually play against each
opponent type
retention
directness (long balls)
prog. passes/g
xT/g
box entries/g
vs high-pressing opponents
80%
13%
34
8.7
9.3
vs mid-block opponents
79%
16%
46
10.8
15.0
vs low-block opponents
85%
11%
52
12.6
15.7
Vision AI Model Insight
Facing a high press, retention drops to 80% vs 85% against a low block (5pt lower under pressure), and directness (long-ball share) sits at 13% when pressed vs 11% against a low block — a mild adjustment, not a wholesale change.
Scouting Summary — the team in brief
In brief. Udinese are balanced-territory with a aggressive high-press.
Their attack creates 1.07 xG a game and they concede 1.82 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 Udinese’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.
Field tiltvs Cagliari · 0-1 · 2026-09-1990%avg 54%
Final-third entriesat Torino · 1-2 · 2026-10-1273avg 45
Defensive actionsvs AC Milan · 0-2 · 2026-10-25186avg 144
Passesat Torino · 1-2 · 2026-10-12680avg 501
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 Udinese’s last 9 matches added up: where the value came from, who produced it, and the six biggest single moves. OBV only measures what a player does with the ball: it shows who added the most on-ball value, not who was the most important player (defending off the ball, positioning and pressing are not in it).
+10.7on-ball value, 9 matches
Where the value came from
Passes4511 actions+4.87
Carries1217 actions+0.30
Dribbles130 actions-0.21
Shots132 actions+3.30
Ball wins537 actions+2.48
Most on-ball value (OBV)
Actions
OBV
per 100
Hassane Kamara
510
+1.07
+0.21
Jurgen Ekkelenkamp
504
+0.86
+0.17
Maduka Okoye
387
+0.84
+0.22
Mërgim Vojvoda
705
+0.79
+0.11
Keinan Davis
207
+0.73
+0.35
Christian Kabasele
238
+0.71
+0.30
Nicolò Zaniolo
164
+0.69
+0.42
Enzo Ebosse
592
+0.69
+0.12
Biggest single moves
OBV
1 Christian Kabasele · shot
+0.404
2 Unai Gómez · pass
+0.260
3 Enzo Ebosse · pass
+0.259
4 Keinan Davis · shot
+0.242
5 Unai Gómez · pass
+0.210
6 James Abankwah · shot
+0.209
Set Pieces by Player
Who delivers Udinese’s dead balls and who finishes them this season. 39 corners taken, most by Lennon Miller (8); 17 shots from corners and free kicks, 3 goals, led by James Abankwah (1 goals, 0.38 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
Jurgen Ekkelenkamp
2
1 (50%)
5
1
0.13
1
—
James Abankwah
—
—
3
1
0.38
—
—
Lennon Miller
8
8 (100%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Mërgim Vojvoda
7
3 (43%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Nicolò Zaniolo
7
7 (100%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Christian Kabasele
—
—
2
—
0.36
—
—
Jesper Karlström
2
0 (0%)
1
—
0.05
—
—
Unai Gómez
5
4 (80%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Giorgi Chakvetadze
5
4 (80%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Oier Zarraga
3
2 (67%)
—
—
0.00
—
—
Hassane Kamara
—
—
1
1
0.02
—
—
Jakub Piotrowski
—
—
1
—
0.11
—
—
Idrissa Gueye
—
—
1
—
0.08
—
—
Enzo Ebosse
—
—
1
—
0.05
—
—
Top Performers
Ranked by Vision AI Score — the same tactical behavioural evaluation each player's own report page shows (min 243 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
Mërgim Vojvoda
M
697
2.20
18
15.2
Jurgen Ekkelenkamp
M
819
0.88
13
6.8
Giorgi Chakvetadze
M
403
2.23
8
4.5
Keinan Davis
F
549
1.31
10
1.6
Nicolò Zaniolo
M
248
2.54
8
2.3
Enzo Ebosse
D
580
0.93
9
9.4
Jesper Karlström
M
811
0.78
6
7.0
Lennon Miller
M
328
1.37
8
3.4
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.
player
pos
min
crosses (completed)
cutbacks (completed)
Unai Gómez
W
323
3 (0%)
1 (0%)
Defensive Volume Leaders
Who does the defensive work — tackles, interceptions, recoveries.
player
pos
min
def actions
tackles
intercept
recoveries
James Abankwah
D
696
131
9
11
30
Jesper Karlström
M
811
111
13
5
49
Mërgim Vojvoda
M
697
103
13
8
32
Jurgen Ekkelenkamp
M
819
97
14
6
40
Hassane Kamara
M
706
95
15
4
28
Enzo Ebosse
D
580
89
10
6
24
Oumar Solet
D
414
82
6
8
23
Christian Kabasele
D
408
78
3
5
9
Full Squad Data
Every player with 100+ minutes (21 players).
player
pos
apps
min
goals
xG
key P
prog
def
xT
Maduka Okoye
G
9
845
0
0.0
0
50
32
11.2
Jurgen Ekkelenkamp
M
9
819
3
1.5
8
27
97
6.8
Jesper Karlström
M
9
811
1
0.5
7
21
111
7.0
Hassane Kamara
M
9
706
2
0.9
3
39
95
7.3
Mërgim Vojvoda
M
9
697
0
0.3
17
84
103
15.2
James Abankwah
D
8
696
1
0.4
2
16
131
5.3
Enzo Ebosse
D
8
580
0
0.1
6
27
89
9.4
Keinan Davis
F
8
549
0
1.4
8
5
70
1.6
Oumar Solet
D
5
414
0
0.1
4
14
82
4.9
Christian Kabasele
D
5
408
0
0.4
1
4
78
2.3
Giorgi Chakvetadze
M
6
403
0
0.3
10
18
43
4.5
Lennon Miller
M
7
328
0
0.1
5
14
50
3.4
Unai Gómez
M
8
323
0
0.6
4
9
36
1.8
Matteo Palma
D
4
279
0
0.1
0
8
56
2.6
Jakub Piotrowski
M
6
259
1
0.6
4
11
39
2.6
Nicolò Zaniolo
M
4
248
0
0.5
7
11
34
2.3
Idrissa Gueye
F
4
189
1
0.9
3
0
42
0.4
Oier Zarraga
M
5
177
0
0.0
2
6
16
1.6
Nicolò Bertola
D
5
166
0
0.1
0
5
32
1.4
Vakoun Bayo
F
4
112
0
0.6
0
2
20
0.4
Juan Arizala
M
4
103
0
0.1
1
9
16
1.2
Player Role Architecture
The question
Who does what — and what tactical job does each key player actually perform?
The nine most-used players (450+ minutes), each with the role their event fingerprint points to — not just their listed position.
Maduka Okoye
Goalkeeper · Goalkeeper
minutes845
goals · xG0 · 0.0
prog passes /905.3
key passes /900.00
def actions /903.4
pass accuracy75%
Jurgen Ekkelenkamp
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes819
goals · xG3 · 1.5
prog passes /903.0
key passes /900.88
def actions /9010.7
pass accuracy81%
Jesper Karlström
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes811
goals · xG1 · 0.5
prog passes /902.3
key passes /900.78
def actions /9012.3
pass accuracy83%
Hassane Kamara
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes706
goals · xG2 · 0.9
prog passes /905.0
key passes /900.38
def actions /9012.1
pass accuracy78%
Mërgim Vojvoda
Advanced creator · Attacking mid
minutes697
goals · xG0 · 0.3
prog passes /9010.8
key passes /902.20
def actions /9013.3
pass accuracy76%
James Abankwah
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes696
goals · xG1 · 0.4
prog passes /902.1
key passes /900.26
def actions /9016.9
pass accuracy88%
Enzo Ebosse
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes580
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /904.2
key passes /900.93
def actions /9013.8
pass accuracy88%
Keinan Davis
Ball-winner / destroyer · Midfielder
minutes549
goals · xG0 · 1.4
prog passes /900.8
key passes /901.31
def actions /9011.5
pass accuracy77%
Oumar Solet
Stopper / marker · Defender
minutes414
goals · xG0 · 0.1
prog passes /903.0
key passes /900.87
def actions /9017.8
pass accuracy90%
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 created /game (15th pct)
Sign a higher-volume goalscorer or chance creator. The data flags this because the attack under-produces xG (1.07, 15th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: xG conceded /game (15th pct)
Sign a defensive organiser / shot-suppressing centre-back. The data flags this because too much xG is conceded (1.82, 15th percentile vs the league).
Need — bottom-third: press intensity (PPDA) (25th pct)
Sign a high-energy presser to lift defensive intensity. The data flags this because the press is passive (6.00, 25th percentile vs the league).