Pulling current player details into Tactico.

Sums exactly — base plus adjustments equals the score. Deterministic, versioned, never AI-generated. Full method →
Percentiles vs 819 centre-backs in our scored set (degenerate rows excluded from both sides)
Generated Sep 2, 2026, 04:43 PM · Three-agent consensus
For a center back, the key metrics are defensive/physical output. Clearances/90 at 3.42 and tackles/90 at 1.76 show solid defensive engagement, while duels won/90 (3.32) at a 60% success rate and aerials won/90 (1.09) indicate decent but not dominant physical presence — reflected in the physicalDuelScore of 32.5 and defenseScore of 47.72, both mid-range rather than elite. Production volume metrics (0.05 goals/90, 0.33 key passes/90, 0.09 big chances created/90) are appropriately minimal for the role and not a weakness. Minutes were split across Premier League (1126 mins, 1 goal, cdi 1.00) and Champions League (770 mins, cdi 1.12), giving a blended difficulty of 1.05 — meaning the sustained defensive workload was partly delivered against tougher continental competition, which modestly strengthens the read on the tackling/clearance numbers. Sample size (1896 total minutes) is reasonably substantial, and completeness is full (1.0), supporting confidence. However, aerial win rate is unremarkable for a center back archetype, and the low duel success rate ceiling caps the physical score. Overall this is an adequate-to-solid defensive profile without standout dominance in any single physical dimension.
Form score (70.78) sits just 0.55 points above the multi-season Tactico Score (70.23), indicating a stable trajectory rather than a clear improvement or decline. Score confidence of 0.73 suggests a reasonably solid sample, though not maximal certainty. Sub-scores show notable spread — defense (47.72) and physical duel (32.5) are much higher than finishing (16.58) and creation (25.38), which is expected for a center back role but still reflects a wide internal variance worth noting for volatility purposes. Data completeness is perfect (100%, no missing fields, fresh data), removing availability/injury-driven uncertainty. Competition load includes a meaningful continental share (770 of 1896 total minutes, ~41%, in Champions League at higher CDI 1.12), which adds fatigue/rotation risk and means recent form was tested against tougher opposition — this tempers any concern about the flat trajectory, since stability under a heavier midweek schedule is a positive signal rather than a warning sign.
StableCompetition context shows meaningful exposure to both Premier League (1126 mins, cdi 1.00) and Champions League (770 mins, cdi 1.12), yielding a blended difficulty of 1.05 — this is a high-difficulty dual-competition workload, not a domestic-only sample. The near-even minutes split (roughly 60/40) means the CL run is substantial, not token appearances, so defensive numbers were tested against elite continental opposition as well as top-flight domestic sides. Role clarity is strong: center_back bucket aligns with physical signals — clearances 3.42/90, aerials won 1.09/90, duel success 60% — all consistent with a genuine defensive profile, with negligible creative output (bigChancesCreated 0.09/90) confirming no role mismatch. Data reliability is excellent: completeness 1.0, no missing fields, fresh evaluation, public_ready status. No sample-size caveat is needed since total minutes (~1896) across two competitions is substantial. The only mild uncertainty is the lack of matches_in_sample figure explicitly, but minutes totals imply a large, clean sample.</reasoning> <parameter name="context_factors">["Blended CDI 1.05 across PL (1126 min) and UCL (770 min) — genuine high-difficulty dual competition load","Role bucket center_back confirmed by physical profile: 3.42 clearances/90, 1.09 aerials won/90","Data completeness 1.0, no missing fields, fresh and public_ready — high reliability","Minimal creative output (0.09 big chances created/90) rules out role ambiguity","Substantial combined minutes (~1896) reduces small-sample risk despite no explicit match count"]
Positive contextAI insights are generated after the three-agent consensus runs. The Tactico Score and consensus analysis above are the authoritative evaluation.
| Season | Competition | Apps | Min | G | A | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024/2025 | Premier League | 17 | 1,126 | 1 | — | 6.92 |
| 2023/2024 | Premier League | 20 | 971 | 1 | 3 | 6.95 |
| 2022/2023 |
Top 50 players by Tactico Score — filter by position, form, and confidence.
Tactico Score, form, confidence, and season stats compared side by side.
Every Tactico Score is deterministic and traceable. Read the full methodology.
Paste, screenshot, or build your 15 — Scout ranks your XI and captain with an xPts model validated on four seasons. Its own squad is committed before every deadline on the official game. No account required.
| Serie A |
| 17 |
| 1,447 |
| — |
| — |
| 7.01 |
| 2021/2022 | Serie A | 22 | 1,963 | — | — | 6.95 |
| Career | 76 | 5,507 | 2 | 3 | 6.96 | |
| Opponent | Rat* | Min | G | A | Sh | xG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| vsLeeds United5-0 | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| @Southampton1-2 | 6.70 | 90 | — | — | — | — |
| vsNewcastle United1-0 | 7.87 | 90 | — | — | — | — |
| @Liverpool2-2 | 6.91 | 90 | — | — | — | — |
| vsAFC Bournemouth1-2 | 6.63 | 90 | — | — | — | — |
| vsCrystal Palace2-2 | 8.14 | 90 | 1 | — | 1 | 0.03 |
| @Ipswich Town0-4 | 7.27 | 90 | — | — | — | — |
| vsBrentford1-1 | 7.23 | 90 | — | — | 1 | 0.05 |
| @Everton1-1 | 7.15 | 90 | — | — | — | — |
| vsFulham2-1 | 7.00 | 74 | — | — | 1 | 0.07 |
*Rating = SportMonks metric
15 matches with shot data · totals + xG (not shot locations — SportMonks does not provide per-shot coordinates)
| Season | League | Apps | Min | G | A | xG | xA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024/2025 | Premier League | 17 | 1126 | 1 | — | — | — |
| 2023/2024 | Premier League | 20 | 971 | 1 | 3 | — | — |
| 2022/2023 | Serie A | 17 | 1447 | — | — | — | — |
| 2021/2022 | Serie A | 22 | 1963 | — | — |
| — |
| — |