Exploratory Data Analysis – Laboratory
December 31th , 2024
Belo Matos – Up202309078
INDEX
Abstract............................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Pass Network ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Croatia ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4
France ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Pass Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Pass analysis by player ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Progressions into final third ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Team Pressure .................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Player Pressure Zone .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
France ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Croatia ..........................................................................................................................................................................10
Player Events on the ball ..................................................................................................................................................11
Shots analyse ....................................................................................................................................................................12
Shot map ......................................................................................................................................................................13
France ...........................................................................................................................................................................13
Croatia ..........................................................................................................................................................................14
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................15
APPENDIX 1 – Teams lineup..............................................................................................................................................16
APPENDIX 2 – Pass Analysis ..............................................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX 3 – Individual Pressure Zones ..........................................................................................................................21
2
ABSTRACT
This assignment is part of an academical exercise, within the Laboratory class of the Master’s program in Data
Analytics at Faculdade de Economia do Porto (FEP). This assignment focusses on Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA),
summarizing main characteristics of the data through statistical measures and visualizations.
This report focuses on exploring and visualizing Statsbomb data related to the 2018 World Cup final between France
and Croatia. The aim of the study is to analyse the in-depth match statistics, to identify and visualize key events and
trends, that contributed to the match outcome.
Using advanced data visualization techniques, the report investigates player performance, team tactics, and critical
match events, such as goals, shots, passes, and team and individual player pressure. By leveraging this detailed match
data, the analysis aims to provide a deeper understanding of how specific moments and strategies shaped the result,
providing insights into the performance dynamics of both teams during the match.
Keywords: Exploratory data analysis, python, data analysis, data visualization, football, Statsbomb, mpl soccer
INTRODUCTION
This report aims to demonstrate an understanding of Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) by applying the concept to the
specific topic of football data analysis. For this reason, the process will slightly diverge from traditional EDA methods,
as the dataset, which captures football match events, lends itself to a more tailored approach. Despite this divergence,
the analysis will follow core EDA principles to uncover patterns, trends, and insights.
The dataset used in this analysis is provided by Hudl Statsbomb, a company founded in 2017 that specializes in
collecting detailed data from football matches, covering a wide range of events. Over the past few years, data analysis
has gained significant importance across various industries, and football is no exception. Statsbomb, in its effort to
shape the future of football data analytics, provides free datasets and analyses to foster a new generation of football
analysts and researchers.
The expected key findings and results of this assignment are centered around the interpretation and analysis of the
data, as well as an understanding of its potential impact on the future of football. By analyzing the dataset, it is
possible to uncover valuable insights that could contribute to a deeper understanding of the game. These insights may
help to identify patterns, strategies, and key factors influencing match outcomes, ultimately providing new
opportunities for improving player performance, team tactics, and decision-making processes in football. Additionally,
the analysis of such data can speed up video analysis, as it provides a general understanding of the opposition's
strategies and tactics. By examining the data, teams can quickly identify patterns and key moments from the
opposition, allowing for more efficient preparation and decision-making.
3
| ENTITY-RELATIONSHIP MODEL
PASS NETWORK
The pass network diagram provides a quick but deep understanding of the team formation, beyond the basic lineup.
Presenting the average position of the player when receiving and passing the ball, also highlighting the most frequent
player connections and combinations, we can get an understanding of tactical approach, ball circulation patterns, key
players. We will analyze both teams’ diagram, and compare them, getting a good understanding of the game, and
tactical approaches and adaptations.
Both teams’ lineup, are presented in Appendix 1 – Teams Lineups.
Croatia
Ilustração 1 Croatia pass network
It’s very clear the 4-3-3 formation, with inverted wingers (playing inside). The defensive line’s average position also
indicates high pressing and or possession-based approach.
• Observing the goalkeeper, we can assume he didn’t have many goal kicks, which can imply game control, as
the other team had difficulty reaching their box.
• The defensive line is advanced, with the right center back, receiving and passing the ball close to midfield
line.
• The right and left backs very projected, especially the left-back, creating width.
The CDM controlled the game tempo, connecting to the other midfielders, who were both very active during the build
up play.
The game passed a trough the right side of the Croatian team, with the right back, also being very active.
Event ought it appear they dominated and controlled the game, they add difficulty’s on breaking the French defensive
line, and connecting to the attackers, specially reaching the striker, who had to drop lower to receive and pass the
ball. The relatively sparse connections to the front three suggest France effectively prevented vertical progression
4
| ENTITY-RELATIONSHIP MODEL
France
Ilustração 2 France pass network
We can observe the 4-2-2 formation, with the right midfielder playing very wide, the opposite happens on the left
side, with the left midfielder playing a lot more inward.
We can observe a lot more compact team, playing with a lower defensive line, with a more direct approach.
The goalkeeper participated a lot more, compared to the Croatia goalkeeper, we can observe he was able to find the
forwards, or even play the ball directly on the right wing, taking advantage of a left back projected on the flank. Based
on this we could assume they played on a counterattack. Playing the ball directly on the left center forward, attracting
the center defender, for the right center forward, to look for the second ball, finding empty spaces.
The French game passed a lot by the RDM, serving as the primary distributor, who was able to connect to directly with
the all the different players. There is one connection, that is very interesting, and that we will dive deeper later, the
connection between Pogba and Mbappé. Has mentioned before, having the Croatian left back very projected, there is
a lot of space for the right winger to explore, especially with Pogba vision and pass quality, combined with Mbappé’s
pace, we can foreshadow many progressive passes or line breaking passes between these two players. As mentioned,
the Croatian left back was very projected, but did not participate much in the attack, this could be the reason for that
tactical adjustment.
The LDM played a lot closer to the left side, and to the center back, what could indicate higher pressure zone from the
opposition.
5
PASS ANALYSIS
The passing statistics provide clear evidence of the contrasting tactical approaches and further demonstrate and
confirm our suspicions relatively to the game. From one side a possession-based approach versus counter-attacking
strategy.
Croatia with no surprise, completed more than the double successful passes then France, with a very high successful
rate, highlighting clear commitment to building play through controlled possession. The high accuracy, a high pass
volume, correlates with the passing network, where we observed their advanced positioning and ball circulation
emphasis.
In contrast, France direct approach, can be reflected on the 202 successful passes, with 71% success percentage. This
fact could indicate a more direct approach as mentioned before, and/or difficulty to build up and control the game,
due to Croatia high pressure, and tactical superiority.
I would like to highlight the difference between incomplete passes is equal to 18, when Croatia had more 266 passes.
Tabela 1 Pass outcome by team
Pass
Outcome
Croatia
France
Incomplete
Out
Offside
Successful
Total Passes
91
73
12
9
0
1
448
202
551
285
Successful
passes %
81.31%
70.88%
Pass analysis by player
Observing Table 2 and Table 3, located on Appendix 2 pass analysis, provide more insight into each player role, and
both team’s tactical approach.
As mentioned previously, Paul Pogba was the primary distributor, ending the match as the French player with more
passes attempts and successful passes registered, with 93% complete rate. On the other end, Kanté with only 11
passes tried and only 63% success rate, suggest a more defensive role, and can indicate Croatian pressure on that
zone of the pitch.
Would like to highlight, Nzonzi, who entered the pitch on the second half, finished with 93% percent rate, conserving
ball possession, only missing 1 pass out of 14.
On the Croatian side, Brozovic finished the match with 99 passes attempts, completing 87 (most passes completed
and attempted of the match), with 88% of success rate, which illustrates his amazing work at controlling the game
tempo, and as a safe option to receive and pass the ball. Luka Modric and Rakitic, also where very active in the game,
finishing with 66 (87% success rate) and 53 successful passes (82% success rate), respectively.
Progressions into final third
For the progressions into the final third, we will consider passes done before entering the final third (x<80) and that
finish after the final third (x>80). A progressive pass or carry takes a team closer to the opponents, we will not define a
minimum pass distance.
The progressive passes and carries are presented on Appendix 2 – Pass analysis.
Paul Pogba was the French player with most progressive passes (6), illustrating is pass accuracy and vision. We
mentioned previously a potential link up, between Pogba and Mbappé, who was the receiver of 6 progressive passes
(max progressive passes received alongside with Griezmann for France), 4 of those done by Pogba.
Mbappé also finished the match with the most successful carries into final third (3) out of the French players.
6
Ilustração 3 Paul Pogba progressive passes into final third & Mbappé progressive passes received in final third
Ivan Rakitic finished the match with the most progressive carries of the match (5) and second most progressive passes
(12), one behind Luka Modric (13, further illustrating team and midfield dominance by the Croatian side.
Vrsaljko was the most solicitated player of the match, regarding progressive passes, with 11 passes received.
Ilustração 4 Rakitic progressive passes into final third & Vrsalijkp progressive passes receive into final third
7
| APPENDIX
TEAM PRESSURE
Pressure is an event type classified by Stastsbomb as “Applying pressure to an opposing player who’s receiving,
carrying or releasing the ball.”. This allows to uncover and analyze team pressure, getting a deeper understanding of
the tactical approach, for a given match or team.
First, we will present and analyze both teams’ pressure heatmap, for a pitch divided into a six-by-three grid with a
central strip as wide as the six yard box, then dividing the pitch even further, providing a more detailed understanding
of the pressure applied by both teams.
Ilustração 5 Pressure Heatmap (6 by 3 grid)
Croatia shows an aggressive, high-pressing approach, which aligns with their possession-based, high line tactical
setup.
The highest-pressure zone for the Croatian team corresponds to the right attacking zone, where we discovered
previously a very participative right back, Vrsalijko, who received the most progressive passes of the match.
The Croatian team presents a strong pressing on both flanks on the final third. Defensively having more trouble
containing the right side of French game, Kylian Mbappé, very participative on the game, with the most progressive
passes received and successful carries into the final third, by the French team.
On the other side, France’s pressure pattern reveals a more defensive-minded approach, that supports a counterattacking strategy, pressing deeper. The most intense pressure (14%) is on the left flank, which now confirms our
initial suspicions, where we saw previously Kante, having a lower positioning, receiving the ball close to the center
back. There is also significant pressure in the left midfield area (13%), on the attacking third the pressure was well
distributed. Event ought on the Croatian heatmap, the pressure was applied on both flanks offensively, the pressure
by France on the right flank was lower, also indicating higher pressure strategy on one flank, but also emphasizing
players characteristics, (Kante, Hernandez and Matuidi are more intense, then Pogba, Mbappé and Pavard).
8
| APPENDIX
Ilustração 6 Pressure Heatmap (6 by 4 grid)
Croatia confirms the high pressing tactical approach, with notable concentration in advanced areas of the field, with
31% of the team pressure on the final third of the pitch. This fact could emphasize the inverted winger’s approach, not
letting France connect through the middle. High pressing on the right midfield zone, where was noticeable a Center
back playing close to the midfield line, or the pressure zone for the CDM.
France demystifies the pressure zone along the right wing, but highlights a pressure zone on the central midfield, and
on the left. Analyzing individual player pressure will help understand exactly were the first phase of the France
pressure was done, providing a clear image of Croatia match dominance.
PLAYER PRESSURE ZONE
Having established a comprehensive understanding of both teams' tactical approaches through pass networks, passing
statistics, and team pressure patterns, we can now examine the individual player pressure zones. This analysis will
provide deeper insights into how each player's pressing responsibilities contributed to their team's overall strategic
framework. The individual pressure zones can be found on Appendix 3 – Individual Pressure Zones.
France
Forwards
•
•
Midfielders
•
•
9
Giroud left striker forward, presents moderate pressing across middle left third, having his most
intense pressure zone on the defensive midfield.
Griezmann right striker forward, intensive pressing in central attacking areas, pressing on the half line,
but also close to his own box, demonstrated high pressing capabilities across multiple zones.
Matuidi left midfielder, intense pressing along the left flank, particularly in defensive and middle
thirds.
Kanté left defensive midfielder, strong pressing around midfield, but emphasizing on the felt flank,
where we saw most pressure was located.
| APPENDIX
•
•
Defenders
Pogba right defensive midfielder, higher pressing compared to Kante, pressured more on the right
midfield.
Mbappé right midfielder, pressured mostly on the right flank, in attacking and middle thirds. Also
pressured on his own defensive touch line.
•
•
•
•
Key patterns:
•
•
•
•
Hernández left back, strong pressing along left defensive flank, also emphasizing is high pressing
capabilities, pressing of the midfield line.
Umtiti left center back, pressed on the defensive line, but also managing to press on the midfields.
Had to press in the felt touch line.
Varane right center back, limited pressing, maintaining defensive position, playing more patiently
allowing Umtiti to pressure higher.
Pavard right back, concentrated pressing in right defensive zone, pressing lower than Hernandez.
Clear asymmetric pressing structure favoring left side (Matuidi-Hernández-Kanté), we can consider
these the zone was Croatia pressed higher. Probably a tactical response to Croatia’s right side build up
preference.
Midfield pressing zones show clear tactical division of responsibilities, with the attackers pressing
across the pitch, also pressing low (demonstrating Croatia game control)
Mbappe was the player pressing on the right flank and pressing high. Conditioning the first phase of
build up, by the right side
Umtiti played as a more pressive center back then Varane, who maintained deeper positioning
compensating Umtiti aggressiveness.
Croatia
Forwards
•
•
•
Midfielders
•
•
•
Perišić left winger, pressing concentrated across all the left flank, more intense around midfield line.
Mandžukić striker forward, Active pressing across the front line with emphasis on central areas, more
emphasizis on right midfield zone, possible game part where France dominated, pressing initial build
up.
Rebić right winger, high pressing intensity on the right side of attack, but also pressing in the middle
and left side. High pressing capability.
Rakitić left central midfielder, Strong pressing in the middle third, particularly in central and right
zones. Pressed very high, conditioning the first phase of build up
Brozović center defensive midfielder, Focused pressing in the left-central areas of midfield, also
controlling and pressing on the right side, where the right back was very projected.
Modrić right central midfielder, intensive pressing across the right half-space and central areas acrros
the final third, showing his box-to-box role.
Defenders
• Strinić left back, strong pressing along left defensive flank, also emphasizing is high pressing capabilities,
pressing of the midfield line and final third, demonstrating is very projected role.
• Vida left center back, limited pressing, maintaining defensive positioning.
• Lovren right centerback, pressing in central defensive areas, pressing also very high on the midfield line.
• Vrsaljko right back, intense pressing on the right flank, in defensive and middle thirds.
Key patterns:
•
•
•
•
10
High intensity pressing across all areas, reflecting their possession-dominant approach, with the
midfielders pressing high on the final third.
Midfield trio showed comprehensive pressing coverage
Strong right-side pressing through Vrsaljko-Modrić-Rebic combination
Lovren played as a more pressive center back, also being very involved on the first phase build up.
| APPENDIX
PLAYER EVENTS ON THE BALL
Now we will compare players, events on the ball (pass, ball receipt, carry, clearence, foul won, block, ball recovery,
duel, dribble, interception, miscontrol and shot). This will further demonstrate game control and tactical plan for both
teams and players.
Ilustração 7 Player events comparison Kanté and Pogba
France midfielders had a different game plan, and approach. Kante acting as a defensive midfielder and Pogba playing
more advanced. Kante was on the pressured side of France group of players, trapped on the left flank, where his
actions were concentrated where 66% of his actions happened. This is far from his box-to-box typical role, where he
can appear pressuring or receiving the ball across all the pitch.
Paul Pogba played a freer role, appearing across all the pitch, still played most of the game on his own half, 64% of his
actions where on his own half. Due to his vision and passing, this works for him playing as a launcher of counter
attacks, with is long ball accuracy, serving in this case Mbappé on the right wing.
11
| APPENDIX
Ilustração 8 Player events comparison Rakitic and Modric
Rakitić spent most of this time in the central zones near, the halfway line with 18% of his touches in both left central
defensive and attacking midfield. Was very present on the left flank (44% of his touches), 14% of those near the
attacking midfield zone.
Luka Modrić also dominated the right central zones, the highest percentage of his touches in the attacking central
midfield area (18%). Appeared on the left midfield zone (12%), playing a lot closer to middle of the pitch, despite also
appearing on the wings.
The two players contrast with the France approach, where Kante and Pogba, had very different missions, playing on
different parts of the pitch. The Croatian duo was very similar, in terms of events on the ball, with slight differences,
with Modrić playing almost across all midfield zone, reaching the final third more often than Rakitić, who played a
little bit closer to the wing and on build up play.
SHOTS ANALYSE
The match between France and Croatia ended with a 4-2 victory for France. This section analyzes the goals scored,
shot efficiency, visualizing the number of shots for both teams, with the respective expected goals for each team.
France
Player name
Total Shots
Goal
Antoine Griezmann
2
1
Kylian Mbappé Lottin
2
1
Nabil Fekir
1
0
Olivier Giroud
1
0
Paul Pogba
2
1
Tabela 2 Shots and goals by French player
12
| APPENDIX
This aligns with Croatia dominating the game (event ought the result is the opposite), with France creating less
chances, this demonstrates effective attack and high shot-to-goal conversion ratio.
France only had 8 shots, 6 of them belonging to attacking players, that ended up in 2 goals (Griezmann and Mbappé).
The other goals were scored by Pogba, with Mandžukić scoring one own goal.
Croatia
Player name
Total Shots
Goal
Ante Rebić
3
0.0
Dejan Lovren
2
0.0
Domagoj Vida
2
0.0
Ivan Perišić
2
1.0
Ivan Rakitić
3
0.0
Mario Mandžukić
1
1.0
Šime Vrsaljko
2
0.0
Tabela 3 Shots and goals by Coratian player
Croatia dominated the game with 15 shots, only scoring 2 goals through Perišić and Mandžukić. Rakitić and Rebić, were
the players with more shots of the match, both with 3 shots.
This demonstrates Croatia game dominance but low shot-to-goal conversion ratio.
Shot map
The shot map below provides a detailed visual analysis of attacking performance, highlighting the location and quality of
their attempts on goal during the match. Each marker represents a shot, with the size of the marker representing the
expected goal of the shot, also with distinctions for goal or no goal. The accompanying expected goals (xG) value
quantifies the quality of these chances, offering insight into how effective the attack was in converting opportunities into
goals.
France
Ilustração 9 France shot map
France’s shot distribution reveals a reliance on long-distance attempts, with 5 out of their 8 shots coming from
outside the box, highlighting challenges in breaking down Croatia’s defense to create high-quality chances closer to
13
| APPENDIX
goal. Despite this, France demonstrated confidence in long-range shooting, converting 2 goals from their 5 longdistance shots, showcasing either exceptional precision or a breakdown in Croatia’s defensive pressure.
The expected goals (xG) value of 1.1 reflects the modest quality of chances France created during the match,
suggesting they were expected to score approximately one goal. However, they exceeded expectations by scoring four
goals, including one via a Mandžukić own goal. This suggests a combination of clinical finishing, fortunate
circumstances, and potentially gaps in Croatia’s defensive setup. Including metrics like expected saves by the
goalkeeper could provide deeper insights into the goalkeeper’s performance and whether the goals scored were
preventable.
A critical moment in the match was the penalty, which carried an xG value of 78.35%, representing a high probability
scoring opportunity. This penalty shot accounted for a significant portion of France’s xG and contributed to their
eventual victory.
Croatia
Ilustração 10 Croatia shot map
The shot map for Croatia demonstrates a more focused attacking approach, with many attempts coming from inside
the box (10 out of 5). A significant portion of Croatia's shots were taken from high-probability areas inside the box,
with the best chance (56% xG), ending up in goal.
The total xG of 1.48 reflects the higher quality of chances created by Croatia compared to France (1.1 xG). This
indicates that Croatia's attack was more structured and focused on high-quality opportunities.
Despite the higher xG value, Croatia managed to score two goals.
Chance Creation: Croatia created better chances with a higher xG (1.48 vs. 1.1), but their conversion rate was lower.
Shooting Range: Unlike France, which relied more on long-distance efforts, Croatia focused on close-range
opportunities.
Outcome vs. xG: France overperformed their xG significantly, a key factor in the match outcome.
14
| APPENDIX
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis revealed stark contrasts in tactical approaches between France and Croatia. Croatia's possession-based,
high-pressing 4-3-3 system (81.31% pass completion, 551 total passes) dominated territorial metrics but proved less
efficient than France's pragmatic 4-2-2 counter-attacking strategy. France's clinical finishing, converting 4 goals from 8
shots despite a lower xG (1.1 vs 1.48), demonstrated how tactical efficiency can overcome statistical dominance.
This football analytics project provided valuable insights into exploratory data analysis principles:
1.
Multi-dimensional Analysis: Examining pass networks, pressure patterns, and shot data demonstrated how
different data dimensions can reveal tactical narratives.
2.
Sports-Specific Data Challenges: Football data analysis required unique approaches compared to traditional
datasets, particularly in spatial analysis and event sequencing.
3.
Role-Based Analysis: The pressure analysis revealed how individual player roles contribute to team tactics,
showing the importance of granular data examination.
Several areas needed deeper investigation that could enhance tactical knowledge and player performance analysis.
This project served as an introduction to football analytics, an emerging field where data science principles transform
traditional match analysis.
The project proved valuable beyond football analysis, enhancing broader data analysis capabilities through:
15
•
Practical application of EDA techniques
•
Development of Python data analysis skills
•
Understanding of complex data visualization approaches
•
Experience with multi-dimensional data interpretation
| APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1 – TEAMS LINEUP
Ilustração 11 Croatia Lineup
16
| APPENDIX
Ilustração 12 France Lineup
APPENDIX 2 – PASS ANALYSIS
Pass Outcome
17
Incomplete
Out
Pass Offside
Total Passes
Successful %
Andrej Kramarić
0.0
0.0
10.0
10.0
100.00
Marcelo Brozović
11.0
1.0
87.0
99.0
87.88
Domagoj Vida
4.0
2.0
42.0
48.0
87.50
Luka Modrić
9.0
1.0
66.0
76.0
86.84
| APPENDIX
Dejan Lovren
8.0
1.0
55.0
64.0
85.94
Ivan Rakitić
11.0
1.0
53.0
65.0
81.54
Danijel Subašić
2.0
0.0
8.0
10.0
80.00
Šime Vrsaljko
14.0
1.0
58.0
73.0
79.45
Mario Mandžukić
6.0
1.0
21.0
28.0
75.00
Ivan Strinić
8.0
0.0
20.0
28.0
71.43
Marko Pjaca
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
66.67
Ante Rebić
4.0
2.0
8.0
14.0
57.14
Ivan Perišić
14.0
1.0
18.0
33.0
54.55
Tabela 4 Pass outcome by French player
Pass Outcome
Incomplete
Out
Successful
0.0
Pass
Offside
0.0
14.0
Total
Passes
15.0
Successful
%
93.33
Steven N''Kemboanza Mike Christopher
Nzonzi
Paul Pogba
1.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
29.0
34.0
85.29
Samuel Yves Umtiti
2.0
2.0
0.0
17.0
21.0
80.95
Raphaël Varane
4.0
1.0
0.0
18.0
23.0
78.26
Blaise Matuidi
4.0
2.0
0.0
18.0
24.0
75.00
Antoine Griezmann
8.0
0.0
0.0
18.0
26.0
69.23
Lucas Hernández Pi
9.0
1.0
0.0
22.0
32.0
68.75
Hugo Lloris
9.0
0.0
0.0
16.0
25.0
64.00
N''Golo Kanté
4.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
11.0
63.64
Benjamin Pavard
8.0
1.0
1.0
17.0
27.0
62.96
Olivier Giroud
8.0
1.0
0.0
14.0
23.0
60.87
Corentin Tolisso
2.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
5.0
60.00
Kylian Mbappé Lottin
6.0
1.0
0.0
8.0
15.0
53.33
Nabil Fekir
3.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
4.0
25.00
Tabela 5 Pass outcome by Croatian player
18
| APPENDIX
Ilustração 13 Progressions into final third by French players
Ilustração 14 Progression into final third by French players (Pitch)
19
| APPENDIX
Ilustração 15 Progressions into final third by Croatian players
Ilustração 16 Progression into final third by Croatian players (Pitch)
20
| APPENDIX
APPENDIX 3 – INDIVIDUAL PRESSURE ZONES
21
| APPENDIX
22
| APPENDIX
Ilustração 17 France individual player pressure
Ilustração 18 Croatia individual player pressure
23