Tactical match analysis · PitchTrack Edge
The full tracking metrics for both sides: possession, pressing, territory, shape, work rate and movement. Final score 2–2.
Simple match analysis · the same match in plain languageExecutive assessment
The scoreline and 50:50 possession suggest an even contest, but the spatial data gives Ajester FA a clearer territorial profile. Ajester played higher, pressed more frequently and maintained a slightly more compact vertical structure. Gimbiya, however, were effective enough to take the lead twice, making this a competitive and transition-heavy match.
Written for this match and supplied to the generator. The measurements below were produced independently of it.
Overall possession was approximately 50:50. Ajester held about 52% in the first half and 48% in the second. Shorter match windows showed large swings, indicating that neither side controlled possession continuously. The pattern is more consistent with a busy, transitional game than a slow possession-dominant contest.
Ajester recorded approximately 35 closing-down actions per 100 opportunities, compared with 31 for Gimbiya. This suggests Ajester were more proactive when the opposition had the ball and attempted to engage the ball carrier earlier. Pressing frequency alone does not prove pressing success; turnovers, forced errors and chance creation after pressure would be needed to measure effectiveness.
Ajester's average team position was approximately 44.0 m up the pitch versus 38.4 m for Gimbiya. Ajester were especially prominent in advanced areas, including roughly 67% of samples in the attacking central zone and 66% on the attacking near side. Equal possession therefore did not mean equal territorial control; Ajester generally operated higher.
| Zone | Far side | Centre | Near side |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defensive 0-33 m | 48% | 39% | 53% |
| Middle 33-67 m | 53% | 52% | 51% |
| Attacking 67-100 m | 58% | 67% | 66% |
| Band | 0-33 m | 33-67 m | 67-100 m |
|---|---|---|---|
| Far side | 48% | 53% | 58% |
| Middle | 39% | 52% | 67% |
| Near side | 53% | 51% | 66% |
Ajester's average width was about 30.6 m and vertical length 35.7 m, compared with Gimbiya at 29.0 m wide and 37.6 m long. Ajester were slightly wider while remaining roughly two metres more compact front-to-back. That structure can support counter-pressing, midfield connections and second-ball recovery.
| Metric | Ajester FA | Gimbiya FA |
|---|---|---|
| Average position | 44.0 m | 38.4 m |
| Width | 30.6 m | 29.0 m |
| Vertical length | 35.7 m | 37.6 m |
| Vertical movement range | 44 m | 40 m |
The physical profiles were extremely close. Ajester spent approximately 36.7% jogging, 8.0% running and 3.6% sprinting. Gimbiya recorded about 35.4% jogging, 7.6% running and 3.7% sprinting. These differences are too small to support a claim of clear physical superiority.
| Movement | Ajester FA | Gimbiya FA |
|---|---|---|
| Walking | 51.7% | 53.2% |
| Jogging | 36.7% | 35.4% |
| Running | 8.0% | 7.6% |
| Sprinting | 3.6% | 3.7% |
| Median speed | 1.47 m/s | 1.43 m/s |
| Fastest 10% | 3.74 m/s | 3.72 m/s |
| Band | Ajester FA | Gimbiya FA |
|---|---|---|
| Walking | 51.7% | 53.2% |
| Jogging | 36.7% | 35.4% |
| Running | 8.0% | 7.6% |
| Sprinting | 3.6% | 3.7% |
| Median speed | 1.47 m/s | 1.43 m/s |
| Fastest 10% above | 3.74 m/s | 3.72 m/s |
Ajester's collective shape travelled through approximately 44 m vertically compared with 40 m for Gimbiya. Ajester's average position ranged from roughly 23 m at its deepest to 66 m at its highest. The profile suggests a team that moved its block substantially with the game, pushing forward collectively when attacking and dropping together when defending.
| Window | Ajester FA share | Ajester FA up the pitch | Gimbiya FA up the pitch | Samples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0-60s | 47% | 60 m | 46 m | 5,793 |
| 60-120s | 45% | 53 m | 46 m | 5,099 |
| 120-180s | 52% | 38 m | 29 m | 6,406 |
| 180-240s | 48% | 49 m | 44 m | 5,417 |
| 240-300s | 45% | 47 m | 36 m | 5,607 |
| 300-360s | 51% | 38 m | 33 m | 6,274 |
| 360-420s | 55% | 50 m | 43 m | 4,600 |
| 420-480s | 42% | 48 m | 44 m | 5,043 |
| 480-540s | 49% | 52 m | 46 m | 4,473 |
| 540-600s | 32% | 66 m | 57 m | 2,748 |
| 600-660s | 45% | 58 m | 56 m | 4,487 |
| 660-720s | 51% | 29 m | 26 m | 6,398 |
| 720-780s | 40% | 52 m | 43 m | 5,014 |
| 780-840s | 49% | 31 m | 22 m | 6,199 |
| 840-900s | 63% | 32 m | 25 m | 5,523 |
| 900-960s | 55% | 35 m | 31 m | 4,957 |
| 960-1020s | 49% | 48 m | 41 m | 4,611 |
| 1020-1080s | 45% | 57 m | 50 m | 5,037 |
| 1080-1140s | 49% | 48 m | 41 m | 5,461 |
| 1140-1200s | 49% | 34 m | 26 m | 5,436 |
| 1200-1260s | 68% | 23 m | 17 m | 6,368 |
| 1260-1320s | 55% | 27 m | 24 m | 5,628 |
| 1320-1380s | 33% | 56 m | 48 m | 3,653 |
| 1380-1440s | 57% | 32 m | 27 m | 5,578 |
| 1440-1500s | 58% | 31 m | 21 m | 4,105 |
| 1500-1560s | 54% | 45 m | 34 m | 5,052 |
| 1560-1620s | 51% | 31 m | 27 m | 5,056 |
| 1620-1680s | 42% | 52 m | 50 m | 4,878 |
| 1680-1740s | 41% | 60 m | 55 m | 4,179 |
| 1740-1800s | 53% | 43 m | 38 m | 5,003 |
| 1800-1860s | 49% | 40 m | 31 m | 6,021 |
| 1860-1920s | 47% | 51 m | 41 m | 5,625 |
| 1920-1980s | 55% | 41 m | 30 m | 5,619 |
| 1980-2040s | 39% | 57 m | 47 m | 4,219 |
| 2040-2100s | 43% | 57 m | 48 m | 4,685 |
| 2100-2160s | 50% | 45 m | 38 m | 5,761 |
| 2160-2220s | 46% | 49 m | 44 m | 5,613 |
| 2220-2280s | 48% | 46 m | 42 m | 5,675 |
| 2280-2340s | 57% | 41 m | 37 m | 5,685 |
| 3180-3240s | 73% | 44 m | 35 m | 3,372 |
| 3240-3300s | 66% | 58 m | 38 m | 2,931 |
| 3300-3360s | 56% | 54 m | 43 m | 5,196 |
| 3360-3420s | 59% | 54 m | 46 m | 4,733 |
| 3420-3480s | 58% | 49 m | 39 m | 3,000 |
| 3480-3540s | 57% | 66 m | 56 m | 1,128 |
Momentum changed repeatedly rather than remaining with one team. Gimbiya scored first in the 13th minute, Ajester equalised in the 32nd, Gimbiya regained the lead in the 47th and Ajester responded again in the 68th. Ajester therefore recovered from a losing game state twice, reinforcing the picture of alternating spells of control.
| Window | Share to Ajester FA | Favoured |
|---|---|---|
| 0:00 | 61% | Ajester FA |
| 2:00 | 54% | Ajester FA |
| 4:00 | 39% | Gimbiya FA |
| 6:00 | 53% | Ajester FA |
| 8:00 | 41% | Gimbiya FA |
| 10:00 | 46% | Gimbiya FA |
| 12:00 | 68% | Ajester FA |
| 14:00 | 60% | Ajester FA |
| 16:00 | 52% | Ajester FA |
| 18:00 | 32% | Gimbiya FA |
| 20:00 | 60% | Ajester FA |
| 22:00 | 46% | Gimbiya FA |
| 24:00 | 39% | Gimbiya FA |
| 26:00 | 57% | Ajester FA |
| 28:00 | 49% | Gimbiya FA |
| 30:00 | 42% | Gimbiya FA |
| 32:00 | 48% | Gimbiya FA |
| 34:00 | 41% | Gimbiya FA |
| 36:00 | 54% | Ajester FA |
| 38:00 | 47% | Gimbiya FA |
| 40:00 | 56% | Ajester FA |
| 42:00 | 53% | Ajester FA |
| 44:00 | 53% | Ajester FA |
| 46:00 | 37% | Gimbiya FA |
| 48:00 | 32% | Gimbiya FA |
| 50:00 | 65% | Ajester FA |
| 52:00 | 42% | Gimbiya FA |
| 54:00 | 66% | Ajester FA |
| 56:00 | 39% | Gimbiya FA |
| 58:00 | 48% | Gimbiya FA |
| 60:00 | 50% | Ajester FA |
| 62:00 | 29% | Gimbiya FA |
| 64:00 | 36% | Gimbiya FA |
| 66:00 | 37% | Gimbiya FA |
| 68:00 | 41% | Gimbiya FA |
| 70:00 | 28% | Gimbiya FA |
| 72:00 | 38% | Gimbiya FA |
| 74:00 | 38% | Gimbiya FA |
| 76:00 | 65% | Ajester FA |
| 78:00 | 38% | Gimbiya FA |
| 80:00 | 47% | Gimbiya FA |
Summary
| Category | Ajester FA | Gimbiya FA | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Possession | 50% | 50% | Even |
| Pressing | 35 | 31 | Ajester FA |
| Average territory | 44.0 m | 38.4 m | Ajester FA |
| Vertical length | 35.7 m | 37.6 m | Ajester FA more compact |
| Running | 8.0% | 7.6% | Near-even |
| Sprinting | 3.6% | 3.7% | Near-even |
| Final score | 2 | 2 | Even |
Final tactical conclusion
Ajester FA showed the stronger underlying territorial profile: they played higher, pressed more frequently, were slightly more vertically compact and occupied advanced central areas more often. Gimbiya nevertheless converted their periods of effectiveness into two leads. The available data does not include xG, shot quality, progressive passing, turnover locations or detailed individual actions, so it would be premature to conclude that Ajester deserved to win solely from these metrics.