Pulling current player details into TactiQ.
TactiQ Score, per-90 performance stats, and multi-season form — with direct routes into compare and rankings.

A Bundesliga center back sitting at 50.84 on the FQ scale — squarely in the typical performer range — with 2,680 minutes across 30 matches providing a reliable sample. The most distinctive feature of this profile is what's missing: all sub-scores (defense, progression, finishing, creation) are null, meaning the headline number is built without granular positional metrics, which is a significant transparency gap for a role where defensive output is the primary value driver. The 7.18 average rating and 1.34 tackles per 90 are the clearest performance signals available.
The FQ score of 50.84 reflects a below-position-baseline performer, most critically explained by the absence of a defense sub-score — the single most important dimension for a center back. Without duels won, interceptions, or aerial success data, the score cannot credit any defensive production, and the available metrics (1.34 tackles per 90, 0.27 key passes per 90) do not independently support a higher rating.
Form is stable with a slight upward lean — the form score of 53.34 sits 2.5 points above the FQ score of 50.84, which falls within the ±5 stable range but nudges toward improving. No meaningful concern about decline, and the 0.93 score confidence makes this trend reliable.
Comparable FQ score of 50.48 places him in the same typical performer band; both profiles share limited sub-score granularity, though Diks operates as a fullback rather than a center back.
Top 50 players by TactiQ Score — filter by position, form, and confidence.
TactiQ Score, form, confidence, and season stats compared side by side — instantly.
Every TactiQ Score is deterministic and traceable. Read the full methodology behind the numbers.
Nearly identical FQ score of 50.11 reflects a similar overall output level; Dźwigała's profile similarly sits in the adequate-to-fringe starter range for a defensive role.
FQ score of 50.04 puts Kolašinac in the same tier; a key difference is Kolašinac's established top-league history, which provides more contextual benchmarking than this player's current profile allows.
All sub-scores including the defense dimension are null. For a center back, this is the core production metric — the absence means the score cannot reflect duels, interceptions, or aerial work, leaving 1.34 tackles per 90 as the only defensive signal and creating a meaningful blind spot in the evaluation.
0.03 goals per 90 and 0.27 key passes per 90 are minimal, though low attacking output is broadly expected for a center back. At this FQ score level, even marginal ball-playing or progression contributions would help differentiate — and those sub-scores are also null.
A 0–100 measure of overall quality. Combines statistical output with league difficulty, multi-season weighting, and a consistency factor. Target range for strong players: 70–85.
Weighted toward recent matches. Can diverge from the TactiQ Score when current form is meaningfully stronger or weaker than the multi-season average.
How much evidence supports this score. Lower confidence means thinner data — fewer seasons, fewer appearances, or gaps in coverage. A provisional score is real signal with appropriate caveats.
TactiQ Scores are deterministic — given the same evidence, they produce the same output. The evidence packet system, confidence labels, and publication gate are all explained in full.
Read the full methodology →