TactiQ
Sign InGet Started
TactiQ
Football Intelligence
Founding Beta

TactiQ is built around Player & Club Data, Match Intelligence, Predictive Modeling, and Research & Visualization — understand the system, not the surface.

Core
Club football as the permanent base
Launch
World Cup as the launch amplifier
Transparency
Public roadmap and visible system progress
The standard
Methodology →

Every score is deterministic, evidence-gated, and confidence-labelled. Football intelligence should be explainable — not a black box with a number on the front. The methodology is part of the product, not a legal page.

Deterministic scoringMulti-agent consensus gatedPublication gate active
Core
PlayersClubsMatchesWorld Cup 2026Roadmap
Product
CompareRankingsForecastMethodologyMembership
Legal
PrivacyTerms© 2026 TactiQ. All rights reserved.
Player Profile

Loading player profile...

Pulling current player details into TactiQ.

Player Profile

Marc Bartra

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

Current Team
Real Betis
Position
Centre Back
Date of Birth
Jan 15, 1991 (35)
Jersey Number
#5
League
La Liga
Back to PlayersCompare PlayerOpen RankingsView Methodology
Marc Bartra
Marc Bartra
Current profile snapshot
Current Team
Real Betis
Position
Centre Back
Date of Birth
Jan 15, 1991 (35)
Jersey Number
#5
TactiQ Score
70.8
84% confidence
TactiQ Score v2
70.8
Form Score
70.2
Confidence
84%
Role
center_back
League
La Liga
Per 90 minutes
Goals
0.05
Assists
—
Key Pass
0.23
Tackles
2.05
Rating
6.97
Multi-season trend
AI Analysis
Generated May 6, 2026

A La Liga center-back sitting at 51.24 on the FQ scale — squarely in the typical performer range — with no sub-score data available to diagnose specific strengths or weaknesses. Across 25 matches (1,976 minutes), the most visible output is 2.05 tackles per 90, with a 6.98 average match rating that reflects steady but unremarkable contribution. The absence of a defense sub-score is the defining limitation of this evaluation.

Why this score

The FQ score of 51.24 reflects a player performing at or just below the positional baseline for a center-back, but the missing defense sub-score — the primary metric for this role — prevents a precise diagnosis. What data exists (tackles per 90, match rating) points to functional but unexceptional defensive output rather than any standout quality driving the score up or down.

Form Trajectory

Form score of 55.36 sits 4.1 points above the FQ score of 51.24 — within the ±5 stable range, but nudging toward a modest upward signal. This is not a meaningful trend shift, but it does suggest no current decline.

Similar Profiles
Players with comparable scoring profiles in the same role
Kevin Diks

Comparable FQ score (50.48) places Diks in the same typical-performer band; Diks operates as a fullback rather than a central defender, giving him a different positional profile despite the similar overall rating.

Compare →
Adam Dźwigała
Rankings
See where this player sits across all scored players.

Top 50 players by TactiQ Score — filter by position, form, and confidence.

Open Rankings →
Compare
Put this player next to another and find the real edges.

TactiQ Score, form, confidence, and season stats compared side by side — instantly.

Compare Player →
Methodology
Understand exactly how this score was built.

Every TactiQ Score is deterministic and traceable. Read the full methodology behind the numbers.

View Methodology →
Latest available season snapshot

Live statistics currently available for this profile

9 metrics surfaced
Appearances
25
Minutes
1976
Goals
1
Key passes
5
Rating
6.97
Tackles
45
Shots on target
5
Successful dribbles
7
Clean sheets
8
Current indicators
What the live season sample is surfacing right now
2 Seasons Ago
TQ 60.0Form 60.1
Previous
TQ 71.5Form 71.8
Current
TQ 69.7Form 70.2
Per 90 minutes
Goals
0.05
Assists
—
Key Passes
0.23
Tackles
2.05
Rating
6.97

Near-identical FQ score (50.11) reflects a similar level of baseline adequacy; Dźwigała's profile is also that of a center-back, making him the closest like-for-like comparison in this set.

Compare →
Sead Kolašinac

FQ score of 50.04 puts Kolašinac in the same range, though his profile as a physically aggressive left-sided defender differs from a more positionally orthodox center-back role.

Compare →
Heavy minute load
1976 minutes suggest a significant current role in the squad rotation.
Defensive activity
45 tackles indicate active intervention volume in the current season sample.
Defensive outcomes
8 clean sheets are surfacing in the current live snapshot.
Strengths
Where this player is genuinely above baseline
No clearly elite traits identified in current data.
Watchpoints
Real gaps relative to this player's role
Defensive sub-score unavailable

The defense sub-score is null despite center-back being this player's primary role. Tackles, interceptions, duels won, and aerial success cannot be evaluated dimensionally — a meaningful gap given that defensive production is the core expectation for this position.

Attacking contribution

0.05 goals per 90 and 0.23 key passes per 90 are low, but these are secondary metrics for a center-back. They are flagged here only because no other sub-score data is available to provide a fuller picture of overall contribution.

Reading the score

What each number means

TactiQ Score

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.

Form Score

Weighted toward recent matches. Can diverge from the TactiQ Score when current form is meaningfully stronger or weaker than the multi-season average.

Confidence

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.

Methodology

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 →