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

Benjamin Pavard

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

Current Team
Olympique Marseille
Position
Centre Back
Date of Birth
Mar 28, 1996 (30)
Jersey Number
#28
League
Ligue 1
Back to PlayersCompare PlayerOpen RankingsView Methodology
Benjamin Pavard
Benjamin Pavard
Current profile snapshot
Current Team
Olympique Marseille
Position
Centre Back
Date of Birth
Mar 28, 1996 (30)
Jersey Number
#28
TactiQ Score
70.0
84% confidence
TactiQ Score v2
70.0
Form Score
65.4
Confidence
84%
Role
center_back
League
Ligue 1
Per 90 minutes
Goals
0.05
Assists
0.10
Key Pass
0.54
Tackles
1.42
Rating
6.82
Multi-season trend
AI Analysis
Generated May 6, 2026

A Ligue 1 center-back sitting at 50.33 on the FQ scale — a typical performer with no standout dimension separating them from the baseline. Across 25 matches (1,836 minutes), the per-90 profile is modest: 1.42 tackles, 0.54 key passes, and a 6.82 average rating. Critically, all role-specific sub-scores are null, meaning the full picture of defensive contribution remains unresolved.

Why this score

The 50.33 FQ score reflects a player operating at the middle of the scale with no sub-score above baseline to pull the rating higher. The absence of a defense sub-score — the single most important dimension for a center-back — means the score is driven primarily by per-90 volume metrics, which themselves show no above-average output.

Form Trajectory

Form score of 48.1 sits 2.2 points below the FQ score of 50.33, placing this player in stable-to-marginally-soft territory — within the ±5 threshold for a stable read. This is not a temporary dip; the tight alignment between form and FQ suggests this level of output has been consistent across the sample.

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

Diks scores 50.48 — virtually identical to this player's 50.33 — reflecting a similar profile of mid-scale output; Diks operates as a fullback, giving him a different positional context despite the matching score.

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
26
Minutes
1926
Goals
1
Assists
2
Key passes
11
Rating
6.82
Tackles
29
Shots on target
3
Clean sheets
9
Current indicators
What the live season sample is surfacing right now
2 Seasons Ago
TQ 69.4Form 69.5
Previous
TQ 69.3Form 68.8
Current
TQ 65.0Form 65.4
Per 90 minutes
Goals
0.05
Assists
0.10
Key Passes
0.54
Tackles
1.42
Rating
6.82

Dźwigała's 50.11 FQ score places him in the same typical-performer band; both are center-backs at the 50-point threshold, though direct sub-score comparison is limited by null data on both profiles.

Compare →
Sead Kolašinac

Kolašinac at 50.04 rounds out a tight cluster of comparable scores; his profile carries more physical duel history as a veteran, which may differentiate the underlying drivers despite the near-identical headline number.

Compare →
Heavy minute load
1926 minutes suggest a significant current role in the squad rotation.
Defensive activity
29 tackles indicate active intervention volume in the current season sample.
Defensive outcomes
9 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 output

The defense sub-score is null, which is the core evaluation gap for this role. With only 1.42 tackles per 90 visible in the raw data, there is no confirmed picture of duel success, interceptions, or clearance volume — the metrics that define center-back value.

Ball progression

Progression sub-score is null and key passes sit at 0.54 per 90, offering no evidence of above-baseline ball-playing contribution — a dimension increasingly expected of modern center-backs.

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 →