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

Clinton Mata

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

Current Team
Olympique Lyonnais
Position
Centre Back
Date of Birth
Nov 7, 1992 (33)
Jersey Number
#22
League
Ligue 1
Back to PlayersCompare PlayerOpen RankingsView Methodology
Clinton Mata
Clinton Mata
Current profile snapshot
Current Team
Olympique Lyonnais
Position
Centre Back
Date of Birth
Nov 7, 1992 (33)
Jersey Number
#22
TactiQ Score
69.1
92% confidence
TactiQ Score v2
69.1
Form Score
67.6
Confidence
92%
Role
center_back
League
Ligue 1
Per 90 minutes
Goals
—
Assists
—
Key Pass
0.07
Tackles
1.36
Rating
6.83
Multi-season trend
AI Analysis
Generated May 6, 2026

A Ligue 1 center back sitting at 51.09 on the FQ scale — squarely in the typical performer band — with 2,571 minutes across 29 matches this season. The most distinctive feature of this profile is what is absent: all role-defining sub-scores (defense, progression, physical duel) are null, meaning the score is built on surface-level data rather than granular positional output. With a match rating of 6.82 and just 1.37 tackles per 90, there is limited evidence of standout defensive contribution.

Why this score

The FQ score of 51.09 reflects a below-average center back profile with no sub-score dimension clearing the 70 threshold. The absence of a defensive sub-score — the primary evaluative dimension for this role — means the score is anchored by general presence and volume rather than demonstrated defensive quality.

Form Trajectory

Form score of 48.96 sits 2.1 points below the FQ score of 51.09 — within the ±5 stable range, but on the softer side. Trajectory is effectively flat with a mild downward lean; no meaningful acceleration or deterioration is evident.

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

Diks scores 50.48, nearly identical to this player's 51.09, reflecting a similar profile of adequate starter-level output; Diks operates as a fullback rather than a center back, giving his score a different positional context.

Compare →
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

7 metrics surfaced
Appearances
31
Minutes
2746
Key passes
2
Rating
6.82
Tackles
40
Successful dribbles
9
Clean sheets
13
Current indicators
What the live season sample is surfacing right now
Heavy minute load
2746 minutes suggest a significant current role in the squad rotation.
Defensive activity
2 Seasons Ago
TQ 69.5Form 69.6
Previous
TQ 69.5Form 69.7
Current
TQ 67.0Form 67.6
Per 90 minutes
Goals
—
Assists
—
Key Passes
0.07
Tackles
1.36
Rating
6.83
Adam Dźwigała

Dźwigała's 50.11 FQ score places him in the same typical performer band; like this player, he represents consistent but unremarkable defensive presence without elite sub-score markers.

Compare →
Sead Kolašinac

Kolašinac at 50.04 is the closest in score and shares a defensive role profile; his career trajectory as an experienced defender provides a useful ceiling reference for what this band of center back looks like at its upper end.

Compare →
40 tackles indicate active intervention volume in the current season sample.
Defensive outcomes
13 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

1.37 tackles per 90 is the only available defensive volume indicator, and no defensive sub-score exists to contextualize it. For a center back, this is the critical gap — duels won, interceptions, and aerial success are all unscored, leaving role-specific quality unverified.

Ball progression / creation

Progression and creation sub-scores are both null, and key passes sit at just 0.07 per 90. Modern center backs are increasingly evaluated on ball-playing ability; there is no data here to suggest this player contributes meaningfully in that dimension.

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 →