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

Vladimír Coufal

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

Current Team
TSG Hoffenheim
Position
Right Back
Also: Full Back / Wing Back
Date of Birth
Aug 22, 1992 (33)
Jersey Number
#34
League
Bundesliga
Back to PlayersCompare PlayerOpen RankingsView Methodology
Vladimír Coufal
Vladimír Coufal
Current profile snapshot
Current Team
TSG Hoffenheim
Position
Right Back
Also: Full Back / Wing Back
Date of Birth
Aug 22, 1992 (33)
Jersey Number
#34
TactiQ Score
71.5
96% confidence
TactiQ Score v2
71.5
Form Score
71.5
Confidence
96%
Role
fullback_wingback
League
Bundesliga
Per 90 minutes
Goals
0.03
Assists
0.25
Key Pass
1.81
Tackles
1.75
Rating
7.11
Multi-season trend
AI Analysis
Generated May 6, 2026

A Bundesliga fullback/wingback sitting at 52.83 on the FQ scale — a typical performer for the position, with no standout dimension pulling the score in either direction. The most distinctive feature is not a strength but a data gap: all role-specific sub-scores (finishing, creation, progression, defense) are null, meaning the score is built on aggregate output rather than dimensional profiling. Across 31 matches and 2,748 minutes this season, the per-90 numbers show modest attacking contribution (0.26 assists, 1.74 key passes) alongside 1.7 tackles per 90.

Why this score

The FQ score of 52.83 reflects adequate but unspectacular aggregate output with no sub-score above baseline to lift the ceiling. The absence of all four dimension scores prevents any granular strength from being credited, anchoring the rating firmly in the 50-59 "typical performer" band.

Form Trajectory

Form is on an upward trajectory: the form score of 60.72 sits 7.9 points above the FQ score of 52.83, a gap that qualifies as a meaningful positive signal. With score confidence at 0.94 across a 31-match sample, this is a reliable trend rather than noise — recent performances are consistently outpacing the season-long baseline.

Similar Profiles
Players with comparable scoring profiles in the same role
Kieran Trippier

Trippier's FQ score of 52.87 is virtually identical to this player's 52.83, reflecting the same tier of aggregate fullback output; the key difference is Trippier's profile is built in a higher-profile league context with more established creation metrics on record.

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

10 metrics surfaced
Appearances
33
Minutes
2928
Goals
1
Assists
8
Key passes
59
Rating
7.11
Tackles
57
Shots on target
6
Successful dribbles
30
Clean sheets
7
2 Seasons Ago
TQ 66.8Form 66.4
Previous
TQ 60.0Form 59.8
Current
TQ 71.7Form 71.5
Per 90 minutes
Goals
0.03
Assists
0.25
Key Passes
1.81
Tackles
1.75
Rating
7.11
José Diogo Dalot Teixeira

Dalot Teixeira scores 53.63 — marginally higher — and shares the fullback/wingback role bucket, making him a close positional and quality peer; he differs in that his attacking output in wider roles is more consistently captured across sub-scores.

Compare →
Ainsley Maitland-Niles

Maitland-Niles at 51.95 is the closest floor comparison, reflecting a similarly thin sub-score profile and mid-50s aggregate rating; the distinction is Maitland-Niles carries greater positional versatility uncertainty that suppresses his score.

Compare →
Current indicators
What the live season sample is surfacing right now
Heavy minute load
2928 minutes suggest a significant current role in the squad rotation.
Creative involvement
Current snapshot shows meaningful chance supply and final-third contribution.
Defensive activity
57 tackles indicate active intervention volume in the current season sample.
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
No notable gaps identified for this role.
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 →