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

A mid-range Premier League winger sitting at 54.09 on the FQ scale — squarely in the typical performer band (50-59), indicating adequate but unremarkable output for the role. The most distinctive data point is what's absent: all granular sub-scores (finishing, creation, progression, defense, possession control, physical duels) are null, meaning the score is built on surface-level production rather than a full dimensional read. Across 28 matches and 1,170 minutes this season, the player has produced 0.08 goals and 0.15 assists per 90 — contribution volumes that do not distinguish them from a typical starter.
The 54.09 FQ score reflects a player meeting the bare positional baseline for a winger without exceeding it in any measurable dimension. With all role-specific sub-scores null, the score is anchored primarily to per-90 surface stats — 1.85 key passes and a 6.71 average rating — which are functional but not above the mid-range threshold for a top-flight winger.
Form score of 49.75 sits 4.34 points below the FQ score of 54.09 — a gap that signals a soft, measurable decline rather than a stable or improving trend. The delta does not yet reach the 5-point threshold for a confirmed downward trajectory, but the direction is negative and worth monitoring over the next 2-3 match weeks.
Mavididi's FQ score of 53.33 places him within 0.76 points of this player, reflecting a similarly adequate-but-unremarkable output profile for a wide attacker; the key difference is Mavididi's role context and league environment may vary, which could explain marginal scoring divergence.
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.
Guedes scores 55.24 — the closest ceiling comparison in this peer group — suggesting a slightly higher production floor, likely driven by more consistent chance creation or progressive actions; both players occupy the same typical-performer band without elite sub-score markers.
Rashford's 52.55 FQ score reflects a well-known high-profile winger currently underperforming his historical baseline, making him a relevant peer for a player in soft decline; unlike this player, Rashford carries a longer scoring history that contextualises his dip more clearly.
0.08 goals and 0.15 assists per 90 across 1,170 minutes this season. For a Premier League winger, direct goal contributions at this rate fall well below what separates starters from impactful wide players — combined that is 0.23 goal contributions per 90, a figure that limits the ceiling on any composite score.
1.85 key passes per 90 is a functional but unremarkable creation rate for the role. Without a creation sub-score to contextualise quality and conversion, this figure alone does not indicate a player who consistently unlocks defences.
1.31 tackles per 90 is noted, but without a defense sub-score it is unclear whether this reflects genuine defensive contribution or simply high-turnover possession loss. For a winger in the Premier League, this metric needs sub-score context to be meaningful — which is currently unavailable.
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 →