The Full
Report

The season-by-season record: minutes, starts and output per 90, and how each changed as his role grew or shrank. Charted against it, the market's side of the story: his value trajectory and every completed move on file, so the points where price and performance diverged are visible rather than argued.

Where the transfer database holds no completed move, the section says so instead of padding. An honest gap is part of the product.

Percentiles don't cross competitions, so we built a number that does. The Latent Level is a corridor-calibrated cross-league rating, fitted on how players who actually made these moves performed afterwards, measured in minutes earned rather than opinions. His Level is printed with its trend and against the positional average of his own competition.

Underneath it, the full ranked metric set: every rate with its percentile and the size of the cohort it was ranked inside.

The Level ships with receipts. Its backtest against hundreds of real post-move outcomes is published in full, including what it does not validate, on the methodology page.

Name a club and the report maps him onto that squad: his output against the players currently holding his position there, the club's depth and age at that position, and where he would sit in its internal pecking order.

When the two sides sit in different tiers, the section says so at the top and keeps the profiles separate (each ranked inside its own competition) instead of inventing a tier-adjustment factor to make the comparison look cleaner than it is. The excerpt below is exactly that case.

No target club yet? The section runs against the destination level his profile realistically points to instead.

Not a heat map of countries: named clubs, with reasons. For each destination: the squad gap at his position with the depth and age of the incumbents, how often that market actually buys out of his competition, and a fee range grounded in completed comparable moves.

The output is a framework of clubs to contact in the window, each one an argument you can make with the numbers already attached.

His statistical style profile, and the ten players who most resemble it at the same position, compared side by side. Then the part a similarity list usually leaves out: for every comparable who moved, where he went, what it cost, and how much he actually played afterwards.

The difference between "he resembles X" and "players shaped like him kept their minutes at the next level" is the difference between trivia and evidence.

The season under a microscope: rolling per-90 trends match by match, each match weighted by the strength of the opposition, his starter-versus-substitute pattern, and flags on unexplained gaps in minutes.

Availability flags are built from minutes alone and labelled that way. A gap in the match log means he was not on the pitch, and that is all it means; we hold no injury data and don't pretend to.

Where a player has continental competition minutes, his domestic numbers are set against his numbers in Europe, against opposition from far stronger competitions. Real minutes against that class of squad are the closest thing scouting has to a step-up trial, and they are already in the data.

Only ever shown where the minutes exist. If he has not played continental football, the report says that instead of extrapolating.

His market value set against what his performance supports: the residual that surfaces players priced below their output, plus completed transfers of comparable players with the fees actually paid, resolving to a recommended range you can open a negotiation with.

Every report closes by listing exactly that: metrics the competition does not record, seasons outside coverage, comparisons that would need an adjustment we have not validated, and the coverage this specific player has in our data. A missing number is reported as missing, never silently shown as zero.

The full methodology behind every section is public: how every Latent number is made.