Profiling matches on the basis of statistical identity

[MrJoeBlack]

Manchester City vs West Ham United

Narrative Headline

An extreme identity opposition: Manchester City’s progressive-carry dominance versus a West Ham profile defined by conceding territory, progression, and box access.

The −0.550 cosine similarity indicates not just difference, but active opposition of styles. These teams attempt to solve football problems in structurally incompatible ways.

Pre-Match Identity Framing
Manchester City — “Territorial Control via Carry Progression”

Manchester City’s identity is unusually concentrated and stable:

• Very high progressive carries (total, distance, into final third)

• Elevated assist and xAG production

• High opponent short-pass volume allowed (a marker of deep territorial lock)

• Strong ball-carry dominance, not crossing or direct play

This describes a team that:

• Advances the ball with the ball, not around it

• Generates chances through repeated zone penetration

• Sustains pressure through positional occupation, not transitional bursts

The nearest-neighbour table confirms season-to-season self-similarity, reinforcing that this is a persistent identity, not a form spike.

West Ham United — “Reactive Block Under Progressive Stress”

West Ham United’s identity is almost entirely opponent-defined:

• Very high opponent progressive carries

• Very high opponent final-third and penalty-area touches

• High opponent shot volume

• Suppressed opponent medium completion (suggesting forced last-ditch defending rather than control)

This profile reflects a team that:

• Concedes territory before contesting

• Defends deep, absorbing progression rather than preventing it

• Relies on blocking and reaction, not ball denial

Nearest neighbours (Southampton, Everton, Sheffield United, Forest) reinforce this as a structural defensive identity, not a one-off mismatch.

Identity Interaction (Why the Cosine Is So Negative)

The most important insight in this report is where the largest deltas sit:

• Manchester City are extreme positive outliers in carries into dangerous zones

• West Ham are extreme positive outliers in allowing exactly those actions

• Conversely, City suppress opponent progression while West Ham rely on it

This creates an identity lock:

• City push the game forward through carries

• West Ham absorb the same carries into their defensive third

• There is no shared mechanism to neutralise the interaction

This is not a clash of presses or shapes — it is a clash of who controls spatial progression.

Likely Match Texture (Identity-Constrained)

Without predicting outcomes, the identity implies the following match shape:

• Sustained Manchester City territorial dominance

• Repeated ball progression into the final third

• High City shot and assist creation volume

• West Ham defending in extended low-block phases

• West Ham attacking opportunities occurring sporadically, not continuously

• The match is expected to be one-directional in territory, even if outcomes fluctuate.

Proxy Match Evidence (Identity Reinforcement)

The proxy section does not introduce new claims — it confirms identity persistence:

Across 10 proxy matches:

Home teams with City-like identities averaged:
~21 shots
~6 shots on target
~7 corners

Away teams with West Ham-like identities averaged:
~5–6 shots
~2–3 shots on target
~1 corner

Results varied (wins, draws, occasional losses), but the match shape did not.

This supports the interpretation that identity explains structure, not necessarily scoreline.

Structural Tension Points (Explains Variance)

The report also highlights why outcomes can still diverge:

• West Ham’s identity includes shot blocking, introducing finishing variance

• City’s dominance does not eliminate counter-attack exposure

Post-Match Review

Regardless of final score, the following explanations remain identity-consistent:

• If City dominate shots/territory → expected given carry and progression deltas

• If West Ham struggle to create chances → aligned with opponent-suppression profile

• If goals are delayed or fewer than expected → blocking and low-block variance

• If West Ham score from limited chances → residual transition exposure, not control

[MrJoeBlack]

Tottenham Hotspur vs Liverpool

Narrative Headline

A moderately similar baseline masks a sharp divergence in how control is contested: Tottenham through defensive intervention and duels, Liverpool through pressure-induced penalties and disciplinary events.

The cosine similarity of 0.204 indicates partial overlap in general intensity, but the match is ultimately shaped by how and where disruption occurs, not by shared attacking mechanisms.

Pre-Match Identity Framing
Tottenham Hotspur — “Intervention-Heavy Disruption”

Tottenham’s defining identity dimensions are overwhelmingly defensive-action driven:

• High tackles (overall and mid-third)

• High tackles won

• Elevated interceptions / tackle–intercept actions

• High ball dislodgements

• Elevated cross volume but low share of crossing in their own attack

This describes a team that:

• Actively contests possession rather than containing it

• Breaks opponent sequences through physical and positional intervention

• Forces repeated restarts and fragmented phases of play

• Engages opponents earlier (mid-third) rather than sitting deep

Tottenham’s identity is therefore interactional: they shape matches by disrupting rather than by sustaining possession or progression.

Liverpool — “Pressure With Consequence”

Liverpool’s identity is dominated not by volume metrics, but by event outcomes:

• Very high penalties won

• Elevated second yellow cards

• Strong share of possession completion

• Suppressed progressive distance

This profile reflects a team that:

• Applies pressure in ways that force decisive referee actions

• Creates advantage through rule-bound events (penalties, dismissals)

• Does not rely on sustained ball-carry progression

• Accepts lower progressive distance in exchange for high-leverage moments

• Liverpool’s identity is therefore consequential rather than volumetric.

Identity Interaction (Why the Match Looks This Way)

The moderate similarity score hides a mechanism mismatch:

Tottenham attempt to interrupt play via tackles, duels, and mid-third pressure
Liverpool convert pressure situations into penalties and disciplinary outcomes

Tottenham’s defensive assertiveness directly increases exposure to:

• fouls

• penalty incidents

• card accumulation

This interaction creates a tension loop:

• More Tottenham intervention → more contested moments

• More contested moments → higher Liverpool identity leverage

The match is therefore not about tempo or territory, but about who benefits from disruption.

Likely Match Texture (Identity-Constrained)

Based on identity only, the match is expected to show:

• High duel and tackle frequency

• Repeated midfield stoppages and restarts

• Moderate shot volume, not dominance by either side

• Elevated foul and card counts

• Attacking moments emerging from set-pieces, penalties, or turnovers, not sustained buildup

This is an abrasive, stop–start fixture, not a free-flowing one.

Proxy Match Evidence (What Identity Has Looked Like Before)

The proxy aggregation reinforces this texture:

• Shots: balanced, slightly favouring the away side

• Shots on target: away-side edge

• Corners: evenly distributed

• Fouls: very high (mean ~25 per match)

• Yellow cards: elevated (mean >4 per match)

• Results: draws and away wins dominate

Crucially, proxy matches show low home-goal output and compressed scorelines, even when chances exist.

This supports an interpretation of mutual disruption without territorial dominance.

Structural Tension Points (Explains Variance)

• Tottenham’s high tackle volume increases penalty and card tail-risk

• Liverpool’s reliance on penalties introduces binary variance

• Neither team shows dominant progressive-distance control

• Finishing efficiency becomes decisive in otherwise balanced structures

• Variance exists inside the identity, not outside it.

Post-Match Review

Regardless of result, the following explanations remain identity-consistent:

• If the match is foul- and card-heavy → expected from both identities

• If a penalty or dismissal is decisive → aligns with Liverpool’s identity edge

• If Tottenham disrupt but fail to convert control into goals → consistent with intervention-heavy profile

• If the match feels tense rather than open → identity-confirmed

[MrJoeBlack]

Everton vs Arsenal

Narrative Headline

Near-orthogonal identities (cosine 0.078): Everton profile as a contest-and-clear side with atypical defensive-third touch patterns, while Arsenal profile as a touch-suppressing, shot-on-target producing side with low recovery volume.

A cosine similarity this low implies:

• The teams share little common structure in how they generate or prevent events.

• Match shape is more likely to be defined by style collision than shared tempo.

Everton Identity: “Contest + Clearance, Low Defensive-Third Touch Share”

Everton’s most defining dimensions are concentrated in three areas:

• Very low own defensive-third touches and share

• High opponent defensive-third touches

• Tackles won elevated

• Higher challenge win % and take-on tackled %

• More clearances

This is a clear “win the duel, end the sequence” signature. And an unders lean.

Arsenal Identity: “Touch Suppression + SoT Production, Low Recovery Volume”

Arsenal’s defining dimensions cluster around:

• Opponent touches strongly suppressed across multiple variants

• Direct on-target output, not just sterile control.

• Errors per90 is high

Style Delta: Where the Fixture Is Decided Structurally

• Everton = contest & terminate sequences

• Arsenal = touch suppression + forced to shoot from range

This is a low-similarity fixture: Everton’s identity is built around winning duels, ending sequences with clearances, and showing unusual defensive-third touch patterns, while Arsenal’s identity suppresses opponent touches and produces shots on target without relying on high recovery volume.

Expected Match Texture (Identity-Constrained)

• More contests and interruptions than fluent possession sequences

• Arsenal attempting to limit Everton’s touch volume and generate on-target attempts

• Everton resisting via duel wins and termination actions rather than long defensive possession phases

Post-Match Review

• If goals are few.

• If Everton rack up defensive actions (tackles won, clearances): directly aligned with their top identity dimensions.

• If Arsenal limit Everton’s “touch involvement”: aligned with Arsenal’s opponent-touch suppression footprint.

• If match is scrappy / foul-heavy