Swiss Super League · Tactical identity
Playing Styles
Nine playing styles in the Swiss Super League, derived with PCA and k-means from 10 seasons of Wyscout event data.
Team-Seasons
104
Playing Styles
3 × 3
Seasons
2015/16–2024/25
Out-of-sample
Thun 2025/26
SFL Playing Style Space
104
Team-Seasons
Offensive cluster · colour
Defensive cluster · shape
Champion · ring
Swiss Super League winnerStyle Trajectory by Team
| Team | 15/16 | 16/17 | 17/18 | 18/19 | 19/20 | 20/21 | 21/22 | 22/23 | 23/24 | 24/25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basel | 🏆 | 🏆 | 🏆 | |||||||
| Grasshopper | ||||||||||
| Lausanne Sport | ||||||||||
| Lugano | ||||||||||
| Luzern | ||||||||||
| Neuchâtel Xamax | ||||||||||
| Servette | ||||||||||
| Sion | ||||||||||
| St. Gallen | ||||||||||
| Stade Lausanne-Ouchy | ||||||||||
| Thun | ||||||||||
| Vaduz | ||||||||||
| Winterthur | ||||||||||
| Young Boys | 🏆 | 🏆 | 🏆 | 🏆 | 🏆 | 🏆 | ||||
| Yverdon Sport | ||||||||||
| Zürich | 🏆 |
Offensive cluster · colour
Defensive cluster · symbol
Champion · ring
🏆Swiss Super League winnerThe Nine Main Styles
104
Total Seasons
Defensive High Press | Defensive Mid Press | Defensive Low Block | |
|---|---|---|---|
Offensive Possession-Oriented | Possession-Oriented × High Press 99% | Possession-Oriented × Mid Press 1514% | Possession-Oriented × Low Block 66% |
Offensive Pragmatic Style | Pragmatic Style × High Press 77% | Pragmatic Style × Mid Press 2423% | Pragmatic Style × Low Block 2120% |
Offensive Direct Vertical Play | Direct Vertical Play × High Press 77% | Direct Vertical Play × Mid Press 1010% | Direct Vertical Play × Low Block 55% |
Out-Of-Sample: Thun 2025/26
Identified main style
Direct Vertical Play × High Press
Distances to offensive centroids
Distances to defensive centroids
Most distinctive offensive features
Most distinctive defensive features
How Do Champions Play?
🏆 11
Champion seasons
Dominant offensive identity
Possession-Oriented
7 of 11 champion seasons (64%)
Dominant defensive identity
High Press
8 of 11 champion seasons (73%)
The Champion's Style
Possession-Oriented × High Press
5 of 11 title-winning seasons (45%)
Offensive · champions vs. league
Defensive · champions vs. league
Champion roster
2015/16
Basel
Possession-Oriented × Mid Press
2016/17
Basel
Possession-Oriented × Mid Press
2017/18
Young Boys
Pragmatic Style × High Press
2018/19
Young Boys
Pragmatic Style × High Press
2019/20
Young Boys
Possession-Oriented × High Press
2020/21
Young Boys
Possession-Oriented × High Press
2021/22
Zürich
Pragmatic Style × Mid Press
2022/23
Young Boys
Possession-Oriented × High Press
2023/24
Young Boys
Possession-Oriented × High Press
2024/25
Basel
Possession-Oriented × High Press
2025/26· out-of-sample
Thun
Direct Vertical Play × High Press
Reading the numbers: a positive pp-value indicates that the offensive or defensive style appeared more frequently among champions than in the league overall - a stylistic edge for title contenders. A negative value means the style underperformed expectations relative to its league prevalence.
Cluster drilldown
The two axes, one at a time
The combined style space above multiplies the two axes. Below, each axis is shown on its own — PC1 vs PC2 of the offensive clusters, and PC1 vs PC2 of the defensive clusters. Centroids are marked as ringed dots.
Offensive Clusters
PC1 × PC2 of the cleaned offensive features. 2 components, k = 3.
Defensive Clusters
PC1 × PC2 of the cleaned defensive features. 1 components, k = 3.
Offensive archetypes
Three offensive main styles
2 principal components condense 9 cleaned offensive indicators into the build-up axis. k = 3 is fixed by theory (Plakias 2024: direct / pragmatic / possession) and supported empirically by the elbow method (bootstrap-ARI 0.83 ± 0.16, silhouette 0.39).
Pragmatic Style
n = 52 · 50% of all seasons
Balanced middle ground without a strong tendency toward either pole — neither overtly possession-based nor a pure direct game.
Characteristic ↑
Characteristic ↓
Prototypical seasons
Possession-Oriented
n = 30 · 29% of all seasons
Patient circulation: high possession share, many passes per attack, above-average accuracy. Build-up emphasises control over verticality.
Characteristic ↑
Characteristic ↓
Prototypical seasons
Direct Vertical Play
n = 22 · 21% of all seasons
Direct, vertical play: high forward-pass share, fewer passes per shot, faster tempo. Possession control sits below league average.
Characteristic ↑
Characteristic ↓
Prototypical seasons
Defensive archetypes
Three defensive main styles
Pressing-height trichotomy (Bauer & Anzer 2021): high press / mid press / low block. 1 principal components from 5 cleaned indicators, k = 3 fixed by theory, validated by elbow + bootstrap-ARI 0.94 ± 0.09 (silhouette 0.59).
Low Block
n = 32 · 31% of all seasons
Compact defence in the own third: high low-recovery share, lower recovery-height index, fewer high turnovers.
Characteristic ↑
Characteristic ↓
Prototypical seasons
Mid Press
n = 49 · 47% of all seasons
Pressing line around the halfway line: balanced recovery distribution, moderate PPDA — neither extreme high press nor deep block.
Characteristic ↑
Characteristic ↓
Prototypical seasons
High Press
n = 23 · 22% of all seasons
Pressing in the opposition half: low PPDA, high recovery-height index and a large share of high recoveries.
Characteristic ↑
Characteristic ↓
Prototypical seasons
Offensive PCA Loadings
Standardised loadings of the cleaned offensive indicators on the principal components.
| Feature | PC1 possession ↔ direct | PC2 secondary build-up dimension |
|---|---|---|
| Possession % | -0.59 | -0.64 |
| Passes per Possession | -0.95 | -0.10 |
| Pass Accuracy % | -0.94 | -0.06 |
| Forward Pass Share | +0.96 | +0.06 |
| Back Pass Share | -0.48 | +0.57 |
| Lateral Pass Share | -0.79 | -0.18 |
| Progressive Passes % | +0.82 | -0.09 |
| Passes per Shot | -0.52 | +0.74 |
| Match Tempo | -0.60 | -0.01 |
Defensive PCA Loadings
Standardised loadings of the pressing-height indicators.
| Feature | PC1 low block ↔ high press |
|---|---|
| PPDA (Passes per Defensive Action) | -0.84 |
| Recovery Height Index | +0.98 |
| High Recoveries % | +0.92 |
| Low Recoveries % | -0.96 |
| Loss Height Index | +0.91 |