Expected threat (xT) and progressive carries: which wingers and full‑backs are creating danger through the ball

A winger receives the ball near the halfway line, wide on the left touchline. Two defenders sit off, inviting the cross. Instead, he drives inside, carrying the ball twenty metres through the half-space, attracting three opponents, then slips a short pass into the channel for an overlapping full-back. No goal. No assist. No headline. But what just happened was, statistically, one of the most valuable actions on a football pitch — and traditional metrics would not have recorded it at all. This is the gap that expected threat (xT) and progressive carries were designed to fill. Goals and assists account for less than one percent of all on-ball actions in a football match. The remaining ninety-nine percent — the carries, the progressive passes, the structural rearrangements that precede every dangerous moment — are invisible to conventional statistics. For wingers and full-backs, whose primary function is often to progress the ball through territory rather than finish attacks, these invisible actions define their real value. The 2025-2026 season has produced a wealth of data that lets us rank and compare these players not by what they finish, but by what they initiate.

What expected threat actually measures and why it matters for wide players

Expected threat, introduced by Karun Singh in 2018, is a possession value model that estimates how much each non-shooting action increases a team’s probability of scoring. The model divides the pitch into a grid and assigns each zone a baseline scoring probability, derived from historical event data. When a player moves the ball from one zone to another — via pass, carry, or dribble — the difference between the starting zone’s scoring probability and the destination zone’s scoring probability is the xT generated by that action.

A sideways pass between centre-backs might carry an xT of near zero, because the ball has not moved closer to goal. A carry from the left wing into the penalty area might generate 0.10 xT, because the ball has moved from a low-probability zone to one where scoring is far more likely. The model rewards the process that leads to chances, not just the final ball, and it credits every player in the chain — the full-back who carried through the first line, the midfielder who turned and played forward, the winger who drove into the box — rather than only the player who delivered the assist or took the shot.

For wingers and full-backs, xT is particularly revealing because these positions are disproportionately involved in ball progression. A winger who dribbles inside from the flank into the half-space is moving the ball from a zone with a scoring probability of roughly 0.02 to one with a probability of 0.08 — generating 0.06 xT in a single action. A full-back who carries from the defensive third into the midfield zone generates less xT per action but does it far more frequently, accumulating value through volume. The metric captures both the spectacular individual drive and the quiet, repeated progression that forms the backbone of a team’s attacking structure.

Progressive carries: the statistical handle on something scouts always saw

Progressive carries are defined as ball movements — with the ball at the player’s feet — that advance the ball meaningfully toward the opposition goal. The most widely used definitions, from StatsBomb and FBref, set the threshold at moving the ball at least thirty metres closer to goal when starting in the defensive third, fifteen metres from the middle third, and ten metres from the final third. A carry is distinct from a dribble: a carry is movement with the ball, while a dribble involves beating an opponent. Progressive carries can occur without beating anyone — a full-back striding forward into space because the opposition has pressed high and left the flank open is a progressive carry, even if no defender was directly beaten.

The metric matters because it quantifies what football people always described in narrative terms. “He carries the ball well” was a scout’s phrase long before it was a data category. Progressive carries gave that observation a number, a ranking, and a comparison point. The data revealed that teams containing a progressive carry in their attacking sequences were roughly three and a half times more likely to produce a shot than sequences without one — a finding from Opta’s sequence data framework that held across multiple seasons and leagues.

For wingers and full-backs, progressive carries are the primary tool of territorial advancement. A winger who averages eight progressive carries per ninety minutes is, by definition, moving the ball forward eight times per match in a way that materially advances the attack. A full-back who leads the league in progressive carries is effectively functioning as an auxiliary midfielder, breaking the first line of pressure and creating numerical advantages further up the pitch.

The wingers who dominate through the ball

The 2025-2026 season has clarified which wide players are creating genuine, sustained danger through ball progression rather than isolated moments of brilliance. The data separates the wingers who score spectacular goals from those who consistently move their team into scoring positions — and while some players do both, the distinction is where tactical insight lives.

Among the wingers generating the highest xT and progressive carry output across Europe’s top leagues this season, several profiles stand out.

• Lamine Yamal (Barcelona) — the seventeen-year-old topped La Liga for carries ending in a shot (56) and carries ending in a chance created (35), with 91 total shot-creating actions. His 393 progressive carries ranked first among all non-defenders in La Liga, and only Pedri tallied more total carries. Yamal’s xT is generated overwhelmingly through carries (65.7% of his total xT comes from carries rather than passes), making him the purest ball-carrying threat in the dataset.
• Bukayo Saka (Arsenal) — Saka’s per-90 numbers in the 2025-2026 Premier League season are remarkable: 4.23 progressive carries, 2.78 carries into the final third, and 1.72 carries into the penalty area, all ranking in the 82nd percentile or higher among positional peers. His total xT of 611.75 places him 30th in the league overall, a figure inflated by the sheer volume of territory he covers with the ball.
• Jeremy Doku (Manchester City) — Doku’s progressive carry profile is different from Saka’s and Yamal’s: 113 progressive carries per the available data, with a focus on beating defenders in one-on-one situations. His carries tend to be shorter but more disruptive, because each one collapses the defensive structure around him and creates space for teammates. His xT of 496.29 ranks 54th — lower than Saka’s — but his shot-creating actions from carries are disproportionately high.
• Vinícius Júnior (Real Madrid) — Vinícius led all forwards in La Liga for total progressive distance carried with 4.30 km across the season, and his ten carries leading to a goal or assist were matched only by Yamal. His xT profile is built on long, direct carries from the left wing into the penalty area, with a higher percentage of his carries ending in the box than any other winger in the dataset.
• Raphinha (Barcelona) — Raphinha scored six goals following a ball carry in La Liga, tied for the most in the competition. His 70 chances created from open play led La Liga, and his xT is split more evenly between carries and passes than Yamal’s, reflecting his role as both a carrier and a creator from the left side.

These five players illustrate the range of ways wingers generate threat through the ball. Yamal and Doku are pure carriers — their value comes from moving with the ball at their feet. Saka combines carrying with progressive passing, making him a dual-threat profile. Vinícius specialises in direct, line-breaking carries into the box. Raphinha balances carrying with chance creation, functioning as a hybrid winger-creator.

Full-backs: the silent progression engine

Full-backs occupy a unique space in the xT and progressive carry landscape. They start deeper, face less immediate pressure, and have more field ahead of them to progress into. Their per-action xT is lower than a winger’s — a carry from the defensive third to the midfield zone generates less threat than a carry from the wing into the penalty area — but their volume is significantly higher. A full-back who makes twelve progressive carries per match is accumulating territorial value that, over a season, rivals the output of a specialist attacking midfielder.

The 2025-2026 season has highlighted several full-backs whose progression numbers reveal a role that goes far beyond traditional defensive responsibilities. Understanding their profiles requires looking at how they combine carries with progressive passing, and how their output shapes their team’s attacking structure.

To contextualise these full-back profiles alongside the wingers, a direct comparison of progression metrics reveals how different positions contribute to threat creation in distinct ways.

The data reveals a clear positional pattern. Wingers generate higher per-action xT because their carries start closer to goal, but full-backs generate higher total progression volume because they carry more frequently and across longer distances. Antonee Robinson’s 8.45 progressive carries per 90 is the highest figure in the dataset — he is, by volume, the most prolific ball carrier in the Premier League from any position. Alejandro Balde at Barcelona matches this profile, with carries that reflect Barcelona’s build-from-the-back system where the left-back is the primary progression outlet in the first phase. Oscar Mingueza at Celta Vigo stands out for a different reason: his 8.10 progressive passes per 90 and 216 total progressive passes led all La Liga full-backs, and his profile is pass-dominant rather than carry-dominant — a reflection of Celta’s system where the wing-back functions as a wide playmaker.

How team tactics shape individual progression numbers

A player’s xT and progressive carry totals are not produced in isolation — they are shaped by the tactical system in which the player operates. This is why raw xT rankings can mislead if context is ignored. A winger in a possession-dominant team that controls 65% of the ball will have more opportunities to carry and pass than a winger in a counter-attacking team that has 40% possession. Adjusting for team possession — calculating xT at a standardised 50% possession rate — is a common method for isolating individual quality from systemic advantage.

The 2025-2026 Premier League xT team rankings illustrate this dynamic. Liverpool leads the division with 9,081 total xT, followed by Manchester City on 8,604 and Arsenal on 7,525. These are the three highest-possession teams in the league, and their players naturally accumulate more xT because they have more of the ball. Dominik Szoboszlai of Liverpool leads the individual xT charts with 1,007 — a figure inflated by Liverpool’s possession dominance and his role as the primary progression outlet in midfield. A winger at a mid-table team with identical per-action efficiency would generate a fraction of that total xT simply because the team touches the ball less often.

This is why per-90 metrics and possession-adjusted values are more informative for cross-team comparison than raw totals. Saka’s 4.23 progressive carries per 90 is comparable across any team, because it measures rate rather than accumulation. Yamal’s 65.7% carry-dominant xT split is a stylistic signature that holds regardless of Barcelona’s possession share. These normalised metrics let us compare a winger at Liverpool with a winger at Brentford and identify which one is genuinely more efficient at progressing the ball, rather than which one plays in a system that provides more opportunities.

The hidden value of carries that do not lead to shots

One of the most important insights from the xT framework is that many of the most valuable actions on a football pitch do not directly result in shots. A carry that draws three defenders toward the ball and opens space for a teammate is valuable even if the teammate’s subsequent pass is intercepted. The carry disrupted the defensive structure, and the xT model credits the carry with the increase in scoring probability that existed in the moment after the carry, even if the team failed to capitalise.

Several patterns emerge when examining how progressive carries translate into attacking output across the top ball carriers in European football.

1. Carries that draw pressure create secondary chances — when a winger like Doku carries the ball into a crowded area, the defensive response — two or three defenders collapsing on the ball — creates space elsewhere. The xT of the carry itself may be modest, but the expected threat of the subsequent situation — the open teammate, the vacated zone — is elevated. Teams with high-carry wingers tend to generate more shots from secondary actions than teams with pass-dominant wingers.
2. Long carries from deep are disproportionately valuable — a carry that starts in the defensive third and ends in the final third moves the ball through two lines of pressure and is worth more xT than two separate shorter carries covering the same distance, because the single carry preserves the team’s attacking momentum and denies the defence time to reorganise.
3. Carries into the penalty area are the highest-value action in the dataset — across all positions, a progressive carry that ends inside the penalty box generates an average of 0.15 xT, the single highest per-action value in the model. Vinícius Júnior’s disproportionate share of carries ending in the box is a direct explanation of his xT efficiency.
4. Full-back carries in the first phase are undervalued by traditional metrics — a full-back who carries from the defensive third past the first line of pressure enables every subsequent attacking action, but receives no credit in xG or xA frameworks. xT assigns this carry a value based on the positional improvement it creates, even though the carry itself is thirty metres from goal.
5. Carry volume correlates with team shot volume — the Opta sequence data shows that teams with higher progressive carry rates produce more shots per match, even after controlling for possession share. The relationship is not linear — there are diminishing returns at extreme carry volumes — but the correlation is strong enough to confirm that carrying the ball forward is not merely an aesthetic preference but a statistically significant driver of chance creation.

These patterns explain why clubs increasingly value ball-carrying ability in recruitment. A winger who can consistently carry the ball into dangerous zones is a structural asset, not just an individual talent. The same logic applies to full-backs: the modern full-back who can carry through the first line of pressure effectively functions as a third midfielder, and the data shows that teams with high-carry full-backs generate more shots, more xT, and more sustained attacking pressure than teams whose full-backs rely primarily on passing.

What the data cannot capture

No metric is complete, and xT and progressive carries have limitations that matter when interpreting the rankings. The xT model is built on historical scoring probabilities — it assumes that the value of a zone is constant across teams, leagues, and tactical systems. In reality, a carry into the left half-space is more valuable for a team that has a striker making runs into the far post than for a team that plays with a false nine who drops deep. The model does not account for the positioning of teammates or opponents, only the ball’s location.

Progressive carries also do not distinguish between carries made under pressure and carries made into open space. A winger who carries the ball forward five metres against two defenders is performing a fundamentally more difficult and more valuable action than a full-back who carries twenty metres with no opponent within ten yards. The metric treats both as progressive carries, and the xT model treats both as improvements in pitch position, without weighting the difficulty of the action.

These limitations do not invalidate the metrics — they define their scope. xT and progressive carries are best understood as structural measures of ball progression, not as comprehensive player ratings. They tell us who moves the ball into dangerous positions, how often, and through what mechanism. They do not tell us everything about why, or whether the player’s contribution could be replicated by another player in the same system. But for identifying the wingers and full-backs who are creating danger through the ball — rather than through finishing, set pieces, or moments of individual brilliance — they are the most revealing tools in modern football analysis.