Skip to content
Touchline

Search

Jump to a club, a player, or a section

Burnley

Lucas Pires

Defender
Non-penalty xG per 90
0.060 non-penalty goals from 16 shots
Expected assists per 90
0.100 assists, 20 key passes
Finishing
-0.80goals above what the league converts the same chances into
Build-up per 90
0.153% of Burnley’s build-up value

Lucas Pires ranks 227th of 398 qualified players for attacking involvement, shooting from 23.2m on average. They carry 3% of Burnley’s attacking involvement, the 16th largest share in the squad.

Against their position

119 defenders

Shooting

per 90
Goals
0.00
Non-penalty goals
0.00
xG
0.06
Non-penalty xG
0.06
Shots
1.04
npxG per shot
0.06
Shot distance
23.2m
Set-piece share
10%
Goals against xG
-0.9

2 figures here come from match-event data, which is not recorded for 2025/26.

Creating

per 90
Assists
0.00
Expected assists
0.10
Key passes
1.29
npxG + xA
0.16
xG chain
0.25
xG build-up
0.15
Assists against xA
-1.5

On the ball

per 90

6 figures here come from match-event data, which is not recorded for 2025/26.

Defending

per 90

7 figures here come from match-event data, which is not recorded for 2025/26.

Discipline

per 90
Yellow cards
1season count
Red cards
1season count

3 figures here come from match-event data, which is not recorded for 2025/26.

Ranked against 119 defenders with half a match a round or more, the same comparison the compare page makes. Where less is better, such as being dispossessed, the order is turned round, so a high percentile is always the good end.

This week

Next match

Shots

20 appearances
  • Over 0.59 of 2045%± 11
  • Over 1.53 of 2015%± 8
  • Over 2.52 of 2010%± 7
  • Over 3.51 of 205%± 5

The band is one standard error, the tick the estimate. Blanks count as misses, 11 of 20.

Shooting profile

16 shots

Where they shoot

16 shots
Every shotBy zone
Opponent goalLeftRight
GoalNo goalMark area is the chance’s expected goals

Lucas Pires, 2025/26, 15 shots in the final 35m, 0 scored.

left
93%
Centre
5%
right
2%

share of their shooting xG

Chance profile

quality, volume and route
xG per shot
0.056
Shots per 90
1.04
Key passes per 90
1.29
Average shot distance
23.2m
From set pieces
10%

How the chances arrive

Crosses
42%
Through balls
0%
Own dribble
0%
Headed
0%

Club role

Burnley

What they are for

  • Corners and set piecesSupplies 8% of Burnley’s dead-ball danger, from 3 deliveries that became shots.
  • On the pitch41% of available minutes.

What would actually have to be replaced. Losing the penalty taker is not the same as losing a proportional slice of Lucas Pires’output.

Chances received

who supplies them
  1. James Ward-Prowse0.3 xG1 shot, 0g
  2. Marcus Edwards0.2 xG4 shots, 0g
  3. Jaidon Anthony0.1 xG2 shots, 0g
  4. Jacob Bruun Larsen0.1 xG1 shot, 0g
  5. Chimuanya Ugochukwu0.0 xG1 shot, 0g

Chances created

who they supply
  1. Lyle Foster0.6 xG1 shot, 0g
  2. Marcus Edwards0.2 xG4 shots, 0g
  3. Zian Flemming0.2 xG2 shots, 0g
  4. Jaidon Anthony0.2 xG4 shots, 0g
  5. Chimuanya Ugochukwu0.1 xG1 shot, 0g

Season record

2025/26

Involvement in build-up

excludes their own shots and final passes

Lucas Pires carries 3.3% of Burnley’s build-up value.

  • Build-up per 900.152
    18% of defenders
  • Possession value per 900.248
    37% of defenders

Ranked against 119 defenders with a comparable sample. Build-up is the value of possessions a player was involved in, with their own shots and final passes removed, so it credits the work before the chance rather than the chance.

Match by match

Match log

20 appearances, oldest first

at Bournemouth2 shots
0 on target

v Everton1 shot
0 on target

v Newcastle3 shots
0 on target

at Brighton1 shot
1 on target

v Man Utd1 shot
0 on target

at Liverpool1 shot
0 on target

at Sunderland1 shot
0 on target

at Everton1 shot
0 on target

v Wolves5 shots
3 on target

11 blanksno shot
not placed

Height is shots, solid is on target, and the dashed rule is the 1.5 line. The feed cannot date an appearance with no shot in it, so 11 sits at the end, counted but unplaced.

How to read the ties. Each rate ties back to the league average: solid where the sample is settled, broken where it is still being shrunk toward the league, an open circle where there is no cohort to rank against.