Stop treating every completed pass as equally valuable. A lot of passing analysis still rewards volume: - more completed passes = more influence -more connections = greater importance Useful, but incomplete. 10 safe CB-to-CB passes can dominate a conventional passing network. 3 line-breaking passes that move the ball into dangerous areas may matter far more. A 2026 paper tackles this with a Valued Passing Network (VPN). Instead of weighting connections only by frequency, it weights them by the Expected Threat (xT) they create. So the question changes from: “Who passed to whom the most?” to: “Which passing relationships actually generated threat?” Using the 2022 World Cup, the authors compared conventional passing networks with xT-weighted ones. The valued network showed stronger relationships with player ratings, particularly for midfielders and forwards. The figures make the distinction clear. A conventional network is good at showing structure and circulation. A valued network highlights which connections actually increase attacking threat. That helps separate: - volume from impact - involvement from contribution - circulation from progression - safe possession from threat creation And the World Cup final example is especially interesting: some players who look central in the conventional network become less prominent once passing value is considered, while players such as Messi, Mbappé and Griezmann gain relative importance. This doesn’t mean safe or backwards passes are bad. They can be tactically essential. It means that a completed pass is not automatically a valuable pass. For scouting, that leads to better questions: - Which midfielders generate value rather than simply accumulate touches? - Which player combinations consistently move possession into dangerous states? - Who looks average by passing volume but becomes important when contribution is considered? Pass volume ≠ pass value. A player can be central to circulation without being central to threat creation. Ideally, we should measure both.