Pass difficulty
85.2%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 82
requires 100 passes
Player profile
FC Heidenheim · Right Center Back · DEF
Actual completion
84.1%
69 completed passes
Pass difficulty
85.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.0 pp
-0.8 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
DEF context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Pass difficulty
85.2%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 82
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure pass rate
12.2%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 82
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
15.9%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 82
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
18.3%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 82
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
8.6 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 82
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
1117.0 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 82
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
8.537
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 82
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
43.4%
34th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 122
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
16th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 53
Progressive action rate
6.6%
29th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 122
Under-pressure action rate
14.8%
43rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 122
Shots / observed match
0.00 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
—
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
metric unavailable
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.0 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 82
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+3.2 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+1.2 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+0.5 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.000
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.001
33rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 122
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.034
52nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 69
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.041
26th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 53
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.024
26th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 122
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.022
58th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 122
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Bars are z-scores relative to eligible positional peers, not percentiles or ratings. Distance-based style separation, not a probability. Smaller values mean the player lies nearer the boundary between the two archetypes.
Role Fit
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Forward distance per 100 passes
Role Fit compares observed playing style. It does not predict player quality, transfer success, or future performance.
Attacking impact
Measures how much each pass or carry changed the expected attacking value of a possession. Positive values improved the attack; negative values reduced it.
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.001
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.034
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.041
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.024
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.022
122 actions · 69 passes · 53 carries · 57.4% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
10 attempts
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
13 attempts
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
15 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
15.9%
Pressure-pass rate
12.2%
Average forward distance
8.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
1117.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
8.5
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–82 of 82 passes
Style similarity compares position-relative playing style across passing and carrying tendencies. Scores are not ability ratings.
100 means identical observed profiles; 50 is about the median same-position playing style match. Not a probability.
Limited sample: this player's style profile is based on 2 observed matches, so nearest-neighbor rankings may be less stable.
Style similarity
90.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
87.2 / 100
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
84.4 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
82.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
79.4 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
77.7 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Sample support uses the lower observed-match count in each pair. Lower coverage means a measured profile may vary more with additional matches; it never changes the style similarity or ranking.