Pass difficulty
77.2%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 85
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Anthony Caci
FSV Mainz 05 · Left Wing Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts85
Limited sampleActual completion
74.1%
63 completed passes
Pass difficulty
77.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-3.1 pp
-2.6 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
DEF context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Insufficient eligible position metrics for a meaningful radar.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
16.5%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 85
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
25.9%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 85
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
10.6%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 85
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
6.1 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 85
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
941.2 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 85
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
12.941
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 85
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
40.5%
16th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 131
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
16th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 53
Progressive action rate
14.5%
80th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 131
Under-pressure action rate
21.4%
78th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 131
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.4%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-3.1 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 85
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-0.9 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-6.3 pp
0th percentile among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 22
Long-pass completion above expected
+6.0 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 9
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.034
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.041
14th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 131
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.114
23rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 78
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.065
56th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 53
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.054
9th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 131
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.014
46th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 131
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.353
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-1.14 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.76 z
Progressive-pass rate+1.33 z
Long-pass rate-0.80 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.26 z
Carry share of actions-1.26 z
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.
Leverkusen Role Fit
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
Role distance · lower is closer1.464
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Long Pass Rate
- Pressure Pass Rate
- Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
Largest difference
Carry Share Of Actions
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 contributors
Role Fit measures how closely a player's observed playing style resembles Bayer Leverkusen's observed positional-role style. It does not predict transfer success or future performance.
Expected Goals
Non-penalty shooting
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
1
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.0
Goals above expected
-0.0
xG / shot
0.0
0.0% goals / shot
Limited sample: fewer than 20 non-penalty shots.
Campos visualization
Shot map
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
Shots1
Goals0
xG0.03
xG0.00 – 1.00
Green outline = GoalNormal outline = Non-goal
Attacking impact
Impact of passes and carries
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
-0.041
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.114
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.065
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.054
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.014
131 actions · 78 passes · 53 carries · 55.7% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Carry value map
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
Situational execution
Under pressure
14 attempts
- Actual
- 71.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 72.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -0.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
22 attempts
- Actual
- 45.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 51.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -6.3 pp
Long passing
9 attempts
- Actual
- 55.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 49.5%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
25.9%
Pressure-pass rate
16.5%
Average forward distance
6.1 m
Positive forward distance / 100
941.2 m
Final-third entries / 100
12.9
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–85 of 85 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 98.8%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0002
- Value before
- 0.0062
- Value after
- 0.0060
- Length
- 10.0 m
- Context
- Standard
Event clocks are not retained in the pass API.
Similar playing styles
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
71.8 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsProgressive Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
71.5 / 100