Pass difficulty
72.5%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Tim Kleindienst
FC Heidenheim · Center Forward · FWD
Matches observed2
Pass attempts43
Limited sampleActual completion
62.8%
27 completed passes
Pass difficulty
72.5%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-9.7 pp
-4.2 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
FWD 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
34.9%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
18.6%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
11.6%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
0.7 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
532.8 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
11.628
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
36.5%
0th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 63
Progressive carry rate
4.3%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 23
requires 29 carries
Progressive action rate
11.1%
47th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 63
Under-pressure action rate
46.0%
95th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 63
Shots / observed match
1.50 / match
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
19.8%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-9.7 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-9.8 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-29.9 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-16.0 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 1 eligible peers · sample 5
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.407
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.283
5th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 63
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.595
17th percentile among FWD players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 40
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.260
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 23
requires 29 carries
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.075
11th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 63
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.076
0th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 63
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Archetype unavailable
Limited sample for archetype analysis: requires 50 passes.
Archetypes describe outfield playing tendencies, not quality, ability, or rank.
Role Fit — Bayer Leverkusen
Role Fit unavailable
Role Fit requires at least 50 passes and 29 carries in the product sample.
Expected Goals
Non-penalty shooting
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
3
2 matches observed
Goals
1
Total xG
0.6
Goals above expected
+0.4
xG / shot
0.2
33.3% 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.
Shots3
Goals1
xG0.59
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
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
-0.283
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.595
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.260
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.075
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.076
63 actions · 40 passes · 23 carries · 36.5% 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
15 attempts
- Actual
- 53.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 63.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -9.8 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
8 attempts
- Actual
- 12.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 42.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -29.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
5 attempts
- Actual
- 60.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 76.0%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
18.6%
Pressure-pass rate
34.9%
Average forward distance
0.7 m
Positive forward distance / 100
532.8 m
Final-third entries / 100
11.6
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–43 of 43 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 24.7%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0036
- Value before
- 0.0733
- Value after
- 0.0697
- Length
- 3.5 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.
Playing-style similarity unavailable
V3.3B similarity requires an outfield player with at least 50 passes and 29 carries.
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.