Pass difficulty
82.3%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 55
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Christoph Zimmermann
Darmstadt 98 · Right Center Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts55
Limited sampleActual completion
83.6%
46 completed passes
Pass difficulty
82.3%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.4 pp
+0.8 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
10.9%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 55
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
16.4%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 55
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
21.8%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 55
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
7.6 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 55
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
1110.7 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 55
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
7.273
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 55
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
38.5%
6th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 78
Progressive carry rate
3.3%
65th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 30
Progressive action rate
10.3%
54th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 78
Under-pressure action rate
11.5%
28th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 78
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
6.8%
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
+1.4 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 55
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-2.7 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+5.8 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 9
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+1.3 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 12
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.068
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.029
62nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 78
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.023
75th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 48
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.039
22nd percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 30
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.015
60th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 78
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.022
6th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 78
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.456
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-0.27 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.25 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.02 z
Long-pass rate+0.89 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.96 z
Carry share of actions-1.98 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.
Role Fit
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
#54 of 66Comparable external defensive candidatesRaw distance: 1.579
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Passes under pressure
- Progressive passing rate
- Expected completion rate
Largest stylistic difference
Carry involvement
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 contributors
Role Fit compares observed playing style. It does not predict player quality, 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
0.1
Goals above expected
-0.1
xG / shot
0.1
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
xG0.07
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
+0.029
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.023
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.039
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.015
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.022
78 actions · 48 passes · 30 carries · 60.3% 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
6 attempts
- Actual
- 66.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 69.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -2.7 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
9 attempts
- Actual
- 44.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 38.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +5.8 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
12 attempts
- Actual
- 66.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 65.3%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
16.4%
Pressure-pass rate
10.9%
Average forward distance
7.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
1110.7 m
Final-third entries / 100
7.3
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–55 of 55 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 46.0%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0079
- Value before
- 0.0066
- Value after
- 0.0144
- Length
- 53.9 m
- Context
- Progressive
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
81.8 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesLong Pass RateProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
68.1 / 100