Pass difficulty
76.7%
0th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 137
Player profile
RB Leipzig · Left Back · DEF
Actual completion
73.0%
100 completed passes
Pass difficulty
76.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-3.7 pp
-5.1 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
76.7%
0th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 137
Under-pressure pass rate
5.1%
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 137
Progressive pass rate
23.4%
100th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 137
Long-pass rate
17.5%
64th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 137
Average forward distance
2.3 units
27th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 137
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
718.2 units
27th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 137
Final-third entries / 100 passes
6.569
32nd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 137
Carry share of actions
40.9%
19th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 225
Progressive carry rate
1.1%
37th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 92
Progressive action rate
14.7%
83rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 225
Under-pressure action rate
12.0%
32nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 225
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
-3.7 pp
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 137
Under-pressure completion above expected
-11.9 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+5.9 pp
69th percentile among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 32
Long-pass completion above expected
+8.0 pp
100th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 24
Goals above expected
0.000
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.071
86th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 225
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.090
92nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 133
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.043
27th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 92
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.126
89th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 225
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.002
23rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 225
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.
Carry involvement
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
+0.071
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.090
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.043
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.126
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.002
225 actions · 133 passes · 92 carries · 48.4% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
7 attempts
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
32 attempts
24 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
23.4%
Pressure-pass rate
5.1%
Average forward distance
2.3 m
Positive forward distance / 100
718.2 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.6
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–137 of 137 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
75.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
68.8 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
66.9 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
65.8 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
65.0 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
62.6 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 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.