Pass difficulty
81.8%
18th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 111
Player profile
Maximilian Mittelstädt
VfB Stuttgart · Left Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts111
Reliable sampleActual completion
84.7%
94 completed passes
Pass difficulty
81.8%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+2.9 pp
+3.2 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.
Style
Performance
0–100 empirical percentiles among eligible same-position peers.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
8.1%
18th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 111
Progressive pass rate
15.3%
77th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 111
Long-pass rate
12.6%
41st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 111
Average forward distance
2.0 units
18th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 111
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
719.4 units
32nd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 111
Final-third entries / 100 passes
11.712
91st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 111
Carry share of actions
42.9%
26th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 189
Progressive carry rate
7.4%
87th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 81
Progressive action rate
11.6%
63rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 189
Under-pressure action rate
11.6%
29th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 189
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.6%
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
+2.9 pp
95th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 111
Under-pressure completion above expected
+12.1 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 9
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-1.9 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 17
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-0.9 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.036
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.073
10th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 189
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.212
14th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 108
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.112
79th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 81
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.021
29th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 189
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.026
62nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 189
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.239
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty-0.36 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.76 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.13 z
Long-pass rate-0.50 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.65 z
Carry share of actions-0.40 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.
#13 of 66Comparable external defensive candidatesRaw distance: 0.717
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Forward distance per 100 passes
- Long-pass rate
- Progressive passing 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
0.0
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
xG0.04
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
-0.073
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.212
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.112
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.021
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.026
189 actions · 108 passes · 81 carries · 45.5% 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
9 attempts
- Actual
- 88.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 76.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +12.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
17 attempts
- Actual
- 41.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 43.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -1.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
14 attempts
- Actual
- 57.1%
- Pass difficulty
- 58.0%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
15.3%
Pressure-pass rate
8.1%
Average forward distance
2.0 m
Positive forward distance / 100
719.4 m
Final-third entries / 100
11.7
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–111 of 111 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.3%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0008
- Value before
- 0.0061
- Value after
- 0.0053
- Length
- 21.4 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
72.5 / 100
Expected Completion RateLong Pass RateCarry Share Of Actions
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 33 matches
Style similarity
70.8 / 100