Pass difficulty
64.0%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 81
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Frederik Rønnow
Union Berlin · Goalkeeper · GK
Matches observed2
Pass attempts81
Limited sampleActual completion
63.0%
51 completed passes
Pass difficulty
64.0%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.1 pp
-0.9 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
GK context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Limited goalkeeper profile: FootyScout does not yet have enough goalkeeper-specific metrics for a meaningful radar.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
19.8%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 81
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
49.4%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 81
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
59.3%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 81
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
35.1 units
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 81
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
3513.6 units
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 81
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
14.815
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 81
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
37.8%
67th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 127
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
50th percentile among GK players
n = 14 eligible peers · sample 48
Progressive action rate
30.7%
73rd percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 127
Under-pressure action rate
22.8%
73rd percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 127
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
9.5%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.1 pp
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 81
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-6.3 pp
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 16
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+0.1 pp
44th percentile among GK players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 40
Long-pass completion above expected
-2.3 pp
33rd percentile among GK players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 48
Goals above expected
-0.190
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.077
20th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 127
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.145
25th percentile among GK players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 79
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.034
15th percentile among GK players
n = 14 eligible peers · sample 48
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.085
40th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 127
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.002
13th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 127
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Archetype unavailable
Goalkeepers are excluded from the outfield archetype model.
Archetypes describe outfield playing tendencies, not quality, ability, or rank.
Role Fit — Bayer Leverkusen
Role Fit unavailable
Role Fit is currently available for outfield DEF, MID, and FWD players only.
Expected Goals
Non-penalty shooting
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
2
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.2
Goals above expected
-0.2
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.
Shots2
Goals0
xG0.19
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
-0.077
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.145
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.034
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.085
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.002
127 actions · 79 passes · 48 carries · 44.9% 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
16 attempts
- Actual
- 43.8%
- Pass difficulty
- 50.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -6.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
40 attempts
- Actual
- 35.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 34.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +0.1 pp
Long passing
48 attempts
- Actual
- 39.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 41.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
49.4%
Pressure-pass rate
19.8%
Average forward distance
35.1 m
Positive forward distance / 100
3513.6 m
Final-third entries / 100
14.8
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–81 of 81 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 19.9%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- —
- Value before
- —
- Value after
- —
- Length
- 63.2 m
- Context
- Progressive · Under pressure
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.