Pass difficulty
90.8%
86th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 117
Player profile
Eintracht Frankfurt · Right Center Back · DEF
Actual completion
89.7%
105 completed passes
Pass difficulty
90.8%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.0 pp
-1.2 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
90.8%
86th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 117
Under-pressure pass rate
17.1%
91st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 117
Progressive pass rate
8.5%
18th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 117
Long-pass rate
15.4%
59th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 117
Average forward distance
5.3 units
50th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 117
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
778.7 units
55th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 117
Final-third entries / 100 passes
5.983
23rd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 117
Carry share of actions
46.7%
86th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 210
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
16th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 98
Progressive action rate
3.8%
8th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 210
Under-pressure action rate
16.7%
53rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 210
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
-1.0 pp
18th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 117
Under-pressure completion above expected
+3.7 pp
67th percentile among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 20
Progressive completion above expected
-25.8 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-15.5 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 18
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.000
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.009
30th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 210
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.062
34th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 112
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.053
38th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 98
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.043
12th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 210
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.032
75th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 210
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
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.
Passes under pressure
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
-0.009
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.062
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.053
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.043
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.032
210 actions · 112 passes · 98 carries · 58.6% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
20 attempts
10 attempts
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
18 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
8.5%
Pressure-pass rate
17.1%
Average forward distance
5.3 m
Positive forward distance / 100
778.7 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.0
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–117 of 117 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
77.8 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
77.0 / 100
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
75.9 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 20 matches
Style similarity
74.9 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 27 matches
Style similarity
73.0 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 21 matches
Style similarity
72.1 / 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.