Pass difficulty
90.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 61
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Patrick Osterhage
Bochum · Center Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts61
Limited sampleActual completion
83.6%
51 completed passes
Pass difficulty
90.1%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-6.5 pp
-4.0 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
MID 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
18.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 61
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
13.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 61
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
6.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 61
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
1.2 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 61
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
516.7 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 61
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
9.836
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 61
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
46.5%
50th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 99
Progressive carry rate
2.2%
35th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 46
Progressive action rate
7.1%
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 99
Under-pressure action rate
27.3%
65th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 99
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
9.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-6.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 61
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+3.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 11
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-11.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+6.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.096
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.020
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 99
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.166
26th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 53
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.148
71st percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 46
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.042
13th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 99
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.003
15th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 99
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.664
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.88 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.24 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.09 z
Long-pass rate-1.09 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.60 z
Carry share of actions+0.25 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
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
#2 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 0.414
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Carry involvement
- Progressive passing rate
- Forward distance per 100 passes
Largest stylistic difference
Long-pass rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 10 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
xG0.10
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
-0.020
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.166
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.148
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.042
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.003
99 actions · 53 passes · 46 carries · 54.5% 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
11 attempts
- Actual
- 90.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 87.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +3.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
8 attempts
- Actual
- 37.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 49.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -11.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
4 attempts
- Actual
- 75.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 69.0%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
13.1%
Pressure-pass rate
18.0%
Average forward distance
1.2 m
Positive forward distance / 100
516.7 m
Final-third entries / 100
9.8
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–61 of 61 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 32.4%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- -0.0313
- Value before
- 0.0313
- Value after
- 0.0000
- Length
- 10.0 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.
Limited sample: this player's style profile is based on 2 observed matches, so nearest-neighbor rankings may be less stable.
Style similarity
78.1 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsExpected Completion RateLong Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 24 matches
Style similarity
76.6 / 100