Pass difficulty
84.6%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 108
requires 10 eligible position peers
Player profile
Janis Blaswich
RB Leipzig · Goalkeeper · GK
Matches observed2
Pass attempts108
Reliable sampleActual completion
82.4%
89 completed passes
Pass difficulty
84.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.1 pp
-2.3 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
4.6%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 108
requires 10 eligible position peers
Progressive pass rate
23.1%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 108
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass rate
39.8%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 108
requires 10 eligible position peers
Average forward distance
18.1 units
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 108
requires 10 eligible position peers
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
1828.8 units
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 108
requires 10 eligible position peers
Final-third entries / 100 passes
3.704
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 108
requires 10 eligible position peers
Carry share of actions
41.0%
80th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 173
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
50th percentile among GK players
n = 14 eligible peers · sample 71
Progressive action rate
12.1%
0th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 173
Under-pressure action rate
9.2%
7th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 173
Shots / observed match
0.00 / match
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
—
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 0
metric unavailable
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.1 pp
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 108
requires 10 eligible position peers
Under-pressure completion above expected
-13.9 pp
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 5
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-10.7 pp
0th percentile among GK players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 25
Long-pass completion above expected
-8.3 pp
6th percentile among GK players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 43
Goals above expected
0.000
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.043
53rd percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 173
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.113
44th percentile among GK players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 102
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.057
69th percentile among GK players
n = 14 eligible peers · sample 71
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.063
60th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 173
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.022
60th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 173
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.
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
-0.043
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.113
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.057
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.063
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.022
173 actions · 102 passes · 71 carries · 45.7% 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
5 attempts
- Actual
- 60.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 73.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -13.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
25 attempts
- Actual
- 32.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 42.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -10.7 pp
Long passing
43 attempts
- Actual
- 55.8%
- Pass difficulty
- 64.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
23.1%
Pressure-pass rate
4.6%
Average forward distance
18.1 m
Positive forward distance / 100
1828.8 m
Final-third entries / 100
3.7
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–108 of 108 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.5%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0001
- Value before
- 0.0051
- Value after
- 0.0050
- Length
- 18.9 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.
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.