Pass difficulty
86.7%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Ikoma Loïs Openda
RB Leipzig · Left Center Forward · FWD
Matches observed2
Pass attempts33
Limited sampleActual completion
75.8%
25 completed passes
Pass difficulty
86.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-11.0 pp
-3.6 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
FWD 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
6.1%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
15.2%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
12.1%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
-2.6 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
364.5 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
6.061
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
52.9%
89th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 68
Progressive carry rate
13.9%
95th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 36
Progressive action rate
13.2%
63rd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 68
Under-pressure action rate
23.5%
11th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 68
Shots / observed match
3.00 / match
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
17.2%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-11.0 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-44.6 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-26.9 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 5
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-23.4 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 1 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.969
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.112
47th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 68
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.510
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 32
requires 36 passes
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.242
79th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 36
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.174
79th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 68
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.071
79th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 68
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Archetype unavailable
Limited sample for archetype analysis: requires 50 passes.
Archetypes describe outfield playing tendencies, not quality, ability, or rank.
Role Fit — Bayer Leverkusen
Role Fit unavailable
Role Fit requires at least 50 passes and 29 carries in the product sample.
Expected Goals
Non-penalty shooting
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
6
2 matches observed
Goals
2
Total xG
1.0
Goals above expected
+1.0
xG / shot
0.2
33.3% 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.
Shots6
Goals2
xG1.03
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
Corner
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
-0.112
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.510
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.242
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.174
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.071
68 actions · 32 passes · 36 carries · 48.5% 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
2 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 94.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -44.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
5 attempts
- Actual
- 40.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 66.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -26.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
4 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 73.4%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
15.2%
Pressure-pass rate
6.1%
Average forward distance
-2.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
364.5 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.1
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–33 of 33 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 96.8%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0001
- Value before
- 0.0056
- Value after
- 0.0055
- Length
- 4.1 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.