Pass difficulty
76.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 67
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Daniel Olmo Carvajal
RB Leipzig · Left Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts67
Limited sampleActual completion
76.1%
51 completed passes
Pass difficulty
76.9%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.8 pp
-0.5 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
9.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 67
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
26.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 67
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
14.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 67
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
5.1 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 67
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
805.2 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 67
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
4.478
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 67
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
50.4%
88th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 131
Progressive carry rate
6.1%
74th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 66
Progressive action rate
16.0%
90th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 131
Under-pressure action rate
19.8%
35th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 131
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
7.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 67
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+14.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+6.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 18
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+19.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.849
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.050
75th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 131
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.166
25th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 65
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.263
95th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 66
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.081
78th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 131
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.093
90th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 131
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.373
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-2.01 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.33 z
Progressive-pass rate+2.20 z
Long-pass rate+0.47 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+1.70 z
Carry share of actions+1.36 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.
Leverkusen Role Fit
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
Role distance · lower is closer1.739
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Long Pass Rate
- Pressure Pass Rate
- Carry Share Of Actions
Largest difference
Expected Completion Rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 10 contributors
Role Fit measures how closely a player's observed playing style resembles Bayer Leverkusen's observed positional-role style. It does not predict 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
2
2 matches observed
Goals
1
Total xG
0.2
Goals above expected
+0.8
xG / shot
0.1
50.0% 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
Goals1
xG0.15
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
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
+0.050
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.166
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.263
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.081
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.093
131 actions · 65 passes · 66 carries · 51.9% 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
6 attempts
- Actual
- 83.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 68.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +14.5 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
18 attempts
- Actual
- 55.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 49.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +6.4 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
10 attempts
- Actual
- 80.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 60.6%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
26.9%
Pressure-pass rate
9.0%
Average forward distance
5.1 m
Positive forward distance / 100
805.2 m
Final-third entries / 100
4.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–67 of 67 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.4%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0026
- Value before
- 0.0055
- Value after
- 0.0029
- Length
- 33.4 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.
Limited sample: this player's style profile is based on 2 observed matches, so nearest-neighbor rankings may be less stable.
Style similarity
64.3 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesPressure Pass RateCarry Share Of Actions
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
60.1 / 100