Pass difficulty
73.5%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 106
requires 10 eligible position peers
Player profile
Alexander Nübel
VfB Stuttgart · Goalkeeper · GK
Matches observed2
Pass attempts106
Reliable sampleActual completion
75.5%
80 completed passes
Pass difficulty
73.5%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.9 pp
+2.0 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
19.8%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 106
requires 10 eligible position peers
Progressive pass rate
37.7%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 106
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass rate
46.2%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 106
requires 10 eligible position peers
Average forward distance
25.7 units
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 106
requires 10 eligible position peers
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
2575.4 units
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 106
requires 10 eligible position peers
Final-third entries / 100 passes
1.887
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 106
requires 10 eligible position peers
Carry share of actions
42.0%
100th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 176
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
50th percentile among GK players
n = 14 eligible peers · sample 74
Progressive action rate
21.0%
27th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 176
Under-pressure action rate
26.7%
80th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 176
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
+1.9 pp
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 106
requires 10 eligible position peers
Under-pressure completion above expected
-3.4 pp
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 21
requires 10 eligible position peers
Progressive completion above expected
-1.0 pp
38th percentile among GK players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 40
Long-pass completion above expected
-0.8 pp
44th percentile among GK players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 49
Goals above expected
0.000
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.052
40th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 176
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.150
19th 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
0.083
100th percentile among GK players
n = 14 eligible peers · sample 74
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.101
13th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 176
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.016
40th percentile among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 176
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
-0.052
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.150
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.083
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.101
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.016
176 actions · 102 passes · 74 carries · 63.1% 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
21 attempts
- Actual
- 66.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 70.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -3.4 pp
Progressive passing
40 attempts
- Actual
- 40.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 41.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -1.0 pp
Long passing
49 attempts
- Actual
- 46.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 47.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -0.8 pp
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
37.7%
Pressure-pass rate
19.8%
Average forward distance
25.7 m
Positive forward distance / 100
2575.4 m
Final-third entries / 100
1.9
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–106 of 106 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.1%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0000
- Value before
- 0.0042
- Value after
- 0.0042
- Length
- 15.7 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.