Pass difficulty
88.7%
67th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 129
Player profile
Atakan Karazor
VfB Stuttgart · Right Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts129
Reliable sampleActual completion
89.1%
115 completed passes
Pass difficulty
88.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.4 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.
Style
Performance
0–100 empirical percentiles among eligible same-position peers.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
12.4%
8th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 129
Progressive pass rate
6.2%
0th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 129
Long-pass rate
5.4%
0th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 129
Average forward distance
1.6 units
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 129
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
482.2 units
25th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 129
Final-third entries / 100 passes
2.326
0th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 129
Carry share of actions
44.1%
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 220
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
12th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 97
Progressive action rate
3.6%
19th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 220
Under-pressure action rate
16.4%
17th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 220
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.9%
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
+0.4 pp
67th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 129
Under-pressure completion above expected
+2.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 16
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+12.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-18.7 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.039
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.038
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 220
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.083
58th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 123
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.019
5th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 97
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.004
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 220
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.010
20th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 220
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.557
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.57 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.73 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.98 z
Long-pass rate-1.30 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.88 z
Carry share of actions-0.41 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.
#13 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 0.671
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Expected completion rate
- Passes under pressure
- Carry involvement
Largest stylistic difference
Progressive passing 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
0.0
Goals above expected
-0.0
xG / shot
0.0
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
xG0.04
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
-0.038
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.083
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.019
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.004
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.010
220 actions · 123 passes · 97 carries · 43.6% 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
16 attempts
- Actual
- 75.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 72.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +2.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
8 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 37.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +12.8 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
7 attempts
- Actual
- 57.1%
- Pass difficulty
- 75.8%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
6.2%
Pressure-pass rate
12.4%
Average forward distance
1.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
482.2 m
Final-third entries / 100
2.3
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–129 of 129 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 96.3%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0001
- Value before
- 0.0055
- Value after
- 0.0056
- Length
- 26.5 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
78.9 / 100
Pressure Pass RateProgressive Pass RateLong Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 24 matches
Style similarity
77.3 / 100