Pass difficulty
71.2%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 65
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Fares Chaïbi
Eintracht Frankfurt · Center Forward · FWD
Matches observed2
Pass attempts65
Limited sampleActual completion
55.4%
36 completed passes
Pass difficulty
71.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-15.8 pp
-10.3 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
15.4%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 65
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
33.8%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 65
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
29.2%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 65
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
2.9 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 65
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
786.3 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 65
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
15.385
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 65
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
41.9%
32nd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Progressive carry rate
2.3%
11th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 44
Progressive action rate
21.0%
95th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Under-pressure action rate
21.9%
5th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Shots / observed match
2.50 / match
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 5
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
6.7%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 5
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-15.8 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 65
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+7.0 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-18.8 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 22
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
-12.5 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 1 eligible peers · sample 19
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.337
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 5
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.272
11th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.599
11th percentile among FWD players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 61
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.182
42nd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 44
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.236
0th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.035
47th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible FWD players.
Style separation0.646
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-1.05 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.97 z
Progressive-pass rate+1.39 z
Long-pass rate+1.44 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.94 z
Carry share of actions-0.70 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
FWD role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed FWD role.
Role distance · lower is closer2.011
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Pressure Pass Rate
- Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
- Expected Completion Rate
Largest difference
Progressive Pass Rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 33 matches · 3 contributors
Limited contributor diversity: this role profile is based on three contributing forwards across 33 observed matches and is more sensitive to individual-player composition than the DEF and MID profiles.
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
5
2 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.3
Goals above expected
-0.3
xG / shot
0.1
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.
Shots5
Goals0
xG0.34
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Set piece
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
-0.272
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.599
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.182
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.236
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.035
105 actions · 61 passes · 44 carries · 46.7% 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
10 attempts
- Actual
- 80.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 73.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +7.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
22 attempts
- Actual
- 18.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 37.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -18.8 pp
Long passing
19 attempts
- Actual
- 31.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 44.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
33.8%
Pressure-pass rate
15.4%
Average forward distance
2.9 m
Positive forward distance / 100
786.3 m
Final-third entries / 100
15.4
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–65 of 65 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 79.8%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0026
- Value before
- 0.0151
- Value after
- 0.0177
- Length
- 4.2 m
- Context
- Under pressure
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
71.3 / 100
Expected Completion RateCarry Share Of ActionsProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
69.1 / 100