Pass difficulty
84.6%
27th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 115
Player profile
Nico Schlotterbeck
Borussia Dortmund · Left Center Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts115
Reliable sampleActual completion
85.2%
98 completed passes
Pass difficulty
84.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.6 pp
+0.7 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
DEF 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
13.9%
77th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 115
Progressive pass rate
14.8%
68th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 115
Long-pass rate
22.6%
91st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 115
Average forward distance
7.5 units
77th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 115
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
1111.0 units
91st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 115
Final-third entries / 100 passes
10.435
77th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 115
Carry share of actions
40.0%
13th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 185
Progressive carry rate
4.1%
73rd percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 74
Progressive action rate
10.8%
60th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 185
Under-pressure action rate
17.3%
58th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 185
Shots / observed match
0.00 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
—
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
metric unavailable
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.6 pp
45th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 115
Under-pressure completion above expected
-2.1 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 16
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+5.5 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 17
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+3.9 pp
85th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 26
Goals above expected
0.000
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.041
72nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 185
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.020
73rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 111
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.072
60th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 74
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.019
61st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 185
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.030
70th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 185
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.393
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty+0.14 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.29 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.20 z
Long-pass rate+1.01 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.96 z
Carry share of actions-1.42 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
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
#49 of 66Comparable external defensive candidatesRaw distance: 1.416
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Passes under pressure
- Progressive passing rate
- Expected completion rate
Largest stylistic difference
Carry involvement
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 contributors
Role Fit compares observed playing style. It does not predict player quality, transfer success, or future performance.
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
+0.041
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.020
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.072
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.019
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.030
185 actions · 111 passes · 74 carries · 57.8% 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
- 77.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -2.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
17 attempts
- Actual
- 47.1%
- Pass difficulty
- 41.5%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +5.5 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
26 attempts
- Actual
- 65.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 61.5%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
14.8%
Pressure-pass rate
13.9%
Average forward distance
7.5 m
Positive forward distance / 100
1111.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
10.4
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–115 of 115 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 26.3%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- -0.0057
- Value before
- 0.0057
- Value after
- 0.0000
- Length
- 53.1 m
- Context
- Progressive
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
81.8 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesLong Pass RateProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
75.8 / 100