Pass difficulty
85.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 38
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Finn Ole Becker
Hoffenheim · Right Center Midfield · MID
Matches observed1
Pass attempts38
Limited sampleActual completion
86.8%
33 completed passes
Pass difficulty
85.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.2 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
21.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 38
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
21.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 38
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
10.5%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 38
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
3.1 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 38
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
751.6 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 38
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
7.895
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 38
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
46.3%
47th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 67
Progressive carry rate
9.7%
86th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 31
Progressive action rate
14.9%
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 67
Under-pressure action rate
31.3%
85th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 67
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.3%
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
+1.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 38
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+9.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+6.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-2.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.033
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.100
88th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 67
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.023
65th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 36
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.242
89th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 31
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.064
73rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 67
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.150
100th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 67
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Archetype unavailable
Limited sample for archetype analysis: requires 50 passes.
Archetypes describe outfield playing tendencies, not quality, ability, or rank.
Role Fit — Bayer Leverkusen
Role Fit unavailable
Role Fit requires at least 50 passes and 29 carries in the product sample.
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
xG0.03
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
+0.100
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.023
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.242
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.064
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.150
67 actions · 36 passes · 31 carries · 53.7% 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
8 attempts
- Actual
- 100.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 90.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +9.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
8 attempts
- Actual
- 62.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 56.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +6.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
4 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 52.0%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
21.1%
Pressure-pass rate
21.1%
Average forward distance
3.1 m
Positive forward distance / 100
751.6 m
Final-third entries / 100
7.9
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–38 of 38 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 98.0%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0032
- Value before
- 0.0150
- Value after
- 0.0118
- Length
- 6.4 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.
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.