Pass difficulty
81.9%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 58
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Iago Amaral Borduchi
Augsburg · Left Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts58
Limited sampleActual completion
79.3%
46 completed passes
Pass difficulty
81.9%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.5 pp
-1.5 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.
Insufficient eligible position metrics for a meaningful radar.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
17.2%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 58
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
17.2%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 58
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
10.3%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 58
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
3.7 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 58
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
829.5 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 58
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
8.621
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 58
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
40.9%
20th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 88
Progressive carry rate
2.8%
54th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 36
Progressive action rate
9.1%
46th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 88
Under-pressure action rate
19.3%
70th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 88
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
7.2%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.5 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 58
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-26.6 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-10.3 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-23.2 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.072
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.017
51st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 88
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.013
62nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 52
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.062
49th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 36
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.080
84th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 88
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.012
40th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 88
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.082
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty-0.34 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.90 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.14 z
Long-pass rate-0.84 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.20 z
Carry share of actions-1.10 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.
#31 of 66Comparable external defensive candidatesRaw distance: 1.029
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Long-pass rate
- Forward distance per 100 passes
- Progressive passing 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.
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
0.1
Goals above expected
-0.1
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.
Shots1
Goals0
xG0.07
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
+0.017
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.013
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.062
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.080
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.012
88 actions · 52 passes · 36 carries · 53.4% 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
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 76.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -26.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
10 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 60.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -10.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
6 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 73.2%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
17.2%
Pressure-pass rate
17.2%
Average forward distance
3.7 m
Positive forward distance / 100
829.5 m
Final-third entries / 100
8.6
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–58 of 58 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.2%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0028
- Value before
- 0.0033
- Value after
- 0.0062
- Length
- 17.9 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
71.5 / 100
Long Pass RatePressure Pass RateCarry Share Of Actions
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
69.0 / 100