Pass difficulty
84.5%
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Player profile
Adam Hložek
Bayer Leverkusen · Right Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed19
Pass attempts155
Reliable sampleActual completion
84.5%
131 completed passes
Pass difficulty
84.5%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.0 pp
+0.1 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
31.6%
100th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Progressive pass rate
9.7%
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Long-pass rate
8.4%
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Average forward distance
-0.7 units
17th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
438.8 units
17th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Final-third entries / 100 passes
4.516
8th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Carry share of actions
52.7%
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 315
Progressive carry rate
7.2%
77th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 166
Progressive action rate
7.6%
47th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 315
Under-pressure action rate
46.7%
100th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 315
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 19
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
14.4%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 19
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.0 pp
58th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Under-pressure completion above expected
+1.8 pp
67th percentile among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 49
Progressive completion above expected
+2.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-5.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.739
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 19
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.020
43rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 315
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.146
35th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 149
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.093
55th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 166
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.143
97th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 315
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.052
75th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 315
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.302
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty-0.36 z
Under-pressure pass rate+2.60 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.44 z
Long-pass rate-0.75 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-1.22 z
Carry share of actions+2.01 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 the observed role of Leverkusen's other MID contributors.
#8 of 8Comparable current-team midfield profilesRaw distance: 1.507
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Long-pass rate
- Progressive passing rate
- Expected completion rate
Largest stylistic difference
Passes under pressure
higher sampleObserved across 19 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
19
9 matches observed
Goals
2
Total xG
2.7
Goals above expected
-0.7
xG / shot
0.1
10.5% 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.
Shots19
Goals2
xG2.74
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
Corner
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
-0.020
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.146
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.093
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.143
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.052
315 actions · 149 passes · 166 carries · 50.8% 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
49 attempts
- Actual
- 83.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 81.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +1.8 pp
Progressive passing
15 attempts
- Actual
- 60.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 57.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +2.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
13 attempts
- Actual
- 69.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 75.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
9.7%
Pressure-pass rate
31.6%
Average forward distance
-0.7 m
Positive forward distance / 100
438.8 m
Final-third entries / 100
4.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–155 of 155 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 76.8%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- —
- Value before
- —
- Value after
- —
- Length
- 16.9 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.
Style similarity
70.6 / 100
Expected Completion RateCarry Share Of ActionsPositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 19 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
53.0 / 100
Expected Completion Rate