Pass difficulty
90.6%
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 2022
Player profile
Exequiel Alejandro Palacios
Bayer Leverkusen · Left Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed24
Pass attempts2,022
Reliable sampleActual completion
92.3%
1,867 completed passes
Pass difficulty
90.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.8 pp
+35.9 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
13.5%
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 2022
Progressive pass rate
8.4%
17th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 2022
Long-pass rate
7.4%
25th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 2022
Average forward distance
2.4 units
67th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 2022
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
553.1 units
58th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 2022
Final-third entries / 100 passes
9.298
67th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 2022
Carry share of actions
46.3%
48th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3657
Progressive carry rate
1.2%
28th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 1694
Progressive action rate
4.8%
27th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3657
Under-pressure action rate
17.8%
20th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3657
Shots / observed match
0.79 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 19
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
7.4%
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
+1.8 pp
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 2022
Under-pressure completion above expected
+2.4 pp
89th percentile among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 273
Progressive completion above expected
+6.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 170
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
+5.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 149
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
0.595
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 19
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.025
60th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3657
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.001
77th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 1963
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.053
20th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 1694
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.028
63rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3657
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.020
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3657
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.682
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.97 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.54 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.64 z
Long-pass rate-0.94 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.31 z
Carry share of actions+0.21 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.
#1 of 8Comparable current-team midfield profilesRaw distance: 0.511
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Carry involvement
- Forward distance per 100 passes
- Passes under pressure
Largest stylistic difference
Progressive passing rate
higher sampleObserved across 24 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
10 matches observed
Goals
2
Total xG
1.4
Goals above expected
+0.6
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.
Shots21
Goals4
xG1.41
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Set piece
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
+0.025
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.001
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.053
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.028
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.020
3,657 actions · 1,963 passes · 1,694 carries · 51.1% 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
273 attempts
- Actual
- 87.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 84.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +2.4 pp
Progressive passing
170 attempts
- Actual
- 68.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 61.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +6.8 pp
Long passing
149 attempts
- Actual
- 82.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 77.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +5.3 pp
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
8.4%
Pressure-pass rate
13.5%
Average forward distance
2.4 m
Positive forward distance / 100
553.1 m
Final-third entries / 100
9.3
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 2,022 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 79.2%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0154
- Value before
- 0.0208
- Value after
- 0.0362
- Length
- 16.3 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.
Style similarity
79.9 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesLong Pass RateProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 24 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
78.9 / 100
Pressure Pass RateProgressive Pass Rate