Pass difficulty
85.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 42
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Eric Junior Dina Ebimbe
Eintracht Frankfurt · Right Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts42
Limited sampleActual completion
83.3%
35 completed passes
Pass difficulty
85.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.4 pp
-1.0 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
16.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 42
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
4.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 42
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
4.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 42
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
1.4 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 42
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
464.8 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 42
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
4.762
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 42
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
48.8%
80th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 82
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
12th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 40
Progressive action rate
2.4%
5th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 82
Under-pressure action rate
29.3%
73rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 82
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.4%
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
-2.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 42
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-6.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-29.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-27.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.034
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.065
20th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 82
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.252
9th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 42
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.131
65th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 40
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.074
2nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 82
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.041
63rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 82
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
-0.065
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.252
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.131
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.074
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.041
82 actions · 42 passes · 40 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
7 attempts
- Actual
- 71.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 77.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -6.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
2 attempts
- Actual
- 0.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 29.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -29.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
2 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 77.6%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
4.8%
Pressure-pass rate
16.7%
Average forward distance
1.4 m
Positive forward distance / 100
464.8 m
Final-third entries / 100
4.8
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–42 of 42 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 98.0%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0058
- Value before
- 0.0144
- Value after
- 0.0202
- Length
- 41.9 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.
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.