Pass difficulty
91.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Aster Vranckx
Wolfsburg · Right Center Midfield · MID
Matches observed1
Pass attempts7
Limited sampleActual completion
85.7%
6 completed passes
Pass difficulty
91.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-5.9 pp
-0.4 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
0.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
14.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
14.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
-3.5 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
542.9 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
14.286
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
46.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 63 actions
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 29 carries
Progressive action rate
7.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 63 actions
Under-pressure action rate
15.4%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 63 actions
Shots / observed match
0.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
—
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 0
metric unavailable
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-5.9 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
—
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 0
metric unavailable
Progressive completion above expected
-59.9 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+15.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.000
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.230
Unavailable among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 63 actions
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.653
Unavailable among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 36 passes
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.264
Unavailable among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 29 carries
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.256
Unavailable among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 63 actions
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.061
Unavailable among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 63 actions
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.
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
-0.230
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.653
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.264
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.256
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.061
13 actions · 7 passes · 6 carries · 38.5% 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
0 attempts
- Actual
- —
- Pass difficulty
- —
- Actual vs. expected passing
- —
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
1 attempts
- Actual
- 0.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 59.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -59.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
1 attempts
- Actual
- 100.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 84.8%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
14.3%
Pressure-pass rate
0.0%
Average forward distance
-3.5 m
Positive forward distance / 100
542.9 m
Final-third entries / 100
14.3
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–7 of 7 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 98.9%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0007
- Value before
- 0.0194
- Value after
- 0.0187
- Length
- 11.0 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.