Pass difficulty
95.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Player profile
FC Köln · Left Defensive Midfield · MID
Actual completion
98.0%
49 completed passes
Pass difficulty
95.1%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+2.9 pp
+1.4 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
MID context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Pass difficulty
95.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure pass rate
20.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
6.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
8.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
-0.4 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
399.0 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
2.000
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
44.4%
38th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 90
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
12th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 40
Progressive action rate
3.3%
17th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 90
Under-pressure action rate
27.8%
70th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 90
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
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+2.9 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+6.9 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+29.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+0.9 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 4
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
0.046
73rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 90
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.020
89th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 50
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.080
46th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 40
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.010
47th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 90
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.057
80th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 90
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
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.
Leverkusen Role Fit
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
Expected Completion Rate
Role Fit measures how closely a player's observed playing style resembles Bayer Leverkusen's observed positional-role style. It does not predict transfer success or future performance.
Attacking impact
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
+0.046
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.020
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.080
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.010
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.057
90 actions · 50 passes · 40 carries · 54.4% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
10 attempts
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
3 attempts
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
4 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
6.0%
Pressure-pass rate
20.0%
Average forward distance
-0.4 m
Positive forward distance / 100
399.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
2.0
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–50 of 50 passes
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
74.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
71.2 / 100
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
66.9 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
65.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
63.6 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 24 matches
Style similarity
63.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
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.