Pass difficulty
89.8%
73rd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 129
Player profile
Mohamed Simakan
RB Leipzig · Right Center Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts129
Reliable sampleActual completion
89.9%
116 completed passes
Pass difficulty
89.8%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.2 pp
+0.2 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
DEF 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
5.4%
9th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 129
Progressive pass rate
11.6%
41st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 129
Long-pass rate
19.4%
77th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 129
Average forward distance
5.4 units
55th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 129
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
858.0 units
59th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 129
Final-third entries / 100 passes
10.078
73rd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 129
Carry share of actions
44.9%
66th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 227
Progressive carry rate
1.0%
35th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 102
Progressive action rate
6.6%
30th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 227
Under-pressure action rate
5.3%
8th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 227
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
5.3%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.2 pp
36th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 129
Under-pressure completion above expected
+29.2 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+3.1 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-7.7 pp
0th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 25
Goals above expected
-0.106
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.041
71st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 227
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.033
82nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 125
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.051
35th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 102
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.039
70th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 227
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.077
94th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 227
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.305
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+1.02 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.24 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.63 z
Long-pass rate+0.52 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.08 z
Carry share of actions+0.35 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.
Leverkusen Role Fit
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
Role distance · lower is closer0.827
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Progressive Pass Rate
- Expected Completion Rate
- Carry Share Of Actions
Largest difference
Long Pass Rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 contributors
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.
Expected Goals
Non-penalty shooting
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
2
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.1
Goals above expected
-0.1
xG / shot
0.1
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.
Shots2
Goals0
xG0.11
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
+0.041
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.033
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.051
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.039
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.077
227 actions · 125 passes · 102 carries · 58.6% 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
- 100.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 70.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +29.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
15 attempts
- Actual
- 53.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 50.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +3.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
25 attempts
- Actual
- 72.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 79.7%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
11.6%
Pressure-pass rate
5.4%
Average forward distance
5.4 m
Positive forward distance / 100
858.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
10.1
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–129 of 129 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.4%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0004
- Value before
- 0.0031
- Value after
- 0.0034
- Length
- 26.4 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.
Limited sample: this player's style profile is based on 2 observed matches, so nearest-neighbor rankings may be less stable.
Style similarity
77.6 / 100
Progressive Pass RateLong Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
76.8 / 100