Pass difficulty
78.5%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 107
requires 10 eligible position peers
Player profile
Bayern Munich · Right Wing · FWD
Actual completion
75.7%
81 completed passes
Pass difficulty
78.5%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.8 pp
-3.0 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
FWD 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
78.5%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 107
requires 10 eligible position peers
Under-pressure pass rate
15.0%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 107
requires 10 eligible position peers
Progressive pass rate
22.4%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 107
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass rate
16.8%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 107
requires 10 eligible position peers
Average forward distance
-0.9 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 107
requires 10 eligible position peers
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
411.8 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 107
requires 10 eligible position peers
Final-third entries / 100 passes
6.542
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 107
requires 10 eligible position peers
Carry share of actions
50.0%
79th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 210
Progressive carry rate
11.4%
79th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Progressive action rate
17.1%
79th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 210
Under-pressure action rate
32.4%
26th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 210
Shots / observed match
1.50 / match
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
6.1%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 shots
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.8 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 107
requires 10 eligible position peers
Under-pressure completion above expected
-3.0 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 16
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+1.4 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 24
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
-6.5 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 1 eligible peers · sample 18
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.182
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.076
53rd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 210
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.336
50th percentile among FWD players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 105
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.183
47th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.002
37th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 210
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.068
74th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 210
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Position-relative style among eligible FWD 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.
Role Fit
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed FWD role.
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Passes under pressure
Limited contributor diversity: this role profile is based on three contributing forwards across 33 observed matches and is more sensitive to individual-player composition than the DEF and MID profiles.
Role Fit compares observed playing style. It does not predict player quality, transfer success, or future performance.
Expected Goals
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
3
2 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.2
Goals above expected
-0.2
xG / shot
0.1
0.0% goals / shot
Limited sample: fewer than 20 non-penalty shots.
Campos visualization
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
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
-0.076
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.336
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.183
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.002
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.068
210 actions · 105 passes · 105 carries · 47.6% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
16 attempts
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
24 attempts
18 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
22.4%
Pressure-pass rate
15.0%
Average forward distance
-0.9 m
Positive forward distance / 100
411.8 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.5
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–107 of 107 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
59.8 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
59.0 / 100
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 23 matches
Style similarity
55.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
52.4 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
52.4 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
52.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 7 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.