Pass difficulty
82.2%
0th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 465
Player profile
Amine Adli
Bayer Leverkusen · Left Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed23
Pass attempts465
Reliable sampleActual completion
80.4%
374 completed passes
Pass difficulty
82.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.8 pp
-8.3 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.
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
17.2%
67th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 465
Progressive pass rate
16.3%
67th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 465
Long-pass rate
5.6%
8th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 465
Average forward distance
-1.0 units
8th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 465
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
369.9 units
0th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 465
Final-third entries / 100 passes
6.237
25th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 465
Carry share of actions
48.1%
72nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 858
Progressive carry rate
9.9%
88th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 413
Progressive action rate
13.1%
78th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 858
Under-pressure action rate
24.4%
60th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 858
Shots / observed match
1.17 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 27
requires 10 eligible position peers
xG / shot
9.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 27
requires 10 eligible position peers
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.8 pp
25th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 465
Under-pressure completion above expected
-0.5 pp
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 80
Progressive completion above expected
-3.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 76
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
-7.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 26
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
1.547
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 27
requires 10 eligible position peers
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.001
53rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 858
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.237
11th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 445
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.254
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 413
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.124
93rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 858
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.094
93rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 858
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.289
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty-0.85 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.10 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.58 z
Long-pass rate-1.27 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-1.77 z
Carry share of actions+0.73 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.
Role Fit
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with the observed role of Leverkusen's other MID contributors.
#5 of 8Comparable current-team midfield profilesRaw distance: 1.003
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Passes under pressure
- Carry involvement
- Progressive passing rate
Largest stylistic difference
Forward distance per 100 passes
higher sampleObserved across 23 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 contributors
Role Fit compares observed playing style. It does not predict player quality, 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
27
16 matches observed
Goals
4
Total xG
2.5
Goals above expected
+1.5
xG / shot
0.1
14.8% goals / shot
Campos visualization
Shot map
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
Shots27
Goals4
xG2.45
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
Corner
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
-0.001
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.237
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.254
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.124
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.094
858 actions · 445 passes · 413 carries · 47.8% 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
80 attempts
- Actual
- 76.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 76.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -0.5 pp
Progressive passing
76 attempts
- Actual
- 51.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 54.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -3.3 pp
Long passing
26 attempts
- Actual
- 57.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 65.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -7.6 pp
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
16.3%
Pressure-pass rate
17.2%
Average forward distance
-1.0 m
Positive forward distance / 100
369.9 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.2
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 465 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.2%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0022
- Value before
- 0.0140
- Value after
- 0.0118
- Length
- 9.4 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.
Style similarity
73.8 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsLong Pass RatePressure Pass Rate
Sample support: Higher · 23 limiting matches
Observed: 23 vs 32 matches
Style similarity
68.4 / 100
Pressure Pass RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes