Pass difficulty
89.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Emre Can
Borussia Dortmund · Center Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts72
Limited sampleActual completion
88.9%
64 completed passes
Pass difficulty
89.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.4 pp
-0.3 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.
Insufficient eligible position metrics for a meaningful radar.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
22.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
4.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
4.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
3.2 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
620.3 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
1.389
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
46.8%
55th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 126
Progressive carry rate
1.7%
31st percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 59
Progressive action rate
3.2%
10th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 126
Under-pressure action rate
31.0%
81st percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 126
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
11.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+0.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 16
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-13.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-4.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.110
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.025
40th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 126
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.094
51st percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 67
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.054
22nd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 59
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.006
32nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 126
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.029
48th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 126
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.541
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.68 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.97 z
Progressive-pass rate-1.29 z
Long-pass rate-1.54 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.23 z
Carry share of actions+0.36 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 Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
#19 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 0.871
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Carry involvement
- Expected completion rate
- Forward distance per 100 passes
Largest stylistic difference
Progressive passing rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 10 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
1
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.
Shots1
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
-0.025
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.094
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.054
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.006
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.029
126 actions · 67 passes · 59 carries · 45.2% 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
16 attempts
- Actual
- 81.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 80.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +0.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
3 attempts
- Actual
- 33.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 46.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -13.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
3 attempts
- Actual
- 66.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 70.9%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
4.2%
Pressure-pass rate
22.2%
Average forward distance
3.2 m
Positive forward distance / 100
620.3 m
Final-third entries / 100
1.4
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–72 of 72 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 97.7%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0036
- Value before
- 0.0120
- Value after
- 0.0084
- Length
- 19.2 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
77.2 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsProgressive Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
76.9 / 100