Pass difficulty
91.0%
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 3299
Player profile
Bayer Leverkusen · Right Defensive Midfield · MID
Actual completion
92.3%
3,045 completed passes
Pass difficulty
91.0%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.3 pp
+44.2 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
91.0%
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 3299
Under-pressure pass rate
16.0%
58th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 3299
Progressive pass rate
9.1%
25th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 3299
Long-pass rate
11.9%
67th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 3299
Average forward distance
3.3 units
75th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 3299
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
654.3 units
75th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 3299
Final-third entries / 100 passes
12.761
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 3299
Carry share of actions
45.9%
43rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 5969
Progressive carry rate
2.2%
34th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 2738
Progressive action rate
5.7%
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 5969
Under-pressure action rate
20.9%
40th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 5969
Shots / observed match
1.33 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 44
requires 10 eligible position peers
xG / shot
4.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 44
requires 10 eligible position peers
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.3 pp
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 3299
Under-pressure completion above expected
+2.1 pp
78th percentile among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 528
Progressive completion above expected
+5.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 299
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
+4.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 391
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
1.107
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 44
requires 10 eligible position peers
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.028
63rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 5969
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.015
68th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 3231
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.078
43rd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 2738
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.023
57th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 5969
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.033
55th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 5969
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 the observed role of Leverkusen's other MID contributors.
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
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
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
44
25 matches observed
Goals
3
Total xG
1.9
Goals above expected
+1.1
xG / shot
0.0
6.8% goals / shot
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
+0.028
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.015
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.078
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.023
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.033
5,969 actions · 3,231 passes · 2,738 carries · 51.4% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
528 attempts
299 attempts
391 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
9.1%
Pressure-pass rate
16.0%
Average forward distance
3.3 m
Positive forward distance / 100
654.3 m
Final-third entries / 100
12.8
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 3,299 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.
Style similarity
81.8 / 100
Sample support: Higher · 28 limiting matches
Observed: 33 vs 28 matches
Style similarity
77.6 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 33 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
77.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 33 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
75.9 / 100
Sample support: Higher · 24 limiting matches
Observed: 33 vs 24 matches
Style similarity
72.5 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 33 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
71.7 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 33 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.