Pass difficulty
53.1%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Finn Dahmen
Augsburg · Goalkeeper · GK
Matches observed1
Pass attempts43
Limited sampleActual completion
67.4%
29 completed passes
Pass difficulty
53.1%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+14.4 pp
+6.2 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
GK context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Limited goalkeeper profile: FootyScout does not yet have enough goalkeeper-specific metrics for a meaningful radar.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
23.3%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
60.5%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
65.1%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
39.9 units
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
4006.7 units
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
18.605
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
31.7%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 60
requires 63 actions
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 14 eligible peers · sample 19
requires 29 carries
Progressive action rate
40.0%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 60
requires 63 actions
Under-pressure action rate
33.3%
Unavailable among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 60
requires 63 actions
Shots / observed match
0.00 / match
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
—
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 0
metric unavailable
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+14.4 pp
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 43
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+30.9 pp
Unavailable among GK players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+20.1 pp
94th percentile among GK players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 26
Long-pass completion above expected
+20.8 pp
100th percentile among GK players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 28
Goals above expected
0.000
Unavailable among GK players
n = 0 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.016
Unavailable among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 60
requires 63 actions
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.047
75th percentile among GK players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 41
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.050
Unavailable among GK players
n = 14 eligible peers · sample 19
requires 29 carries
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.055
Unavailable among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 60
requires 63 actions
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.080
Unavailable among GK players
n = 16 eligible peers · sample 60
requires 63 actions
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Archetype unavailable
Goalkeepers are excluded from the outfield archetype model.
Archetypes describe outfield playing tendencies, not quality, ability, or rank.
Role Fit — Bayer Leverkusen
Role Fit unavailable
Role Fit is currently available for outfield DEF, MID, and FWD players only.
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
-0.016
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.047
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.050
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.055
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.080
60 actions · 41 passes · 19 carries · 58.3% 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
10 attempts
- Actual
- 70.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 39.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +30.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
26 attempts
- Actual
- 46.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 26.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +20.1 pp
Long passing
28 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 29.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
60.5%
Pressure-pass rate
23.3%
Average forward distance
39.9 m
Positive forward distance / 100
4006.7 m
Final-third entries / 100
18.6
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–43 of 43 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 32.3%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0069
- Value before
- 0.0058
- Value after
- 0.0128
- Length
- 42.0 m
- Context
- Progressive
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.
Playing-style similarity unavailable
V3.3B similarity requires an outfield player with at least 50 passes and 29 carries.
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.