Pass difficulty
88.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Eric Martel
FC Köln · Center Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts39
Limited sampleActual completion
82.1%
32 completed passes
Pass difficulty
88.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-6.6 pp
-2.6 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
30.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
7.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
10.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
1.1 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
675.4 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
5.128
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
43.1%
22nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 65
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 28
requires 29 carries
Progressive action rate
3.1%
8th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 65
Under-pressure action rate
38.5%
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 65
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
31.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-6.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+7.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 12
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-49.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-6.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.626
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.077
12th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 65
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.160
28th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 37
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.032
Unavailable among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 28
requires 29 carries
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.036
17th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 65
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.026
43rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 65
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Archetype unavailable
Limited sample for archetype analysis: requires 50 passes.
Archetypes describe outfield playing tendencies, not quality, ability, or rank.
Role Fit — Bayer Leverkusen
Role Fit unavailable
Role Fit requires at least 50 passes and 29 carries in the product sample.
Expected Goals
Non-penalty shooting
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
2
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.6
Goals above expected
-0.6
xG / shot
0.3
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.
Shots2
Goals0
xG0.63
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
-0.077
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.160
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.032
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.036
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.026
65 actions · 37 passes · 28 carries · 43.1% 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
12 attempts
- Actual
- 91.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 84.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +7.5 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
3 attempts
- Actual
- 0.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 49.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -49.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
4 attempts
- Actual
- 75.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 81.1%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
7.7%
Pressure-pass rate
30.8%
Average forward distance
1.1 m
Positive forward distance / 100
675.4 m
Final-third entries / 100
5.1
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–39 of 39 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.2%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0011
- Value before
- 0.0036
- Value after
- 0.0026
- Length
- 15.4 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.
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.