Pass difficulty
82.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 51
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Xavi Simons
RB Leipzig · Right Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts51
Limited sampleActual completion
84.3%
43 completed passes
Pass difficulty
82.0%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+2.3 pp
+1.2 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
5.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 51
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
19.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 51
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
19.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 51
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
4.8 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 51
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
817.8 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 51
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
13.725
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 51
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
52.8%
93rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 106
Progressive carry rate
10.7%
89th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 56
Progressive action rate
15.1%
87th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 106
Under-pressure action rate
22.6%
52nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 106
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
15.1%
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
+2.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 51
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+11.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+7.7 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+0.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.849
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.107
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 106
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.018
88th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 50
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.187
80th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 56
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.105
85th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 106
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.093
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 106
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.282
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-0.90 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.87 z
Progressive-pass rate+1.08 z
Long-pass rate+1.34 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+1.80 z
Carry share of actions+2.05 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.
#37 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 1.658
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Progressive passing rate
- Expected completion rate
- Passes under pressure
Largest stylistic difference
Forward distance per 100 passes
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
1
Total xG
0.2
Goals above expected
+0.8
xG / shot
0.2
100.0% 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
Goals1
xG0.15
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
+0.107
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.018
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.187
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.105
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.093
106 actions · 50 passes · 56 carries · 53.8% 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
3 attempts
- Actual
- 66.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 55.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +11.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
10 attempts
- Actual
- 60.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 52.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +7.7 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
10 attempts
- Actual
- 70.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 69.9%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
19.6%
Pressure-pass rate
5.9%
Average forward distance
4.8 m
Positive forward distance / 100
817.8 m
Final-third entries / 100
13.7
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–51 of 51 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 97.6%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0004
- Value before
- 0.0070
- Value after
- 0.0074
- Length
- 13.3 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
64.3 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesPressure Pass RateCarry Share Of Actions
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
62.3 / 100