Pass difficulty
83.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 52
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Jamal Musiala
Bayern Munich · Left Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts52
Limited sampleActual completion
88.5%
46 completed passes
Pass difficulty
83.8%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+4.7 pp
+2.4 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
25.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 52
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
15.4%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 52
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
5.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 52
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
1.2 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 52
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
484.0 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 52
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
1.923
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 52
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
53.3%
98th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 107
Progressive carry rate
3.5%
54th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 57
Progressive action rate
8.4%
53rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 107
Under-pressure action rate
41.1%
95th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 107
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
4.0%
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
+4.7 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 52
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+8.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+2.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-1.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.040
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.079
85th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 107
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.007
81st 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
0.143
68th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 57
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.008
28th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 107
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.092
88th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 107
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.287
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty-0.51 z
Under-pressure pass rate+1.45 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.44 z
Long-pass rate-1.24 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.86 z
Carry share of actions+2.17 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.
#28 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 1.223
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Progressive passing rate
- Forward distance per 100 passes
- Long-pass rate
Largest stylistic difference
Carry involvement
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
0.0
Goals above expected
-0.0
xG / shot
0.0
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
xG0.04
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
+0.079
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.007
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.143
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.008
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.092
107 actions · 50 passes · 57 carries · 56.1% 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
13 attempts
- Actual
- 92.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 84.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +8.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
8 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 47.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +2.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
3 attempts
- Actual
- 33.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 35.1%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
15.4%
Pressure-pass rate
25.0%
Average forward distance
1.2 m
Positive forward distance / 100
484.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
1.9
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–52 of 52 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.7%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0021
- Value before
- 0.0091
- Value after
- 0.0112
- Length
- 33.0 m
- Context
- Under pressure
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
70.6 / 100
Expected Completion RateCarry Share Of ActionsPositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 19 matches
Style similarity
67.7 / 100