Pass difficulty
84.2%
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1841
Player profile
Florian Wirtz
Bayer Leverkusen · Left Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed32
Pass attempts1,841
Reliable sampleActual completion
83.8%
1,543 completed passes
Pass difficulty
84.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.3 pp
-6.4 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.
Style
Performance
0–100 empirical percentiles among eligible same-position peers.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
19.1%
75th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1841
Progressive pass rate
18.6%
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1841
Long-pass rate
7.3%
17th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1841
Average forward distance
1.5 units
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1841
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
516.4 units
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1841
Final-third entries / 100 passes
8.474
50th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1841
Carry share of actions
48.6%
78th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3509
Progressive carry rate
8.8%
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 1707
Progressive action rate
13.8%
80th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3509
Under-pressure action rate
30.0%
77th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3509
Shots / observed match
2.19 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 70
requires 10 eligible position peers
xG / shot
9.5%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 70
requires 10 eligible position peers
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.3 pp
50th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1841
Under-pressure completion above expected
+0.9 pp
56th percentile among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 352
Progressive completion above expected
+3.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 342
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
+1.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 135
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
3.320
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 70
requires 10 eligible position peers
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.044
72nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3509
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.122
40th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 1802
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.219
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 1707
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.106
87th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3509
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.084
87th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 3509
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.215
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty-0.43 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.43 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.93 z
Long-pass rate-0.95 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.60 z
Carry share of actions+0.87 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 the observed role of Leverkusen's other MID contributors.
#4 of 8Comparable current-team midfield profilesRaw distance: 0.850
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Forward distance per 100 passes
- Long-pass rate
- Passes under pressure
Largest stylistic difference
Progressive passing rate
higher sampleObserved across 32 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 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
70
28 matches observed
Goals
10
Total xG
6.7
Goals above expected
+3.3
xG / shot
0.1
14.3% goals / shot
Campos visualization
Shot map
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
Shots71
Goals11
xG6.68
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
Set piece
Corner
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
+0.044
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.122
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.219
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.106
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.084
3,509 actions · 1,802 passes · 1,707 carries · 51.4% 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
352 attempts
- Actual
- 80.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 79.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +0.9 pp
Progressive passing
342 attempts
- Actual
- 62.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 59.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +3.2 pp
Long passing
135 attempts
- Actual
- 65.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 63.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +1.6 pp
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
18.6%
Pressure-pass rate
19.1%
Average forward distance
1.5 m
Positive forward distance / 100
516.4 m
Final-third entries / 100
8.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 1,841 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 81.7%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0061
- Value before
- 0.0388
- Value after
- 0.0327
- Length
- 6.8 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.
Style similarity
73.8 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsLong Pass RatePressure Pass Rate
Sample support: Higher · 23 limiting matches
Observed: 32 vs 23 matches
Style similarity
69.1 / 100
Expected Completion RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes