Pass difficulty
79.7%
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 342
Player profile
Bayer Leverkusen · Right Wing Back · DEF
Actual completion
81.3%
278 completed passes
Pass difficulty
79.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.6 pp
+5.4 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
DEF context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Pass difficulty
79.7%
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 342
Under-pressure pass rate
11.7%
55th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 342
Progressive pass rate
17.0%
82nd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 342
Long-pass rate
7.9%
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 342
Average forward distance
-1.9 units
9th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 342
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
370.0 units
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 342
Final-third entries / 100 passes
3.509
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 342
Carry share of actions
51.3%
100th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 665
Progressive carry rate
12.0%
95th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 341
Progressive action rate
14.0%
77th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 665
Under-pressure action rate
22.6%
84th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 665
Shots / observed match
0.88 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 21
requires 10 eligible position peers
xG / shot
12.0%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 21
requires 10 eligible position peers
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.6 pp
68th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 342
Under-pressure completion above expected
+4.5 pp
83rd percentile among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 40
Progressive completion above expected
+4.2 pp
50th percentile among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 58
Long-pass completion above expected
-5.8 pp
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 27
Goals above expected
2.482
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 21
requires 10 eligible position peers
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.096
91st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 665
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.042
48th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 324
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.227
95th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 341
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.174
96th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 665
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.073
92nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 665
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
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.
Leverkusen Role Fit
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with the observed role of Leverkusen's other DEF contributors.
Carry Share Of Actions
Role Fit measures how closely a player's observed playing style resembles Bayer Leverkusen's observed positional-role style. It does not predict transfer success or future performance.
Expected Goals
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
21
11 matches observed
Goals
5
Total xG
2.5
Goals above expected
+2.5
xG / shot
0.1
23.8% goals / shot
Campos visualization
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
Attacking impact
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
+0.096
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.042
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.227
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.174
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.073
665 actions · 324 passes · 341 carries · 49.6% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
40 attempts
58 attempts
27 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
17.0%
Pressure-pass rate
11.7%
Average forward distance
-1.9 m
Positive forward distance / 100
370.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
3.5
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 342 passes
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
84.9 / 100
Sample support: Higher · 24 limiting matches
Observed: 24 vs 31 matches
Style similarity
67.9 / 100
Sample support: Higher · 4 limiting matches
Observed: 24 vs 4 matches
Style similarity
61.8 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 24 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
59.7 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 24 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
57.3 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 24 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
54.4 / 100
Sample support: Higher · 20 limiting matches
Observed: 24 vs 20 matches
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.