Pass difficulty
78.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Anton Stach
Hoffenheim · Center Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts96
Limited sampleActual completion
74.0%
71 completed passes
Pass difficulty
78.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-4.3 pp
-4.1 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
14.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
28.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
21.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
5.8 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
977.4 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
15.625
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
41.7%
14th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 156
Progressive carry rate
7.7%
78th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 65
Progressive action rate
18.6%
93rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 156
Under-pressure action rate
19.2%
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 156
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.7%
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
-4.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-7.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-13.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 27
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
-8.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 21
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
0.926
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.041
32nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 156
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.192
21st percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 91
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.169
77th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 65
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.046
10th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 156
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.015
28th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 156
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.436
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-1.72 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.36 z
Progressive-pass rate+2.39 z
Long-pass rate+1.76 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+3.07 z
Carry share of actions-1.10 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.
Leverkusen Role Fit
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
Role distance · lower is closer2.155
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Pressure Pass Rate
- Carry Share Of Actions
- Expected Completion Rate
Largest difference
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 10 contributors
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
Non-penalty shooting
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
2
2 matches observed
Goals
1
Total xG
0.1
Goals above expected
+0.9
xG / shot
0.0
50.0% 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
Goals1
xG0.07
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
-0.041
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.192
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.169
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.046
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.015
156 actions · 91 passes · 65 carries · 52.6% 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
14 attempts
- Actual
- 64.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 71.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -7.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
27 attempts
- Actual
- 33.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 46.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -13.3 pp
Long passing
21 attempts
- Actual
- 42.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 51.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
28.1%
Pressure-pass rate
14.6%
Average forward distance
5.8 m
Positive forward distance / 100
977.4 m
Final-third entries / 100
15.6
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–96 of 96 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 98.8%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0002
- Value before
- 0.0118
- Value after
- 0.0117
- Length
- 9.0 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
53.6 / 100
Long Pass RateProgressive Pass RatePressure Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
48.7 / 100