Pass difficulty
74.5%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Omar Haktab Traorè
FC Heidenheim · Right Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts89
Limited sampleActual completion
77.5%
69 completed passes
Pass difficulty
74.5%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+3.0 pp
+2.7 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
DEF 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
9.0%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
32.6%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
15.7%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
6.4 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
1015.7 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
14.607
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
40.7%
18th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 140
Progressive carry rate
5.3%
81st percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 57
Progressive action rate
21.4%
96th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 140
Under-pressure action rate
20.0%
76th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 140
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.6%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+3.0 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+12.7 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+8.0 pp
81st percentile among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 29
Long-pass completion above expected
+0.9 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.036
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.015
49th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 140
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.059
40th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 83
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.122
80th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 57
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.040
71st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 140
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.026
60th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 140
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.505
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-1.60 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.60 z
Progressive-pass rate+2.26 z
Long-pass rate-0.03 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.57 z
Carry share of actions-1.17 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.
Leverkusen Role Fit
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
Role distance · lower is closer1.811
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Pressure Pass Rate
- Long Pass Rate
- Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
Largest difference
Progressive Pass Rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 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
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
+0.015
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.059
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.122
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.040
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.026
140 actions · 83 passes · 57 carries · 56.4% 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
8 attempts
- Actual
- 62.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 49.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +12.7 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
29 attempts
- Actual
- 58.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 50.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +8.0 pp
Long passing
14 attempts
- Actual
- 57.1%
- Pass difficulty
- 56.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
32.6%
Pressure-pass rate
9.0%
Average forward distance
6.4 m
Positive forward distance / 100
1015.7 m
Final-third entries / 100
14.6
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–89 of 89 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 79.0%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0101
- Value before
- 0.0140
- Value after
- 0.0241
- Length
- 19.1 m
- Context
- Progressive
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
74.5 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesLong Pass RatePressure Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
71.8 / 100