Pass difficulty
87.4%
55th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 1072
Player profile
Josip Stanišić
Bayer Leverkusen · Right Center Back · DEF
Matches observed20
Pass attempts1,072
Reliable sampleActual completion
89.8%
963 completed passes
Pass difficulty
87.4%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+2.4 pp
+25.9 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.
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
12.8%
68th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 1072
Progressive pass rate
11.1%
32nd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 1072
Long-pass rate
11.8%
32nd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 1072
Average forward distance
2.3 units
36th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 1072
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
674.6 units
18th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 1072
Final-third entries / 100 passes
9.981
68th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 1072
Carry share of actions
46.2%
83rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 1916
Progressive carry rate
4.6%
77th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 886
Progressive action rate
7.7%
39th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 1916
Under-pressure action rate
17.5%
60th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 1916
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
7.1%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+2.4 pp
91st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 1072
Under-pressure completion above expected
+0.7 pp
58th percentile among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 137
Progressive completion above expected
+9.9 pp
88th percentile among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 119
Long-pass completion above expected
+6.2 pp
95th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 126
Goals above expected
2.293
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.049
75th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 1916
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.004
67th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 1030
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.102
74th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 886
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.051
76th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 1916
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.031
72nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 1916
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.817
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.62 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.09 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.71 z
Long-pass rate-0.62 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.84 z
Carry share of actions+0.82 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
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with the observed role of Leverkusen's other DEF contributors.
#1 of 9Comparable current-team defensive profilesRaw distance: 0.141
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Forward distance per 100 passes
- Expected completion rate
- Carry involvement
Largest stylistic difference
Long-pass rate
higher sampleObserved across 20 matchesRole: 34 matches · 8 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
10
7 matches observed
Goals
3
Total xG
0.7
Goals above expected
+2.3
xG / shot
0.1
30.0% 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.
Shots10
Goals3
xG0.71
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
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
+0.049
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.004
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.102
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.051
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.031
1,916 actions · 1,030 passes · 886 carries · 57.8% 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
137 attempts
- Actual
- 81.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 80.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +0.7 pp
Progressive passing
119 attempts
- Actual
- 56.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 46.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +9.9 pp
Long passing
126 attempts
- Actual
- 73.8%
- Pass difficulty
- 67.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +6.2 pp
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
11.1%
Pressure-pass rate
12.8%
Average forward distance
2.3 m
Positive forward distance / 100
674.6 m
Final-third entries / 100
10.0
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 1,072 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.8%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0001
- Value before
- 0.0129
- Value after
- 0.0128
- Length
- 32.4 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
90.0 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsProgressive Pass RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 20 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
86.5 / 100
Carry Share Of Actions