Pass difficulty
84.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Andrej Kramarić
Hoffenheim · Right Center Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts33
Limited sampleActual completion
72.7%
24 completed passes
Pass difficulty
84.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-12.0 pp
-3.9 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
24.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
6.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
6.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
0.4 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
526.7 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
15.152
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
49.2%
82nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 63
Progressive carry rate
16.1%
95th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 31
Progressive action rate
11.1%
68th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 63
Under-pressure action rate
34.9%
90th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 63
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
4.8%
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
-12.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 33
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+1.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-36.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-19.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.096
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.183
3rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 63
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.611
Unavailable among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 32
requires 36 passes
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.259
94th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 31
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.048
67th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 63
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.062
82nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 63
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Archetype unavailable
Limited sample for archetype analysis: requires 50 passes.
Archetypes describe outfield playing tendencies, not quality, ability, or rank.
Role Fit — Bayer Leverkusen
Role Fit unavailable
Role Fit requires at least 50 passes and 29 carries in the product sample.
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
0
Total xG
0.1
Goals above expected
-0.1
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.
Shots2
Goals0
xG0.10
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
-0.183
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.611
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.259
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.048
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.062
63 actions · 32 passes · 31 carries · 39.7% 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
- 75.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 73.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +1.4 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
2 attempts
- Actual
- 0.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 36.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -36.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
2 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 69.8%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
6.1%
Pressure-pass rate
24.2%
Average forward distance
0.4 m
Positive forward distance / 100
526.7 m
Final-third entries / 100
15.2
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–33 of 33 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 98.7%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0009
- Value before
- 0.0201
- Value after
- 0.0192
- Length
- 24.2 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.
Playing-style similarity unavailable
V3.3B similarity requires an outfield player with at least 50 passes and 29 carries.
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.