Pass difficulty
84.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 74
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Julian Brandt
Borussia Dortmund · Center Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts74
Limited sampleActual completion
85.1%
63 completed passes
Pass difficulty
84.8%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.4 pp
+0.3 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
18.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 74
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
8.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 74
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
9.5%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 74
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
-1.6 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 74
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
416.5 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 74
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
4.054
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 74
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
46.2%
45th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 130
Progressive carry rate
3.3%
49th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 60
Progressive action rate
6.2%
37th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 130
Under-pressure action rate
27.7%
67th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 130
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
7.9%
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
+0.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 74
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-0.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+10.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+8.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.158
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.028
38th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 130
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.157
32nd percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 70
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.123
60th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 60
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.014
48th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 130
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.040
62nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 130
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.578
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty-0.29 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.40 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.68 z
Long-pass rate-0.55 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-1.40 z
Carry share of actions+0.17 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
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
Role distance · lower is closer0.670
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Carry Share Of Actions
- Long Pass Rate
- Pressure Pass 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
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.2
Goals above expected
-0.2
xG / shot
0.1
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
xG0.16
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
-0.028
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.157
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.123
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.014
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.040
130 actions · 70 passes · 60 carries · 44.6% 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
- 78.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 79.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -0.5 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
6 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 39.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +10.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
7 attempts
- Actual
- 71.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 63.0%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
8.1%
Pressure-pass rate
18.9%
Average forward distance
-1.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
416.5 m
Final-third entries / 100
4.1
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–74 of 74 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.3%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0008
- Value before
- 0.0070
- Value after
- 0.0062
- Length
- 26.7 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
70.0 / 100
Long Pass RatePressure Pass RateProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
69.9 / 100