Pass difficulty
83.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Thomas Müller
Bayern Munich · Center Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts50
Limited sampleActual completion
86.0%
43 completed passes
Pass difficulty
83.8%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+2.2 pp
+1.1 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
22.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
22.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
6.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
0.2 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
500.8 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
10.000
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
41.0%
7th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 83
Progressive carry rate
2.9%
43rd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 34
Progressive action rate
14.5%
82nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 83
Under-pressure action rate
31.3%
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 83
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
11.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+2.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 50
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+3.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 11
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-7.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 11
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+26.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 3
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.110
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.093
87th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 83
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.100
96th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 49
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.084
49th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 34
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.072
75th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 83
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.056
78th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 83
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.078
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-0.51 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.93 z
Progressive-pass rate+1.45 z
Long-pass rate-1.20 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.73 z
Carry share of actions-1.30 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
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
#25 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 1.113
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Forward distance per 100 passes
- Long-pass rate
- Expected completion rate
Largest stylistic difference
Progressive passing rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 10 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
1
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.1
Goals above expected
-0.1
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.
Shots1
Goals0
xG0.11
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
+0.093
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.100
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.084
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.072
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.056
83 actions · 49 passes · 34 carries · 55.4% 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
11 attempts
- Actual
- 90.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 87.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +3.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
11 attempts
- Actual
- 45.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 52.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -7.4 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
3 attempts
- Actual
- 100.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 74.0%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
22.0%
Pressure-pass rate
22.0%
Average forward distance
0.2 m
Positive forward distance / 100
500.8 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 1–50 of 50 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 92.8%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0001
- Value before
- 0.0091
- Value after
- 0.0092
- Length
- 14.9 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
67.8 / 100
Expected Completion RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesLong Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
60.2 / 100