Pass difficulty
86.7%
58th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 111
Player profile
Joshua Kimmich
Bayern Munich · Right Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts111
Reliable sampleActual completion
85.6%
95 completed passes
Pass difficulty
86.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.1 pp
-1.2 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.
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
9.9%
0th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 111
Progressive pass rate
18.0%
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 111
Long-pass rate
18.9%
100th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 111
Average forward distance
2.3 units
58th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 111
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
648.1 units
67th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 111
Final-third entries / 100 passes
9.009
58th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 111
Carry share of actions
41.0%
5th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Progressive carry rate
2.6%
40th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 77
Progressive action rate
11.7%
70th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Under-pressure action rate
14.4%
8th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
2.9%
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
-1.1 pp
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 111
Under-pressure completion above expected
-7.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 11
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-3.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 20
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
-3.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 21
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
-0.029
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.071
13th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.172
23rd percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 111
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.075
38th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 77
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.033
18th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.022
37th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.496
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty+0.12 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.17 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.84 z
Long-pass rate+1.21 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.45 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.
#24 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 1.083
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Expected completion rate
- Forward distance per 100 passes
- Progressive passing rate
Largest stylistic difference
Long-pass 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
0.0
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
xG0.03
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
-0.071
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.172
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.075
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.033
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.022
188 actions · 111 passes · 77 carries · 44.1% 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
- 97.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -7.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
20 attempts
- Actual
- 40.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 43.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -3.3 pp
Long passing
21 attempts
- Actual
- 57.1%
- Pass difficulty
- 60.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
18.0%
Pressure-pass rate
9.9%
Average forward distance
2.3 m
Positive forward distance / 100
648.1 m
Final-third entries / 100
9.0
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–111 of 111 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.1%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0002
- Value before
- 0.0068
- Value after
- 0.0069
- Length
- 32.8 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
75.1 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesExpected Completion RatePressure Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
69.0 / 100