Pass difficulty
82.6%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Jae-Sung Lee
FSV Mainz 05 · Left Wing · FWD
Matches observed2
Pass attempts62
Limited sampleActual completion
77.4%
48 completed passes
Pass difficulty
82.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-5.2 pp
-3.2 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
FWD 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
29.0%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
8.1%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
6.5%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
1.7 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
560.0 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
11.290
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
46.7%
53rd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Progressive carry rate
2.0%
5th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 49
Progressive action rate
3.8%
5th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Under-pressure action rate
41.9%
74th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
4.9%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-5.2 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-4.6 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 18
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+1.3 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 5
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-17.8 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 1 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.099
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.140
37th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.364
44th percentile among FWD players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 56
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.115
21st percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 49
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.044
53rd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.005
42nd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 105
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible FWD players.
Style separation0.664
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.86 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.79 z
Progressive-pass rate-1.06 z
Long-pass rate-0.74 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.02 z
Carry share of actions+0.13 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
FWD role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed FWD role.
#1 of 8Comparable external forward candidatesRaw distance: 0.650
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Expected completion rate
- Long-pass rate
- Passes under pressure
Largest stylistic difference
Carry involvement
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 33 matches · 3 contributors
Limited contributor diversity: this role profile is based on three contributing forwards across 33 observed matches and is more sensitive to individual-player composition than the DEF and MID profiles.
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
2
1 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
-0.140
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.364
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.115
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.044
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.005
105 actions · 56 passes · 49 carries · 40.0% 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
18 attempts
- Actual
- 77.8%
- Pass difficulty
- 82.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -4.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
5 attempts
- Actual
- 60.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 58.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +1.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
4 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 67.8%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
8.1%
Pressure-pass rate
29.0%
Average forward distance
1.7 m
Positive forward distance / 100
560.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
11.3
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–62 of 62 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 79.4%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0550
- Value before
- 0.1203
- Value after
- 0.0653
- Length
- 7.9 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
72.4 / 100
Pressure Pass RateLong Pass RateCarry Share Of Actions
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
70.1 / 100