Pass difficulty
87.9%
59th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 125
Player profile
Werder Bremen · Right Center Back · DEF
Actual completion
88.0%
110 completed passes
Pass difficulty
87.9%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.1 pp
+0.1 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
DEF context · Each percentile is an empirical rank among eligible players in the same broad position group. Percentiles are not ratings.
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Pass difficulty
87.9%
59th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 125
Under-pressure pass rate
24.0%
100th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 125
Progressive pass rate
11.2%
36th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 125
Long-pass rate
19.2%
68th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 125
Average forward distance
5.8 units
64th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 125
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
926.9 units
73rd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 125
Final-third entries / 100 passes
4.800
14th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 125
Carry share of actions
44.5%
59th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 211
Progressive carry rate
1.1%
36th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 94
Progressive action rate
6.2%
24th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 211
Under-pressure action rate
28.0%
97th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 211
Shots / observed match
0.00 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
—
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
metric unavailable
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.1 pp
32nd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 125
Under-pressure completion above expected
-1.3 pp
8th percentile among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 30
Progressive completion above expected
-1.8 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-4.7 pp
20th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 24
Goals above expected
0.000
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 0
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.056
81st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 211
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.038
83rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 117
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.078
64th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 94
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.002
51st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 211
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.050
86th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 211
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
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
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
Pressure Pass Rate
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.
Attacking impact
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
+0.056
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.038
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.078
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.002
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.050
211 actions · 117 passes · 94 carries · 50.7% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
30 attempts
14 attempts
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
24 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
11.2%
Pressure-pass rate
24.0%
Average forward distance
5.8 m
Positive forward distance / 100
926.9 m
Final-third entries / 100
4.8
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–125 of 125 passes
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
77.9 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
77.0 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
77.0 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
74.2 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
69.4 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
67.4 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
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.