Pass difficulty
91.2%
100th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Player profile
Leon Goretzka
Bayern Munich · Left Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts110
Reliable sampleActual completion
90.0%
99 completed passes
Pass difficulty
91.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.2 pp
-1.4 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
15.5%
46th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Progressive pass rate
6.4%
8th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Long-pass rate
12.7%
75th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Average forward distance
1.9 units
50th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
536.8 units
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Final-third entries / 100 passes
5.455
17th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Carry share of actions
44.1%
35th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Progressive carry rate
3.6%
55th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 83
Progressive action rate
4.8%
28th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Under-pressure action rate
18.6%
25th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Shots / observed match
2.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
12.5%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.2 pp
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Under-pressure completion above expected
-5.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 17
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-5.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-1.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.499
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.092
10th 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
-0.231
12th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 105
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.085
51st percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 83
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.059
7th 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
-0.049
3rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 188
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.567
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+1.12 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.20 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.95 z
Long-pass rate+0.06 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.44 z
Carry share of actions-0.40 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 closer0.564
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Pressure Pass Rate
- Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
- Long Pass Rate
Largest difference
Progressive Pass Rate
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
4
2 matches observed
Goals
1
Total xG
0.5
Goals above expected
+0.5
xG / shot
0.1
25.0% 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.
Shots4
Goals1
xG0.50
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
Corner
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
-0.092
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.231
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.085
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.059
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.049
188 actions · 105 passes · 83 carries · 47.3% 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
17 attempts
- Actual
- 70.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 75.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -5.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
7 attempts
- Actual
- 42.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 47.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -5.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
14 attempts
- Actual
- 92.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 93.9%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
6.4%
Pressure-pass rate
15.5%
Average forward distance
1.9 m
Positive forward distance / 100
536.8 m
Final-third entries / 100
5.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–110 of 110 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 98.9%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0004
- Value before
- 0.0076
- Value after
- 0.0080
- Length
- 9.7 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
81.1 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsProgressive Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
79.5 / 100