Pass difficulty
85.2%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Player profile
Bayer Leverkusen · Center Forward · FWD
Actual completion
82.1%
188 completed passes
Pass difficulty
85.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-3.1 pp
-7.0 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
FWD 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
85.2%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Under-pressure pass rate
30.6%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Progressive pass rate
5.7%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass rate
3.9%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Average forward distance
-2.0 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
226.4 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Final-third entries / 100 passes
3.493
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Carry share of actions
49.4%
68th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 437
Progressive carry rate
6.0%
63rd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 216
Progressive action rate
5.9%
16th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 437
Under-pressure action rate
44.9%
79th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 437
Shots / observed match
1.95 / match
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 10 eligible position peers
xG / shot
12.9%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 10 eligible position peers
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-3.1 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Under-pressure completion above expected
-6.2 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 70
requires 10 eligible position peers
Progressive completion above expected
+25.4 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-1.6 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 1 eligible peers · sample 9
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.988
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 39
requires 10 eligible position peers
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.200
26th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 437
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.639
0th percentile among FWD players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 221
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.249
84th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 216
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.072
63rd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 437
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.017
21st percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 437
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Position-relative style among eligible FWD 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.
Role Fit
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with the observed role of Leverkusen's other FWD contributors.
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Carry involvement
Limited contributor diversity: this leave-self-out role profile is based on 2 other contributing forwards across 28 observed matches.
Role Fit compares observed playing style. It does not predict player quality, transfer success, or future performance.
Expected Goals
Goals above expected is descriptive for this observed sample, not a definitive finishing-skill rating.
Shots
39
16 matches observed
Goals
6
Total xG
5.0
Goals above expected
+1.0
xG / shot
0.1
15.4% goals / shot
Campos visualization
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
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
-0.200
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.639
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.249
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.072
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.017
437 actions · 221 passes · 216 carries · 41.0% increased attacking value
Campos visualization
Exact StatsBomb carry start/end locations. Green increases modeled possession value; coral decreases it.
70 attempts
13 attempts
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
9 attempts
Progressive-pass rate
5.7%
Pressure-pass rate
30.6%
Average forward distance
-2.0 m
Positive forward distance / 100
226.4 m
Final-third entries / 100
3.5
Campos visualization
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 229 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.
Style similarity
81.2 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 20 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
73.1 / 100
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Sample support: Higher · 7 limiting matches
Observed: 20 vs 7 matches
Style similarity
70.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 20 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
64.8 / 100
Sample support: Higher · 20 limiting matches
Observed: 20 vs 23 matches
Style similarity
49.9 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 20 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
38.1 / 100
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 20 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.