Pass difficulty
72.7%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 86
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Kiliann Sildillia
Freiburg · Right Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts86
Limited sampleActual completion
69.8%
60 completed passes
Pass difficulty
72.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.9 pp
-2.5 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
DEF 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
10.5%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 86
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
29.1%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 86
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
17.4%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 86
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
7.0 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 86
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
1041.7 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 86
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
9.302
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 86
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
43.9%
55th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 139
Progressive carry rate
9.8%
92nd percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 61
Progressive action rate
19.4%
91st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 139
Under-pressure action rate
14.4%
41st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 139
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
7.4%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.9 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 86
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-15.2 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 9
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+1.4 pp
38th percentile among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 25
Long-pass completion above expected
-0.4 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.147
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.004
41st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 139
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.134
22nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 78
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.180
92nd percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 61
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.057
78th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 139
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.001
17th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 139
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.552
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-1.92 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.33 z
Progressive-pass rate+1.77 z
Long-pass rate+0.23 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.67 z
Carry share of actions-0.03 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
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
Role distance · lower is closer1.638
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Pressure Pass Rate
- Carry Share Of Actions
- Long Pass Rate
Largest difference
Expected Completion Rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 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
2
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.1
Goals above expected
-0.1
xG / shot
0.1
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
xG0.15
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
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
+0.004
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.134
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.180
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.057
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.001
139 actions · 78 passes · 61 carries · 54.0% 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
9 attempts
- Actual
- 44.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 59.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -15.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
25 attempts
- Actual
- 40.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 38.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +1.4 pp
Long passing
15 attempts
- Actual
- 40.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 40.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
29.1%
Pressure-pass rate
10.5%
Average forward distance
7.0 m
Positive forward distance / 100
1041.7 m
Final-third entries / 100
9.3
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–86 of 86 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 75.1%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0001
- Value before
- 0.0044
- Value after
- 0.0045
- Length
- 26.2 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
74.5 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesLong Pass RatePressure Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
72.0 / 100