Pass difficulty
91.8%
95th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 2167
Player profile
Jonathan Tah
Bayer Leverkusen · Center Back · DEF
Matches observed31
Pass attempts2,167
Reliable sampleActual completion
94.9%
2,057 completed passes
Pass difficulty
91.8%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+3.1 pp
+68.1 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.
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
10.8%
50th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 2167
Progressive pass rate
5.9%
0th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 2167
Long-pass rate
8.7%
9th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 2167
Average forward distance
6.6 units
68th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 2167
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
763.7 units
50th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 2167
Final-third entries / 100 passes
8.122
45th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 2167
Carry share of actions
45.6%
72nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 3810
Progressive carry rate
1.1%
38th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 1736
Progressive action rate
3.3%
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 3810
Under-pressure action rate
11.2%
27th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 3810
Shots / observed match
0.84 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 26
requires 10 eligible position peers
xG / shot
8.6%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 26
requires 10 eligible position peers
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+3.1 pp
100th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 2167
Under-pressure completion above expected
+5.1 pp
92nd percentile among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 233
Progressive completion above expected
+11.6 pp
94th percentile among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 128
Long-pass completion above expected
+3.5 pp
80th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 188
Goals above expected
1.776
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 26
requires 10 eligible position peers
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.056
83rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 3810
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.056
87th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 2074
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.057
44th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 1736
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.003
55th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 3810
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.018
53rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 3810
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.644
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+1.37 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.28 z
Progressive-pass rate-1.42 z
Long-pass rate-1.09 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.47 z
Carry share of actions+0.58 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
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with the observed role of Leverkusen's other DEF contributors.
#4 of 9Comparable current-team defensive profilesRaw distance: 0.624
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Passes under pressure
- Carry involvement
- Long-pass rate
Largest stylistic difference
Progressive passing rate
higher sampleObserved across 31 matchesRole: 34 matches · 8 contributors
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
26
18 matches observed
Goals
4
Total xG
2.2
Goals above expected
+1.8
xG / shot
0.1
15.4% goals / shot
Campos visualization
Shot map
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
Shots26
Goals4
xG2.22
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
+0.056
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.056
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.057
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.003
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.018
3,810 actions · 2,074 passes · 1,736 carries · 64.7% 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
233 attempts
- Actual
- 86.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 81.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +5.1 pp
Progressive passing
128 attempts
- Actual
- 69.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 58.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +11.6 pp
Long passing
188 attempts
- Actual
- 86.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 82.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +3.5 pp
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
5.9%
Pressure-pass rate
10.8%
Average forward distance
6.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
763.7 m
Final-third entries / 100
8.1
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 2,167 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 97.9%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0019
- Value before
- 0.0126
- Value after
- 0.0145
- Length
- 26.7 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.
Style similarity
90.6 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsPositive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesLong Pass Rate
Sample support: Higher · 25 limiting matches
Observed: 31 vs 25 matches
Style similarity
84.3 / 100
Pressure Pass Rate