Pass difficulty
88.4%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Dan-Axel Zagadou
VfB Stuttgart · Left Center Back · DEF
Matches observed1
Pass attempts77
Limited sampleActual completion
92.2%
71 completed passes
Pass difficulty
88.4%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+3.8 pp
+3.0 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
5.2%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
13.0%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
16.9%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
8.6 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
1110.1 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
6.494
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
45.9%
77th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 135
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
16th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 62
Progressive action rate
7.4%
35th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 135
Under-pressure action rate
4.4%
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 135
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
11.2%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+3.8 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 77
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+4.4 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+18.3 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+14.2 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.112
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.060
84th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 135
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.088
91st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 73
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.028
15th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 62
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.003
56th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 135
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.008
33rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 135
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.120
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.78 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.29 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.45 z
Long-pass rate+0.15 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.95 z
Carry share of actions+0.71 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 Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
#24 of 66Comparable external defensive candidatesRaw distance: 0.974
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Carry involvement
- Progressive passing rate
- Expected completion rate
Largest stylistic difference
Forward distance per 100 passes
limited sampleObserved across 1 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 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
1
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.
Shots1
Goals0
xG0.11
xG0.00 – 1.00
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
+0.060
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.088
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.028
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.003
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.008
135 actions · 73 passes · 62 carries · 60.7% 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
4 attempts
- Actual
- 75.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 70.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +4.4 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
10 attempts
- Actual
- 70.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 51.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +18.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
13 attempts
- Actual
- 76.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 62.7%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
13.0%
Pressure-pass rate
5.2%
Average forward distance
8.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
1110.1 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–77 of 77 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 30.4%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0118
- Value before
- 0.0025
- Value after
- 0.0143
- Length
- 60.5 m
- Context
- Progressive
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 1 observed match, so nearest-neighbor rankings may be less stable.
Style similarity
78.6 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesCarry Share Of ActionsProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 1 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
77.3 / 100