Pass difficulty
84.8%
50th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Player profile
Mario Götze
Eintracht Frankfurt · Right Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts110
Reliable sampleActual completion
82.7%
91 completed passes
Pass difficulty
84.8%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.0 pp
-2.2 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
16.4%
75th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Long-pass rate
9.1%
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Average forward distance
1.2 units
25th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
552.0 units
50th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Final-third entries / 100 passes
7.273
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Carry share of actions
43.5%
25th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 193
Progressive carry rate
2.4%
37th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 84
Progressive action rate
9.8%
63rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 193
Under-pressure action rate
17.1%
18th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 193
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
6.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.0 pp
17th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 110
Under-pressure completion above expected
-2.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 17
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-8.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 18
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-28.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 10
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.137
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.031
37th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 193
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.083
56th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 109
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.036
12th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 84
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.008
45th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 193
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.014
25th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 193
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.071
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-0.30 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.20 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.59 z
Long-pass rate-0.62 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.32 z
Carry share of actions-0.57 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 closer0.503
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Pressure Pass Rate
- Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
- Long Pass Rate
Largest difference
Carry Share Of Actions
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
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
xG0.14
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
-0.031
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.083
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.036
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.008
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.014
193 actions · 109 passes · 84 carries · 45.6% 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
- 72.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -2.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
18 attempts
- Actual
- 38.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 47.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -8.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
10 attempts
- Actual
- 30.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 58.8%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
16.4%
Pressure-pass rate
15.5%
Average forward distance
1.2 m
Positive forward distance / 100
552.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
7.3
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
- 79.5%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- -0.0177
- Value before
- 0.0177
- Value after
- 0.0000
- Length
- 31.6 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
74.2 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesPressure Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
71.7 / 100