Pass difficulty
82.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 56
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Yannick Gerhardt
Wolfsburg · Right Center Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts56
Limited sampleActual completion
76.8%
43 completed passes
Pass difficulty
82.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-5.4 pp
-3.0 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.
Insufficient eligible position metrics for a meaningful radar.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
14.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 56
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
12.5%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 56
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
12.5%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 56
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
-0.0 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 56
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
550.9 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 56
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
12.500
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 56
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
46.5%
52nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Progressive carry rate
4.3%
57th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 47
Progressive action rate
7.9%
48th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Under-pressure action rate
18.8%
28th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
6.4%
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
-5.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 56
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-6.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-12.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-13.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.127
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.237
2nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.508
2nd percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 54
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.075
40th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 47
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.042
15th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.029
7th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.088
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-0.86 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.41 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.01 z
Long-pass rate+0.02 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.33 z
Carry share of actions+0.27 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 closer0.565
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Progressive Pass Rate
- Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
- Carry Share Of Actions
Largest difference
Expected Completion Rate
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
xG0.13
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
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
-0.237
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.508
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.075
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.042
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.029
101 actions · 54 passes · 47 carries · 39.6% 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
8 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 56.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -6.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
7 attempts
- Actual
- 28.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 40.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -12.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
7 attempts
- Actual
- 42.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 55.9%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
12.5%
Pressure-pass rate
14.3%
Average forward distance
-0.0 m
Positive forward distance / 100
550.9 m
Final-third entries / 100
12.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–56 of 56 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 12.8%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- -0.0058
- Value before
- 0.0058
- Value after
- 0.0000
- Length
- 16.9 m
- Context
- Under pressure
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
76.9 / 100
Progressive Pass RateCarry Share Of ActionsPositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
74.2 / 100