Pass difficulty
87.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Maximilian Arnold
Wolfsburg · Center Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts96
Limited sampleActual completion
87.5%
84 completed passes
Pass difficulty
87.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.2 pp
-0.2 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.
Insufficient eligible position metrics for a meaningful radar.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
15.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
14.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
27.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
0.5 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
651.5 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
10.417
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
39.1%
0th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 151
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
12th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 59
Progressive action rate
9.3%
57th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 151
Under-pressure action rate
19.2%
30th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 151
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 96
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-1.7 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-10.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-3.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 26
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
-0.036
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.067
15th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 151
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.159
30th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 92
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.077
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 59
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.072
5th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 151
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.031
50th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 151
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.341
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty+0.34 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.17 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.31 z
Long-pass rate+2.74 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.47 z
Carry share of actions-1.83 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
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
#35 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 1.559
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Passes under pressure
- Expected completion rate
- Progressive passing rate
Largest stylistic difference
Long-pass rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 10 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
0.0
Goals above expected
-0.0
xG / shot
0.0
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
xG0.04
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
-0.067
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.159
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.077
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.072
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.031
151 actions · 92 passes · 59 carries · 52.3% 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
15 attempts
- Actual
- 86.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 88.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -1.7 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
14 attempts
- Actual
- 35.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 46.0%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -10.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
26 attempts
- Actual
- 69.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 73.0%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
14.6%
Pressure-pass rate
15.6%
Average forward distance
0.5 m
Positive forward distance / 100
651.5 m
Final-third entries / 100
10.4
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–96 of 96 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.0%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0001
- Value before
- 0.0065
- Value after
- 0.0066
- Length
- 19.0 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
64.7 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesExpected Completion RateProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
56.5 / 100