Pass difficulty
86.6%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 83
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Julian Chabot
FC Köln · Left Center Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts83
Limited sampleActual completion
85.5%
71 completed passes
Pass difficulty
86.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.1 pp
-0.9 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
16.9%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 83
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
16.9%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 83
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
26.5%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 83
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
10.0 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 83
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
1317.6 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 83
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
7.229
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 83
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
39.5%
9th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 124
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
16th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 49
Progressive action rate
8.1%
41st percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 124
Under-pressure action rate
18.5%
66th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 124
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
14.6%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-1.1 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 83
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-0.5 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-12.0 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-4.6 pp
25th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 22
Goals above expected
-0.291
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.018
26th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 124
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.052
44th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 75
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.034
20th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 49
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.039
18th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 124
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.019
55th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 124
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.346
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty+0.48 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.83 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.09 z
Long-pass rate+1.59 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+1.81 z
Carry share of actions-1.60 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
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
Role distance · lower is closer1.824
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Expected Completion Rate
- Progressive Pass Rate
- Pressure Pass Rate
Largest difference
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 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
0.3
Goals above expected
-0.3
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
xG0.29
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
-0.018
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.052
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.034
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.039
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.019
124 actions · 75 passes · 49 carries · 46.8% 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
14 attempts
- Actual
- 85.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 86.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -0.5 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
14 attempts
- Actual
- 28.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 40.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -12.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
22 attempts
- Actual
- 59.1%
- Pass difficulty
- 63.7%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
16.9%
Pressure-pass rate
16.9%
Average forward distance
10.0 m
Positive forward distance / 100
1317.6 m
Final-third entries / 100
7.2
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–83 of 83 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 25.6%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- -0.0037
- Value before
- 0.0037
- Value after
- 0.0000
- Length
- 49.0 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 2 observed matches, so nearest-neighbor rankings may be less stable.
Style similarity
75.8 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsProgressive Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
68.5 / 100