Pass difficulty
73.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 37
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Ritsu Doan
Freiburg · Right Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts37
Limited sampleActual completion
67.6%
25 completed passes
Pass difficulty
73.9%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-6.4 pp
-2.4 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
18.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 37
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
32.4%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 37
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
18.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 37
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
3.7 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 37
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
764.6 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 37
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
13.514
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 37
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
54.5%
100th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 77
Progressive carry rate
11.9%
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 42
Progressive action rate
20.8%
95th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 77
Under-pressure action rate
40.3%
93rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 77
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
11.0%
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
-6.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 37
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-9.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-6.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 12
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-3.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
0.890
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.009
57th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 77
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.273
Unavailable among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 35
requires 36 passes
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.244
91st percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 42
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.016
27th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 77
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.100
95th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 77
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Archetype unavailable
Limited sample for archetype analysis: requires 50 passes.
Archetypes describe outfield playing tendencies, not quality, ability, or rank.
Role Fit — Bayer Leverkusen
Role Fit unavailable
Role Fit requires at least 50 passes and 29 carries in the product sample.
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
1
Total xG
0.1
Goals above expected
+0.9
xG / shot
0.1
100.0% 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
Goals1
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
+0.009
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.273
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.244
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.016
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.100
77 actions · 35 passes · 42 carries · 55.8% 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
7 attempts
- Actual
- 71.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 81.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -9.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
12 attempts
- Actual
- 33.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 40.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -6.8 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
7 attempts
- Actual
- 28.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 32.3%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
32.4%
Pressure-pass rate
18.9%
Average forward distance
3.7 m
Positive forward distance / 100
764.6 m
Final-third entries / 100
13.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–37 of 37 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 97.3%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0000
- Value before
- 0.0137
- Value after
- 0.0137
- Length
- 10.5 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.
Playing-style similarity unavailable
V3.3B similarity requires an outfield player with at least 50 passes and 29 carries.
Sample support uses the lower observed-match count in each pair. Lower coverage means a measured profile may vary more with additional matches; it never changes the style similarity or ranking.