Pass difficulty
83.6%
25th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Player profile
Nadiem Amiri
Bayer Leverkusen · Left Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed8
Pass attempts155
Reliable sampleActual completion
87.1%
135 completed passes
Pass difficulty
83.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+3.5 pp
+5.4 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.
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
23.2%
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Progressive pass rate
15.5%
50th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Long-pass rate
11.0%
50th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Average forward distance
3.5 units
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
691.5 units
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Final-third entries / 100 passes
13.548
100th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Carry share of actions
48.5%
73rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 291
Progressive carry rate
5.7%
68th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 141
Progressive action rate
10.0%
67th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 291
Under-pressure action rate
29.6%
75th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 291
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
5.6%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+3.5 pp
100th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 155
Under-pressure completion above expected
+10.1 pp
100th percentile among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 36
Progressive completion above expected
+13.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 24
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
+2.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 17
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.224
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.069
82nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 291
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.004
79th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 150
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.138
66th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 141
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.106
88th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 291
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.050
70th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 291
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.117
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-0.54 z
Under-pressure pass rate+1.15 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.45 z
Long-pass rate-0.27 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.79 z
Carry share of actions+0.82 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 the observed role of Leverkusen's other MID contributors.
#7 of 8Comparable current-team midfield profilesRaw distance: 1.161
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Expected completion rate
- Passes under pressure
- Progressive passing rate
Largest stylistic difference
Long-pass rate
higher sampleObserved across 7 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 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
4
3 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.2
Goals above expected
-0.2
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.
Shots4
Goals0
xG0.22
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
+0.069
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.004
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.138
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.106
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.050
291 actions · 150 passes · 141 carries · 47.8% 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
36 attempts
- Actual
- 88.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 78.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +10.1 pp
Progressive passing
24 attempts
- Actual
- 62.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 49.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +13.4 pp
Long passing
17 attempts
- Actual
- 52.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 50.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +2.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
15.5%
Pressure-pass rate
23.2%
Average forward distance
3.5 m
Positive forward distance / 100
691.5 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 1–155 of 155 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 10.6%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- —
- Value before
- —
- Value after
- —
- Length
- 25.8 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.
Style similarity
72.9 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsExpected Completion RateProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 8 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
69.5 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes