Pass difficulty
93.0%
100th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Player profile
Dayotchanculle Upamecano
Bayern Munich · Right Center Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts146
Reliable sampleActual completion
88.4%
129 completed passes
Pass difficulty
93.0%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-4.6 pp
-6.7 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.
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
10.3%
41st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Progressive pass rate
6.2%
5th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Long-pass rate
21.9%
82nd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Average forward distance
2.2 units
23rd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
688.6 units
23rd percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Final-third entries / 100 passes
6.849
36th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Carry share of actions
47.3%
90th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 262
Progressive carry rate
4.0%
72nd percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 124
Progressive action rate
5.0%
15th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 262
Under-pressure action rate
10.7%
20th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 262
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
9.5%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-4.6 pp
0th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Under-pressure completion above expected
-10.9 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-15.9 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 9
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-1.3 pp
50th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 32
Goals above expected
-0.095
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.025
58th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 262
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.025
54th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 138
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.081
66th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 124
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.001
44th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 262
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.012
42nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 262
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.434
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+1.58 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.37 z
Progressive-pass rate-1.39 z
Long-pass rate+0.90 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.78 z
Carry share of actions+1.21 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
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
#20 of 66Comparable external defensive candidatesRaw distance: 0.902
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Forward distance per 100 passes
- Passes under pressure
- Carry involvement
Largest stylistic difference
Long-pass rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 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
1
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.
Shots1
Goals0
xG0.10
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
+0.025
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.025
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.081
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.001
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.012
262 actions · 138 passes · 124 carries · 54.6% 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
15 attempts
- Actual
- 80.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 90.9%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -10.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
9 attempts
- Actual
- 44.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 60.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -15.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
32 attempts
- Actual
- 87.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 88.8%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
6.2%
Pressure-pass rate
10.3%
Average forward distance
2.2 m
Positive forward distance / 100
688.6 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.8
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–146 of 146 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 68.9%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- —
- Value before
- —
- Value after
- —
- Length
- 12.7 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
68.6 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsProgressive Pass RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
68.2 / 100