Pass difficulty
86.6%
45th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Player profile
Waldemar Anton
VfB Stuttgart · Right Center Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts146
Reliable sampleActual completion
87.0%
127 completed passes
Pass difficulty
86.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.3 pp
+0.5 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
4.1%
0th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Progressive pass rate
10.3%
27th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Long-pass rate
15.1%
55th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Average forward distance
5.6 units
59th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
917.1 units
68th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Final-third entries / 100 passes
8.219
50th percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Carry share of actions
47.7%
94th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 258
Progressive carry rate
2.4%
51st percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 123
Progressive action rate
6.2%
25th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 258
Under-pressure action rate
6.2%
9th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 258
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.1%
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
+0.3 pp
41st percentile among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 146
Under-pressure completion above expected
-7.3 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+2.2 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-4.4 pp
30th percentile among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 22
Goals above expected
-0.031
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.002
38th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 258
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.054
42nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 135
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.065
53rd percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 123
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.016
32nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 258
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.002
22nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 258
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.325
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.48 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.48 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.82 z
Long-pass rate-0.13 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.16 z
Carry share of actions+1.33 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.
#15 of 66Comparable external defensive candidatesRaw distance: 0.797
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Expected completion rate
- Progressive passing rate
- Carry involvement
Largest stylistic difference
Passes under pressure
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
0.0
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
xG0.03
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
+0.002
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.054
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.065
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.016
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.002
258 actions · 135 passes · 123 carries · 52.7% 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
6 attempts
- Actual
- 33.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 40.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -7.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
15 attempts
- Actual
- 33.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 31.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +2.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
22 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 54.4%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
10.3%
Pressure-pass rate
4.1%
Average forward distance
5.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
917.1 m
Final-third entries / 100
8.2
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
- 98.7%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0001
- Value before
- 0.0045
- Value after
- 0.0046
- Length
- 25.5 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.
Limited sample: this player's style profile is based on 2 observed matches, so nearest-neighbor rankings may be less stable.
Style similarity
77.3 / 100
Pressure Pass RateLong Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
74.2 / 100