Pass difficulty
80.6%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Emir Karic
Darmstadt 98 · Left Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts89
Limited sampleActual completion
79.8%
71 completed passes
Pass difficulty
80.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.8 pp
-0.7 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.
Insufficient eligible position metrics for a meaningful radar.
Style
Tendencies describe what a player attempts; higher is not automatically better.
Under-pressure pass rate
6.7%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
19.1%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
14.6%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
7.6 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
1073.0 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
16.854
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
42.7%
25th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 143
Progressive carry rate
3.3%
63rd percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 61
Progressive action rate
11.2%
62nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 143
Under-pressure action rate
13.3%
38th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 143
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
7.8%
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
-0.8 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 89
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-16.6 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-2.9 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 17
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+4.7 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 13
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.155
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.032
63rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 143
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.020
58th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 82
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.101
73rd percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 61
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.021
65th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 143
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.008
32nd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 143
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.501
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-0.56 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.01 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.40 z
Long-pass rate-0.20 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.80 z
Carry share of actions-0.47 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.
#36 of 66Comparable external defensive candidatesRaw distance: 1.142
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Long-pass rate
- Passes under pressure
- Progressive passing rate
Largest stylistic difference
Forward distance per 100 passes
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
2
1 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.
Shots2
Goals0
xG0.16
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Corner
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
+0.032
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.020
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.101
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.021
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.008
143 actions · 82 passes · 61 carries · 55.9% 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
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 66.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -16.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
17 attempts
- Actual
- 41.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 44.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -2.9 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
13 attempts
- Actual
- 46.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 41.4%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
19.1%
Pressure-pass rate
6.7%
Average forward distance
7.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
1073.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
16.9
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–89 of 89 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 27.8%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0136
- Value before
- 0.0135
- Value after
- 0.0271
- Length
- 35.0 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
78.0 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesProgressive Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
74.3 / 100