Pass difficulty
86.5%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 75
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Xaver Schlager
RB Leipzig · Left Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts75
Limited sampleActual completion
88.0%
66 completed passes
Pass difficulty
86.5%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.5 pp
+1.2 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
8.0%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 75
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
9.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 75
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
10.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 75
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
2.2 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 75
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
642.3 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 75
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
9.333
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 75
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
48.6%
77th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 138
Progressive carry rate
4.5%
60th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 67
Progressive action rate
6.5%
38th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 138
Under-pressure action rate
13.0%
0th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 138
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
2.9%
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
+1.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 75
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-5.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+2.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-5.0 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.029
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.058
77th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 138
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.037
91st percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 71
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.079
45th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 67
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.027
62nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 138
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.023
38th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 138
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.202
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.08 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.50 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.50 z
Long-pass rate-0.33 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.40 z
Carry share of actions+0.84 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.
Leverkusen Role Fit
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
Role distance · lower is closer0.687
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Long Pass Rate
- Expected Completion Rate
- Progressive Pass Rate
Largest difference
Pressure Pass Rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 10 contributors
Role Fit measures how closely a player's observed playing style resembles Bayer Leverkusen's observed positional-role style. It does not predict 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
+0.058
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.037
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.079
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.027
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.023
138 actions · 71 passes · 67 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
6 attempts
- Actual
- 66.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 72.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -5.8 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
7 attempts
- Actual
- 42.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 40.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +2.5 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
8 attempts
- Actual
- 62.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 67.5%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
9.3%
Pressure-pass rate
8.0%
Average forward distance
2.2 m
Positive forward distance / 100
642.3 m
Final-third entries / 100
9.3
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–75 of 75 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 9.5%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- -0.0026
- Value before
- 0.0026
- Value after
- 0.0000
- Length
- 2.6 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
81.3 / 100
Long Pass RateExpected Completion RatePressure Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
76.4 / 100