Pass difficulty
83.1%
8th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 105
Player profile
Romano Schmid
Werder Bremen · Left Center Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts105
Reliable sampleActual completion
73.3%
77 completed passes
Pass difficulty
83.1%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-9.8 pp
-10.3 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
26.7%
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 105
Progressive pass rate
16.2%
58th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 105
Long-pass rate
17.1%
92nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 105
Average forward distance
3.3 units
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 105
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
766.3 units
100th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 105
Final-third entries / 100 passes
10.476
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 105
Carry share of actions
48.5%
75th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 196
Progressive carry rate
8.4%
82nd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 95
Progressive action rate
12.8%
75th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 196
Under-pressure action rate
41.8%
97th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 196
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.8%
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
-9.8 pp
0th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 105
Under-pressure completion above expected
-9.6 pp
0th percentile among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 28
Progressive completion above expected
-14.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 17
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-3.9 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 18
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.038
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.074
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 196
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.016
67th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 101
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.171
78th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 95
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.094
82nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 196
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.046
68th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 196
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.284
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty-0.65 z
Under-pressure pass rate+1.74 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.56 z
Long-pass rate+0.88 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+1.39 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.
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 closer1.299
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Progressive Pass Rate
- Carry Share Of Actions
- Expected Completion 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
xG0.04
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
+0.074
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.016
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.171
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.094
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.046
196 actions · 101 passes · 95 carries · 54.1% 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
28 attempts
- Actual
- 75.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 84.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -9.6 pp
Progressive passing
17 attempts
- Actual
- 29.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 43.5%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -14.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
18 attempts
- Actual
- 55.6%
- Pass difficulty
- 59.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
16.2%
Pressure-pass rate
26.7%
Average forward distance
3.3 m
Positive forward distance / 100
766.3 m
Final-third entries / 100
10.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–105 of 105 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 61.6%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- -0.0139
- Value before
- 0.0139
- Value after
- 0.0000
- Length
- 8.7 m
- Context
- Under pressure
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
72.9 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsExpected Completion RateProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 8 matches
Style similarity
57.5 / 100