Pass difficulty
83.6%
17th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1528
Player profile
Jonas Hofmann
Bayer Leverkusen · Right Attacking Midfield · MID
Matches observed32
Pass attempts1,528
Reliable sampleActual completion
81.1%
1,239 completed passes
Pass difficulty
83.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.5 pp
-37.8 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
12.4%
17th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1528
Progressive pass rate
18.9%
100th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1528
Long-pass rate
15.0%
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1528
Average forward distance
-1.5 units
0th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1528
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
415.9 units
8th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1528
Final-third entries / 100 passes
7.134
33rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1528
Carry share of actions
43.9%
32nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2675
Progressive carry rate
4.7%
63rd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 1173
Progressive action rate
12.5%
73rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2675
Under-pressure action rate
18.4%
23rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2675
Shots / observed match
1.94 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 10 eligible position peers
xG / shot
9.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 10 eligible position peers
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.5 pp
8th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1528
Under-pressure completion above expected
-5.9 pp
11th percentile among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 190
Progressive completion above expected
-5.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 289
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
-2.7 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 229
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
-1.707
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 10 eligible position peers
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.058
22nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2675
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.200
18th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 1502
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.123
62nd percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 1173
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.043
65th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2675
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.014
23rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2675
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.180
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-0.73 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.98 z
Long-pass rate+0.48 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-1.40 z
Carry share of actions-0.48 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
MID role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with the observed role of Leverkusen's other MID contributors.
#6 of 8Comparable current-team midfield profilesRaw distance: 1.045
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Passes under pressure
- Carry involvement
- Long-pass rate
Largest stylistic difference
Forward distance per 100 passes
higher sampleObserved across 32 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
62
26 matches observed
Goals
4
Total xG
5.7
Goals above expected
-1.7
xG / shot
0.1
6.5% goals / shot
Campos visualization
Shot map
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
Shots62
Goals4
xG5.71
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
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
-0.058
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.200
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.123
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.043
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.014
2,675 actions · 1,502 passes · 1,173 carries · 43.3% 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
190 attempts
- Actual
- 75.8%
- Pass difficulty
- 81.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -5.9 pp
Progressive passing
289 attempts
- Actual
- 47.1%
- Pass difficulty
- 52.5%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -5.5 pp
Long passing
229 attempts
- Actual
- 59.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 62.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -2.7 pp
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
18.9%
Pressure-pass rate
12.4%
Average forward distance
-1.5 m
Positive forward distance / 100
415.9 m
Final-third entries / 100
7.1
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 1,528 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 97.9%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0026
- Value before
- 0.0155
- Value after
- 0.0129
- Length
- 8.4 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.
Style similarity
68.8 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsExpected Completion RateProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 32 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
67.8 / 100
Expected Completion RatePressure Pass Rate