Pass difficulty
88.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 99
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Leonardo Bittencourt
Werder Bremen · Right Center Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts99
Limited sampleActual completion
85.9%
85 completed passes
Pass difficulty
88.3%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.5 pp
-2.5 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
12.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 99
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
15.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 99
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
17.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 99
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
3.5 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 99
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
746.4 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 99
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
16.162
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 99
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
50.3%
87th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 187
Progressive carry rate
1.1%
26th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 94
Progressive action rate
7.5%
45th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 187
Under-pressure action rate
20.9%
37th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 187
Shots / observed match
1.00 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
3.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-2.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 99
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-1.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 12
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-4.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+4.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 17
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.077
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.004
52nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 187
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.121
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 93
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.112
58th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 94
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.016
50th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 187
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.040
60th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 187
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.188
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty+0.49 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.78 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.40 z
Long-pass rate+0.89 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+1.23 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.
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 closer0.974
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Expected Completion Rate
- Progressive Pass Rate
- Pressure Pass Rate
Largest difference
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
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
2
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.1
Goals above expected
-0.1
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.
Shots2
Goals0
xG0.08
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
-0.004
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.121
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.112
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.016
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.040
187 actions · 93 passes · 94 carries · 48.1% 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
12 attempts
- Actual
- 83.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 84.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -1.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
15 attempts
- Actual
- 46.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 51.5%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -4.8 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
17 attempts
- Actual
- 76.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 71.9%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
15.2%
Pressure-pass rate
12.1%
Average forward distance
3.5 m
Positive forward distance / 100
746.4 m
Final-third entries / 100
16.2
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–99 of 99 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 98.8%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0001
- Value before
- 0.0075
- Value after
- 0.0074
- Length
- 11.6 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
64.8 / 100
Expected Completion RateCarry Share Of ActionsPressure Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
62.3 / 100