Pass difficulty
88.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Nicolas Höfler
Freiburg · Right Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts62
Limited sampleActual completion
83.9%
52 completed passes
Pass difficulty
88.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-4.8 pp
-3.0 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
17.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
3.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
11.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
2.4 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
558.9 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
6.452
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
42.3%
17th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 97
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
12th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 41
Progressive action rate
2.1%
2nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 97
Under-pressure action rate
26.8%
63rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 97
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
5.6%
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
-4.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 62
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-24.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 11
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-6.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+0.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 7
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.056
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.049
27th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 97
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.085
54th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 56
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
-0.001
0th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 41
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.007
30th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 97
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.016
8th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 97
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.456
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.56 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.19 z
Progressive-pass rate-1.43 z
Long-pass rate-0.21 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.26 z
Carry share of actions-0.93 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 closer0.752
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Positive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
- Expected Completion Rate
- Long Pass Rate
Largest difference
Progressive 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
0.1
Goals above expected
-0.1
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.
Shots1
Goals0
xG0.06
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
-0.049
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.085
Carrying impact / 100 carries
-0.001
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.007
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.016
97 actions · 56 passes · 41 carries · 49.5% 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
11 attempts
- Actual
- 54.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 79.1%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -24.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
2 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 56.2%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -6.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
7 attempts
- Actual
- 85.7%
- Pass difficulty
- 85.3%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
3.2%
Pressure-pass rate
17.7%
Average forward distance
2.4 m
Positive forward distance / 100
558.9 m
Final-third entries / 100
6.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–62 of 62 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.5%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0000
- Value before
- 0.0039
- Value after
- 0.0039
- Length
- 17.3 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
81.0 / 100
Pressure Pass RateProgressive Pass RateExpected Completion Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
79.5 / 100