Pass difficulty
87.7%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Grischa Prömel
Hoffenheim · Left Center Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts64
Limited sampleActual completion
87.5%
56 completed passes
Pass difficulty
87.7%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-0.2 pp
-0.1 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
21.9%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
14.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
14.1%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
1.2 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
673.8 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
12.500
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
39.6%
2nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Progressive carry rate
2.5%
38th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 40
Progressive action rate
9.9%
65th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Under-pressure action rate
27.7%
68th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
15.8%
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
-0.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 64
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+8.6 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 14
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-15.2 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 9
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-0.5 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 9
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.158
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.052
23rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.135
37th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 61
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.074
37th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 40
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.031
20th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.051
72nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 101
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Direct Progressor
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.257
Progressive-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty (lower)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (higher)
Long-pass rate (higher)
Pass difficulty+0.35 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.91 z
Progressive-pass rate+0.23 z
Long-pass rate+0.31 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.65 z
Carry share of actions-1.68 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 Bayer Leverkusen's observed MID role.
#23 of 39Comparable external midfield candidatesRaw distance: 1.007
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Expected completion rate
- Progressive passing rate
- Long-pass rate
Largest stylistic difference
Carry involvement
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 10 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
1
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.2
Goals above expected
-0.2
xG / shot
0.2
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
xG0.16
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
-0.052
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.135
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.074
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.031
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.051
101 actions · 61 passes · 40 carries · 47.5% 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
14 attempts
- Actual
- 92.9%
- Pass difficulty
- 84.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +8.6 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
9 attempts
- Actual
- 44.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 59.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -15.2 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
9 attempts
- Actual
- 77.8%
- Pass difficulty
- 78.3%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
14.1%
Pressure-pass rate
21.9%
Average forward distance
1.2 m
Positive forward distance / 100
673.8 m
Final-third entries / 100
12.5
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–64 of 64 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 81.2%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0027
- Value before
- 0.0027
- Value after
- 0.0000
- Length
- 4.1 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
74.5 / 100
Long Pass RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesProgressive Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 2 matches
Style similarity
61.7 / 100