Pass difficulty
88.4%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 80
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Marvin Friedrich
Borussia Mönchengladbach · Center Back · DEF
Matches observed2
Pass attempts80
Limited sampleActual completion
90.0%
72 completed passes
Pass difficulty
88.4%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.6 pp
+1.3 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
DEF 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
2.5%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 80
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
7.5%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 80
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
10.0%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 80
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
4.6 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 80
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
820.9 units
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 80
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
8.750
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 80
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
43.8%
53rd percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 130
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
16th percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 57
Progressive action rate
3.1%
4th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 130
Under-pressure action rate
6.9%
11th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 130
Shots / observed match
2.00 / match
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
6.4%
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+1.6 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 23 eligible peers · sample 80
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+0.4 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 2
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-32.5 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 17 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-18.7 pp
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 21 eligible peers · sample 8
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.255
Unavailable among DEF players
n = 4 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.003
39th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 130
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.051
45th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 73
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.073
62nd percentile among DEF players
n = 87 eligible peers · sample 57
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.028
24th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 130
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.027
65th percentile among DEF players
n = 94 eligible peers · sample 130
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible DEF players.
Style separation0.388
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.79 z
Under-pressure pass rate-1.77 z
Progressive-pass rate-1.20 z
Long-pass rate-0.89 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes-0.24 z
Carry share of actions-0.04 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
DEF role
How closely a player's playing style matches this role. Compared with Bayer Leverkusen's observed DEF role.
Role distance · lower is closer0.840
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Long Pass Rate
- Expected Completion Rate
- Progressive Pass Rate
Largest difference
Pressure Pass Rate
limited sampleObserved across 2 matchesRole: 34 matches · 9 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
4
1 matches observed
Goals
0
Total xG
0.3
Goals above expected
-0.3
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.
Shots4
Goals0
xG0.26
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
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
+0.003
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.051
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.073
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.028
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.027
130 actions · 73 passes · 57 carries · 54.6% 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
2 attempts
- Actual
- 100.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 99.6%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +0.4 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
6 attempts
- Actual
- 0.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 32.5%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -32.5 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
8 attempts
- Actual
- 37.5%
- Pass difficulty
- 56.2%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
7.5%
Pressure-pass rate
2.5%
Average forward distance
4.6 m
Positive forward distance / 100
820.9 m
Final-third entries / 100
8.8
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–80 of 80 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 92.2%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0002
- Value before
- 0.0053
- Value after
- 0.0050
- Length
- 20.7 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
84.6 / 100
Pressure Pass RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesLong Pass Rate
Sample support: Limited · 1 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 1 matches
Style similarity
74.5 / 100