Pass difficulty
89.6%
75th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1501
Player profile
Robert Andrich
Bayer Leverkusen · Right Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed28
Pass attempts1,501
Reliable sampleActual completion
90.5%
1,359 completed passes
Pass difficulty
89.6%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.9 pp
+13.4 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
12.7%
25th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1501
Progressive pass rate
9.8%
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1501
Long-pass rate
11.0%
58th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1501
Average forward distance
3.9 units
100th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1501
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
666.4 units
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1501
Final-third entries / 100 passes
9.727
75th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1501
Carry share of actions
43.7%
30th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2571
Progressive carry rate
1.5%
29th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 1124
Progressive action rate
5.9%
35th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2571
Under-pressure action rate
15.4%
10th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2571
Shots / observed match
0.82 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 23
requires 10 eligible position peers
xG / shot
8.2%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 23
requires 10 eligible position peers
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.9 pp
75th percentile among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 1501
Under-pressure completion above expected
+0.0 pp
44th percentile among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 190
Progressive completion above expected
-0.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 147
requires 10 eligible position peers
Long-pass completion above expected
-2.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 165
requires 10 eligible position peers
Goals above expected
2.124
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 23
requires 10 eligible position peers
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.029
65th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2571
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.003
74th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 1447
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.069
34th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 1124
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.007
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2571
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.024
40th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 2571
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.206
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+0.77 z
Under-pressure pass rate-0.69 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.42 z
Long-pass rate-0.27 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.59 z
Carry share of actions-0.52 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.
#2 of 8Comparable current-team midfield profilesRaw distance: 0.610
Lower distance means closer stylistic resemblance.
Closest stylistic dimensions
- Long-pass rate
- Expected completion rate
- Progressive passing rate
Largest stylistic difference
Forward distance per 100 passes
higher sampleObserved across 28 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
23
11 matches observed
Goals
4
Total xG
1.9
Goals above expected
+2.1
xG / shot
0.1
17.4% goals / shot
Campos visualization
Shot map
Non-penalty xG is encoded by marker size and color. Preserved penalties have no modeled xG.
Shots23
Goals4
xG1.88
xG0.00 – 1.00
Foot
Header
Set piece
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
+0.029
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.003
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.069
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.007
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.024
2,571 actions · 1,447 passes · 1,124 carries · 53.5% 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
190 attempts
- Actual
- 85.8%
- Pass difficulty
- 85.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +0.0 pp
Progressive passing
147 attempts
- Actual
- 54.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 55.3%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -0.8 pp
Long passing
165 attempts
- Actual
- 75.2%
- Pass difficulty
- 77.5%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -2.3 pp
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
9.8%
Pressure-pass rate
12.7%
Average forward distance
3.9 m
Positive forward distance / 100
666.4 m
Final-third entries / 100
9.7
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–200 of 1,501 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 84.8%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- 0.0005
- Value before
- 0.0105
- Value after
- 0.0109
- Length
- 5.1 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.
Style similarity
81.8 / 100
Positive Forward Distance Per 100 PassesProgressive Pass RateLong Pass Rate
Sample support: Higher · 28 limiting matches
Observed: 28 vs 33 matches
Style similarity
74.3 / 100
Carry Share Of ActionsLong Pass Rate