Pass difficulty
91.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Niklas Dorsch
Augsburg · Center Defensive Midfield · MID
Matches observed2
Pass attempts72
Limited sampleActual completion
91.7%
66 completed passes
Pass difficulty
91.3%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
+0.4 pp
+0.3 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
20.8%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
8.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
15.3%
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
2.5 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
679.6 units
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
4.167
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
47.5%
68th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 122
Progressive carry rate
0.0%
12th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 58
Progressive action rate
2.5%
7th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 122
Under-pressure action rate
23.8%
58th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 122
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
4.3%
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
+0.4 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 13 eligible peers · sample 72
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
-3.1 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 10 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
+0.3 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 6
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
+5.8 pp
Unavailable among MID players
n = 9 eligible peers · sample 11
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.043
Unavailable among MID players
n = 5 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
0.115
95th percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 122
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
0.196
98th percentile among MID players
n = 58 eligible peers · sample 64
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.026
8th percentile among MID players
n = 66 eligible peers · sample 58
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
0.098
83rd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 122
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
0.025
42nd percentile among MID players
n = 61 eligible peers · sample 122
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Safe Circulator
Position-relative style among eligible MID players.
Style separation0.308
Progressive-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty (higher)
Positive forward distance / 100 passes (lower)
Long-pass rate (lower)
Pass difficulty+1.13 z
Under-pressure pass rate+0.73 z
Progressive-pass rate-0.65 z
Long-pass rate+0.53 z
Positive forward distance / 100 passes+0.70 z
Carry share of actions+0.56 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 closer0.784
CloserFarther
Strongest alignment
- Carry Share Of Actions
- Progressive Pass Rate
- Expected Completion Rate
Largest difference
Long 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
0.0
Goals above expected
-0.0
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.
Shots1
Goals0
xG0.04
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
+0.115
Passing impact / 100 passes
+0.196
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.026
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
+0.098
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
+0.025
122 actions · 64 passes · 58 carries · 56.6% 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
15 attempts
- Actual
- 93.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 96.4%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -3.1 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
6 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 49.7%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +0.3 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
11 attempts
- Actual
- 81.8%
- Pass difficulty
- 76.0%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
8.3%
Pressure-pass rate
20.8%
Average forward distance
2.5 m
Positive forward distance / 100
679.6 m
Final-third entries / 100
4.2
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–72 of 72 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 99.6%
- Outcome
- Completed
- Attacking impact
- -0.0034
- Value before
- 0.0062
- Value after
- 0.0028
- Length
- 14.9 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
77.1 / 100
Expected Completion RateProgressive Pass RatePositive Forward Distance Per 100 Passes
Sample support: Limited · 2 limiting matches
Observed: 2 vs 33 matches
Style similarity
66.6 / 100