Pass difficulty
76.2%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 48
requires 100 passes
Player profile
Phillip Tietz
Augsburg · Left Center Forward · FWD
Matches observed2
Pass attempts48
Limited sampleActual completion
72.9%
35 completed passes
Pass difficulty
76.2%
How difficult a pass was to complete.
Actual vs. expected passing
-3.3 pp
-1.6 completions vs model expectation
Actual pass completion compared with the model's expected completion.
Player intelligence
Position profile
FWD 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
31.3%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 48
requires 100 passes
Progressive pass rate
18.8%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 48
requires 100 passes
Long-pass rate
8.3%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 48
requires 100 passes
Average forward distance
5.7 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 48
requires 100 passes
Positive forward distance / 100 passes
756.0 units
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 48
requires 100 passes
Final-third entries / 100 passes
18.750
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 48
requires 100 passes
Carry share of actions
42.7%
37th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 75
Progressive carry rate
3.1%
29th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 32
Progressive action rate
10.7%
42nd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 75
Under-pressure action rate
38.7%
53rd percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 75
Shots / observed match
0.50 / match
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
xG / shot
9.9%
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Performance
Observed execution or model-derived output relative to opportunities.
Actual vs. expected passing
-3.3 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 48
requires 100 passes
Under-pressure completion above expected
+4.5 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 15
requires 20 pressure passes
Progressive completion above expected
-15.0 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 3 eligible peers · sample 9
requires 20 progressive passes
Long-pass completion above expected
-32.9 pp
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 1 eligible peers · sample 4
requires 20 long passes
Goals above expected
-0.099
Unavailable among FWD players
n = 2 eligible peers · sample 1
requires 20 shots
Overall impact / 100 actions
-0.313
0th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 75
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.634
6th percentile among FWD players
n = 19 eligible peers · sample 43
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Carrying impact / 100 carries
0.118
26th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 32
Moderate split-half stability; descriptive rather than latent ability.
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.050
21st percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 75
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.014
26th percentile among FWD players
n = 20 eligible peers · sample 75
Weak split-half stability in the current 34-match product cohort.
Playing style
Archetype unavailable
Limited sample for archetype analysis: requires 50 passes.
Archetypes describe outfield playing tendencies, not quality, ability, or rank.
Role Fit — Bayer Leverkusen
Role Fit unavailable
Role Fit requires at least 50 passes and 29 carries in the product sample.
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
xG0.10
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
-0.313
Passing impact / 100 passes
-0.634
Carrying impact / 100 carries
+0.118
Progressive-action impact / 100 actions
-0.050
Under-pressure impact / 100 actions
-0.014
75 actions · 43 passes · 32 carries · 38.7% 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
- 73.3%
- Pass difficulty
- 68.8%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- +4.5 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Progressive passing
9 attempts
- Actual
- 44.4%
- Pass difficulty
- 59.5%
- Actual vs. expected passing
- -15.0 pp
Limited sample — interpret this split cautiously.
Long passing
4 attempts
- Actual
- 50.0%
- Pass difficulty
- 82.9%
Progression profile
Progressive-pass rate
18.8%
Pressure-pass rate
31.3%
Average forward distance
5.7 m
Positive forward distance / 100
756.0 m
Final-third entries / 100
18.8
Campos visualization
Pass map
Attacking left to right. Switch between xPass execution difficulty and possession attacking impact.
Showing 1–48 of 48 passes
CompletedIncompleteStronger line = greater pass difficultyThicker line = progressive or under pressure
- Pass difficulty
- 83.3%
- Outcome
- Incomplete
- Attacking impact
- -0.0029
- Value before
- 0.0029
- Value after
- 0.0000
- Length
- 7.4 m
- Context
- Under pressure
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.
Playing-style similarity unavailable
V3.3B similarity requires an outfield player with at least 50 passes and 29 carries.
Sample support uses the lower observed-match count in each pair. Lower coverage means a measured profile may vary more with additional matches; it never changes the style similarity or ranking.