Leyton Orient vs Plymouth Argyle

2026-10-03 Orient perspective 1887 match-play events 220 reportable incidents Expected-goals feed merged. xG coverage: 31/31 shots; xGOT coverage: 31/31 shots. Signed passing threat proxy · v2 17 video clips

Match Control Board

Passes485Opp 363

Pass Completion69%Opp 58%

Progressive Passes74Opp 84

Final Third Entries28Opp 45

Box Entries5Opp 10

Shots11Opp 20

xG0.99Opp 1.76

xGOT0.26Opp 2.08

High Regains8Opp 32

Performance Verdict

Reality checkPoor process: too much of the match happened on the opponent's terms

The report should be read as a structural warning, not a near-miss. Orient had some moments, but the repeatable parts of the game were not strong enough.

bad signalMidfield did not join the game up

The event profile points to a gap between defence and attack. Possession had to travel too far before it became pressure, and central progression was not reliable enough.

Evidence: Final-third entries 28 vs 45; line breaks 7 vs 17; average event height 40.9 vs 47.6.
Video Check: Freeze possessions after centre-back passes into midfield: was anyone receiving on the half-turn, or were midfielders hiding behind cover shadows?

poor signalBuild-up became hesitant, then hopeful

The ball was either recycled without enough progression or sent long without enough success. That is how defenders start playing anxious football.

Evidence: 55% of completed deep passes were low-progression; 71 of 118 long/direct attempts failed.
Video Check: Clip every deep possession of four or more passes and every failed long exit. Separate bad pass choice from no midfield option.

bad signalDefending was clumsy, not just busy

The volume and shot quality against point to repeated emergency defending. That is different from a controlled low block absorbing harmless territory.

Evidence: Conceded 20 shots, 1.76 xG and 2.08 xGOT.
Video Check: Clip every opposition shot and tag the source: failed clearance, second ball, foul/set piece, runner lost or midfield screen missing.

Bottom-Line Pattern Board

warning signalRepeated phases need a defensive-shape review

The event profile flagged low-block/back-five review phases at 0-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-60, 61-75, 76-90+.

Bottom line: This does not prove Orient changed formation; it says enough actions came from deep/wide defensive zones to justify freezing the video and counting the last line.
Clip check: Freeze the first defensive possession in each phase and count the last line plus wide midfield recovery positions.

warning signalLine breaks are not being supported well enough

When Orient broke a central line, the next sequence reached the box or produced a shot on 2/7 occasions.

Bottom line: The first pass through pressure is happening, but the next action is not reliably turning it into box access.
Clip check: Check the third-man support around the receiver: was the runner close enough and was the next pass available?

warning signalWide territory is not enough by itself

Wide entries became box/shot sequences at 8%; central entries did so at 83%.

Bottom line: This is the classic false comfort: Orient get up the side of the pitch, but without central occupation or cutback access the attack stalls.
Clip check: Review whether the far-side winger, 10 and nearest 8 arrive in time when the ball reaches the wide player.

warning signalInitial entries were contained, but defending still leaked shots

Only 7/54 pass entries became immediate danger, but the opposition still produced 20 shots and 1.76 xG.

Bottom line: The damage likely came after the first contact: second balls, set plays, fouls, failed clearances or loose marking after the initial entry.
Clip check: Review the first Orient action after the entry: clear contact, forced backwards pass, or only passive pressure.

positive signalThe press is creating usable attacks

High regains became a shot, box entry or final-third entry on 3/8 occasions.

Bottom line: The first action after the regain is the coaching point; effort is only valuable if the next pass punishes the opponent.
Clip check: Clip the first two actions after each high regain: support distance, body shape and runner timing decide whether the press pays off.

Trigger Outcome Evidence

This moves the report from "events happened here" to "when this trigger occurred, this was the next useful or dangerous outcome". It is the evidence board for repeatable coaching points.

Style Shift By Phase

This flags whether Orient's event profile became deeper, more direct, or more defensively crowded by phase. It is a formation clue, not proof; the clip check confirms the actual shape.

Phase Style Audit

Phase	Orient Height	Opp Height	Def. Height	Deep Actors	Wide Deep	Direct Passes	High Regains	Read
0-15	49.0	41.6	37.6	5	4	18%	2	Back-five/low-block review
16-30	38.0	51.6	26.6	11	8	26%	1	Back-five/low-block review
31-45	37.3	51.7	34.4	9	8	28%	0	Back-five/low-block review
46-60	35.7	50.4	26.2	7	4	23%	2	Back-five/low-block review
61-75	43.2	49.9	22.2	9	7	29%	0	Back-five/low-block review
76-90+	41.3	41.6	31.9	9	9	26%	3	Back-five/low-block review

Use this table for claims such as "Orient dropped deeper", "the press faded", or "the team stopped trusting build-up". A back-five read requires video confirmation, but the event signature can tell us where to look.

Control Diagnostics

Threat Balance+1.09Opp: -17.0 | Orient median: -2.0 (61) | Above Orient baseline.

Orient had the higher net positional passing value after deductions. Review whether that came from useful progression or lower lost value; this alone does not establish better chance creation.

Line Breaks-10Opp: +17 | Orient median: -3 (61) | Below desired baseline.

Orient did not win the line-break battle. Review bravery and timing around the first central receiver.

Press Payoff3/8Opp: 31% | Orient median: 15% (61) | Above Orient baseline.

The high press had attacking value, not just effort. Regains were becoming entries, box access or shots often enough to matter.

Rest Defence0Orient median: 0 (61) | In normal Orient range.

There were transition leaks, but they were mostly contained before becoming major danger.

Final-Third Tilt42%Opp: 58% | Orient median: 48% (61) | Below desired baseline.

Share of all final-third event volume owned by Orient. This is a better control proxy than raw possession.

Average Event Height41Opp: 47.6 | Orient median: 42.9 (61) | In normal Orient range.

Average Orient event location on the x-axis. Higher means the game was played closer to the opposition goal.

Benchmark Lens

Versus What?

Metric	Orient	Opponent / Against	Orient Median	Sample	Read	What It Means
Threat Balance	1.1	-17.0	-2.0	61	Above Orient baseline.	Orient minus opposition net positional passing value, including failed-pass costs and negative completed moves. Not a calibrated goal model or standalone result predictor.
Line Breaks	-10	+17	-3	61	Below desired baseline.	Central vertical passes that broke useful pitch lines versus those allowed.
Press Payoff	38%	31%	15%	61	Above Orient baseline.	Share of high regains that became a shot, box entry or final-third entry.
Rest Defence	0	-	0	61	In normal Orient range.	Advanced Orient losses that became opposition box or shot danger.
Final-Third Tilt	42%	58%	48%	61	Below desired baseline.	Share of final-third event volume owned by Orient.
Average Event Height	40.9	47.6	42.9	61	In normal Orient range.	Average Orient event location on the x-axis. It is a territory indicator, not automatically a quality indicator.
Territory To Box	18%	22%	22%	61	In normal Orient range.	Share of final-third entries that became box entries.

Historical context loaded from 61 usable Orient event samples. Reads compare this match against Orient's own median, not a generic league assumption.

Average event height and final-third tilt are territory indicators. They become meaningful only when checked against Orient's own baseline, the opponent's match profile, and whether territory became box access, shots, or transition exposure.

Statistical Inference: Why?

Medium confidenceBuild-up may have become sterile around the back

That combination suggests Orient kept the ball in deeper areas without consistently finding the first pass through pressure.

Signal: 55% of completed deep passes were low-progression, with line breaks -10.
Video question: Clip deep possessions that last 4+ passes and ask who should have received on the half-turn.
Caveat: Safe recycling is not automatically bad; it becomes a problem when it is not followed by vertical access.

Medium confidenceOrient may have played too deep to control territory

If the team's actions are happening too far from goal, possession has to travel further before it can become pressure.

Signal: Average event height 40.9 vs opponent 47.6; final-third tilt 42%.
Video question: Check whether the back line and midfield could squeeze up after clearances, regains and backwards passes.
Caveat: A lower event height can be acceptable away to a stronger side or when protecting a lead.

Medium confidenceDirect exits may not have stuck

If long exits fail repeatedly, the front line cannot breathe and the defence faces repeat waves.

Signal: 71 of 118 long/direct pass attempts failed.
Video question: Check whether long passes were planned outlets, pressure clearances, or poor pass selection.
Caveat: Some failed long balls are acceptable if they turn the opponent and allow the block to reset.

Medium confidenceFinal-third access looks too wide-channel dependent

Orient may be reaching territory without enough central occupation to create high-value chances.

Signal: 87% of entries came from wide or half-space lanes; central share 13%.
Video question: Check whether the 8/10/striker were available between lines or whether attacks were being forced outside.
Caveat: Wide access can be a deliberate plan if cutbacks and far-post runs are present.

Phase xG Audit

Phase	Orient xG	Opp xG	Orient Shots	Opp Shots
0-15	0.56	0.05	4	1
16-30	0.20	0.27	2	6
31-45	0.00	0.05	0	1
46-60	0.01	1.20	1	8
61-75	0.18	0.18	3	3
76-90+	0.04	0.02	1	1

This checks whether the match changed by phase: early control, late collapse, or isolated big chances.

Player Leak Responsibility

Player	Leaks	Minute Span
C. Wellens	1	11'-11'
I. El Mizouni	1	24'-24'
J. Kabia	1	26'-26'
A. Gilbert	1	78'-78'
A. Connolly	1	84'-84'

This identifies the source event for dangerous transition leaks. It is a clipping queue, not a blame table.

Build-Up And Circulation Audit

Signal	Orient	Opponent
Deep low-progression pass share	55%	30%
Side/back completed pass share	60%	47%
Progressive pass rate	22%	40%
Line-break rate	2.1%	8.1%
Failed long/direct passes	71/118	67/120
Central completed pass share	28%	24%

This is the check for claims like "too deep", "too safe around the back", or "direct exits did not stick".

Video Review Board

Report Clip

51:05 Goal: A. Pepple

Goal by A. Pepple. xG 0.47.

Open MP4

17 clips generated

The report is no longer just describing the match. Every key claim now has a video queue behind it: goals, big chances, transition leaks, high-regain payoff and line-breaking possession.

Central/progressive line-break pass by N. Baxter. Net passing threat +9.1.

Open MP4

The Plain-English Read

Progression-10

Orient did not separate from the opposition in progression. That normally means the first central receiver, support angle or centre-back pass speed needs review.

Box Access-5

There is a territory-to-box warning. Getting up the pitch is not enough if the next action cannot access the box.

High Press-24

The press did not show strongly enough in high regains. Check the squeeze behind the forwards, not just the forwards' work rate.

With The Ball

Pass Map

Red shows progressive passes, teal shows final-third entries, and gold shows box entries. This is the quickest view of whether possession became threat or just circulation.

Passing Network

Node size reflects involvement. Red nodes are players with repeated progressive contribution. Links are inferred from completed passes and the next same-team event in the feed.

Threat, Routes, Line Breaks

Threat Added Heat Map

Positional passing proxy v2, in points (value ×100), not expected goals. Completed passes earn destination minus start value, including negatives. Failed, blocked and offside passes with a known failure outcome lose their starting value; we do not add an assumed opponent counterattack cost. Cells show Orient minus opposition net value: completions at destination, failures at origin. Missing/invalid coordinates and unknown outcomes are excluded. Carries and take-ons are outside this pass-only model. Both sides assume increasing x is forward. Scored passes: Orient 485/495; opposition 366/371.

Line-Break Map

Only vertical passes through useful central lanes are shown. This isolates whether Orient actually broke the game open or simply moved around the outside.

Route Fingerprint

Lane-by-lane split of pass volume, progressive actions, entries and threat added. This makes the attacking identity visible rather than relying on eye-test memory.

Territory, Chances, Pressure

Shot Map

Pressing Heat Map

Territory Share

Phase Momentum

Press Payoff And Rest Defence

High-Regain Outcomes

Each high regain is tagged by the next attacking outcome: shot, box access, final-third entry, retention or loss. Work rate only matters if the next action has value.

Transition Leak Map

Advanced Orient losses are connected to the opposition danger that followed. This is the rest-defence audit: where attacks died and what came back.

Possession Chains

Best Attacking Chains

Start	Origin	Events	Prog	Box	xG	Net threat	Outcome
6:52	Progression / Left touchline	3	1	1	0.24	0.75	Shot
14:42	Final third / Central	1	0	0	0.21	0.00	Shot
26:36	Build-up / Central	9	3	1	0.12	0.69	Shot
3:14	Final third / Central	1	0	0	0.10	0.00	Shot
67:32	Final third / Central	1	0	0	0.09	0.00	Shot
23:56	Final third / Left half-space	3	0	1	0.08	0.06	Shot
74:50	Final third / Left half-space	1	0	0	0.06	0.00	Shot
76:04	Final third / Central	1	0	0	0.04	0.00	Shot

Chains are inferred from consecutive same-team events. This is not a possession model replacement, but it is strong enough to find the attacks worth clipping first.

Player Impact Layer

Player	Events	Net threat	Line Breaks	Box Actions	High Regains	Shot Chain Actions
N. Baxter	58	92	2	0	0	2
W. Forrester	116	88	1	0	0	1
I. Hayden	36	-17	0	0	0	0
T. Archibald	24	-26	0	0	0	0
D. Scarlett	16	-30	0	0	1	0
A. Dobra	25	-37	0	0	1	0
A. Gilbert	127	-83	3	3	4	2
C. Wellens	40	-71	0	1	0	3
J. Olowu	93	-74	0	2	0	2
A. Connolly	31	-72	0	0	0	1

Role-Adjusted Threat Context

Net passing threat /90 vs Attempted passing threat /90

This compares net passing value with positive intended passing gain, in points per 90. Both axes exclude carries and take-ons. Failed passes deduct starting value and backwards value changes remain negative; the solid horizontal line marks zero. The ratio labelled net/attempted can be negative and is not a completion probability. Wide isolation players can sit in the high-attempt/low-return quadrant without automatically being poor: the question is whether their risk is structurally necessary, well-supported and creating downstream instability. Short samples are lighter and should be used mainly as clipping prompts.

Support playerP. ChineduHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 83 mins; starter withdrawn from player-off event.

High chaos profile: the ambition is real, but the loss rate is high enough to require video review.

Minutes: 83
Net passing threat: -306.1
Attempted passing threat: 591.3
Attempted /90: 638.1
Adventurous: 40
Turnovers /90: 28.1

Support playerF. StevensHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 96 mins; starter/full-match estimate from event timeline.

High chaos profile: the ambition is real, but the loss rate is high enough to require video review.

Minutes: 96
Net passing threat: -304.7
Attempted passing threat: 388.5
Attempted /90: 363.0
Adventurous: 24
Turnovers /90: 14.9

Build-up defenderT. ArchibaldHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 13 mins; very small sample. Treat this as a usage clue, not a verdict.

Read alongside role and video. The score follows fixed positional assumptions; interpretation depends on where, why and under what support conditions the passes were attempted.

Minutes: 13
Net passing threat: -25.6
Attempted passing threat: 46.9
Attempted /90: 326.4
Adventurous: 2
Turnovers /90: 27.8

Wide isolation attackerC. WellensHigh attempt / high return

Inferred 59 mins; partial-match sample. Totals need minutes context.

High-value wide profile: carries the difficult isolation burden and still converts enough of it into threat.

Minutes: 59
Net passing threat: -71.4
Attempted passing threat: 333.2
Attempted /90: 508.7
Adventurous: 18
Turnovers /90: 15.3

Role Context Table

Player	Inferred Role	Mins	Net passing threat	Attempted passing threat	Attempted /90	Realised /90	Ambition Gap /90	Role Adj. /90	Net / attempted	Adventurous	Turnovers	Quadrant
A. Gilbert	Support player	96	-83.0	1279.5	1195.4	-77.5	1272.9	+65.7	-6%	53	29	High attempt / high return
P. Chinedu	Support player	83	-306.1	591.3	638.1	-330.3	968.4	-187.0	-52%	40	26	High attempt / low return
C. Wellens	Wide isolation attacker	59	-71.4	333.2	508.7	-109.1	617.8	+33.7	-21%	18	10	High attempt / high return
I. Hayden	Build-up defender	37	-17.0	206.4	497.0	-41.0	538.0	+0.0	-8%	8	5	High attempt / high return
F. Stevens	Support player	96	-304.7	388.5	363.0	-284.7	647.6	-141.4	-78%	24	16	High attempt / low return
N. Baxter	Build-up defender	96	91.8	378.0	353.1	85.8	267.4	+126.8	24%	18	13	High attempt / high return
W. Forrester	Build-up defender	96	87.5	371.1	346.7	81.8	265.0	+122.8	24%	28	12	High attempt / high return
A. Connolly	Support player	37	-71.8	125.2	300.7	-172.5	473.2	-29.2	-57%	11	6	Low attempt / low return
J. Olowu	Build-up defender	96	-73.6	257.7	240.8	-68.8	309.5	-27.8	-29%	22	9	Low attempt / efficient return
I. El Mizouni	Support player	96	-122.1	244.7	228.6	-114.1	342.7	+29.2	-50%	22	9	Low attempt / efficient return
Y. Akhamrich	Wide isolation attacker	70	-192.4	169.6	219.5	-249.0	468.5	-106.2	-113%	19	15	Low attempt / low return
T. Springett	Wide isolation attacker	59	-324.1	137.6	210.4	-495.5	705.9	-352.8	-236%	12	12	Low attempt / low return

Quadrants and role adjustment are minutes-normalised. Raw totals still matter, but short substitute samples should be treated as clipping prompts rather than firm judgements.

Player Involvement

Player	Events	Completed Passes	Progressive Passes	Entries	Defensive Actions	Shots
A. Gilbert	127	47	14	10	15	0
W. Forrester	116	50	13	3	11	0
P. Chinedu	103	38	7	4	5	1
J. Olowu	93	37	6	0	6	2
I. El Mizouni	92	38	7	3	15	0
F. Stevens	92	37	7	4	7	4
T. Springett	61	8	1	0	4	0
N. Baxter	58	22	8	1	2	0
Y. Akhamrich	51	10	2	1	3	1
J. Kabia	45	9	2	0	7	2

Incident Timeline

2:01Offside PassA. Mitchell
3:14MissF. Stevens
5:06Take OnW. Evans
6:13DispossessedB. Ibrahim
6:17FoulJ. Kabia
6:17FoulM. Ross
6:53MissF. Stevens
7:35Attempt SavedO. Irow
7:35SaveN. Baxter
9:35Take OnY. Akhamrich
9:37Corner AwardedY. Akhamrich
9:37Corner AwardedW. Harding
10:02MissY. Akhamrich
11:02Take OnJ. Kabia
11:14Take OnJ. Kabia
11:49FoulP. Chinedu
11:49FoulR. Curtis
12:20CardPlymouth Argyle
+202 more incidentsavailable in source feed