Leyton Orient Match Report

Leyton Orient vs Wigan Athletic

2025-08-09 Orient perspective 1683 match-play events 163 reportable incidents Expected-goals feed merged. xG coverage: 18/18 shots; xGOT coverage: 18/18 shots. Signed passing threat proxy ยท v2

Match Control Board

Passes397Opp 360
Pass Completion61%Opp 59%
Progressive Passes55Opp 47
Final Third Entries36Opp 18
Box Entries5Opp 0
Shots14Opp 4
xG0.78Opp 0.18
xGOT1.44Opp 0.00
High Regains25Opp 9

Performance Verdict

Reality checkStable process with isolated review points

The data does not support a dramatic verdict. The coaching focus should be on the specific weak patterns rather than the whole performance.

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; 64 of 104 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.
poor signalThe press was effort without punishment

Orient did win balls high, but the next action was not clean enough. Pressing only changes matches when the regain becomes a chance or territorial lock.

Evidence
High regains became useful attacks 6/25 times (24%).
Video Check
Review the first two touches after every high regain. The coaching question is support angle and first-pass quality, not effort.

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, 46-60, 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 2/6 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 21%; central entries did so at 33%.

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 signalThe press needs a cleaner first pass

High regains became a shot, box entry or final-third entry on 6/25 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.
positive signalDefensive entries were mostly contained

Opposition final-third entries became box/shot danger on 1/18 occasions.

Bottom line
This separates defending territory from defending danger: the key is whether the first contact ends the attack or merely delays it.
Clip check
Review the first Orient action after the entry: clear contact, forced backwards pass, or only passive pressure.

Trigger Outcome Evidence

WHEN THIS HAPPENED, WHAT CAME NEXT?Orient useful / first contactOpp switchOpp dangerCentral line breaksample 633%positive rate20Wide final-third entrysample 3421%positive rate70Central final-third entrysample 633%positive rate20High regainsample 2524%positive rate60Opp final-third entrysample 186%danger rate91

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

WHERE DID ORIENT ACT BY PHASE?Orient event heightOrient defensive action height0-15Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 5 | wide deep 4 | direct 36%16-30Direct exit phasedeep actors 6 | wide deep 3 | direct 32%31-45High press phasedeep actors 6 | wide deep 6 | direct 24%46-60Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 9 | wide deep 7 | direct 19%61-75High press phasedeep actors 6 | wide deep 7 | direct 28%76-90+Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 9 | wide deep 9 | direct 18%OWN GOALOPP GOAL

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

PhaseOrient HeightOpp HeightDef. HeightDeep ActorsWide DeepDirect PassesHigh RegainsRead
0-1547.233.829.15436%2Back-five/low-block review
16-3047.037.150.46332%4Direct exit phase
31-4553.533.551.16624%6High press phase
46-6045.737.133.59719%5Back-five/low-block review
61-7553.237.357.06728%4High press phase
76-90+50.242.126.19918%4Back-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-5.26Opp: -18.9 | Orient median: -0.5 (61) | Below desired baseline.

The opposition had the higher net positional passing value after deductions. Inspect the contributions from completed moves and unsuccessful passes before attributing the difference to tactical control.

Line Breaks-1Opp: +7 | Orient median: -3 (61) | Above Orient baseline.

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

Press Payoff6/25Opp: 11% | Orient median: 15% (61) | Above Orient baseline.

The press found contact but not enough payoff. Clip the next two actions after every regain.

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

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

Final-Third Tilt65%Opp: 35% | Orient median: 48% (61) | Above Orient baseline.

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

Average Event Height50Opp: 37.0 | Orient median: 42.8 (61) | Above Orient baseline.

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

Benchmark Lens

Versus What?

MetricOrientOpponent / AgainstOrient MedianSampleReadWhat It Means
Threat Balance-5.3-18.9-0.561Below desired 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-1+7-361Above Orient baseline.Central vertical passes that broke useful pitch lines versus those allowed.
Press Payoff24%11%15%61Above Orient baseline.Share of high regains that became a shot, box entry or final-third entry.
Rest Defence0-061In normal Orient range.Advanced Orient losses that became opposition box or shot danger.
Final-Third Tilt65%35%48%61Above Orient baseline.Share of final-third event volume owned by Orient.
Average Event Height49.537.042.861Above Orient baseline.Average Orient event location on the x-axis. It is a territory indicator, not automatically a quality indicator.
Territory To Box14%0%22%61Below desired baseline.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 -1.
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 confidenceDirect exits may not have stuck

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

Signal
64 of 104 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 confidencePress contact did not become attacking payoff

The press may have won moments without the next action being clean enough to punish the opponent.

Signal
6 of 25 high regains became a shot, box entry or final-third entry.
Video question
Review first and second actions after each regain: support distance, runner timing and pass selection.
Caveat
A press can still be valuable if it forces rushed clearances and territory, even without immediate shots.

Phase xG Audit

PhaseOrient xGOpp xGOrient ShotsOpp Shots
0-150.060.0010
16-300.100.0121
31-450.090.0020
46-600.080.0912
61-750.280.0040
76-90+0.180.0841

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

Player Leak Responsibility

PlayerLeaksDanger LeaksxG Against After LossMinute Span
O. O'Neill300.0049'-91'
S. Clare100.0029'-29'
T. James100.0047'-47'
A. Connolly100.0052'-52'
D. Jaiyesimi100.0056'-56'
T. Adaramola100.0075'-75'

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

Build-Up And Circulation Audit

SignalOrientOpponent
Deep low-progression pass share55%63%
Side/back completed pass share59%62%
Progressive pass rate23%22%
Line-break rate2.5%3.3%
Failed long/direct passes64/10482/123
Central completed pass share20%27%

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

The Plain-English Read

Progression+8

Orient found more forward value than the opposition. The video question is whether that came through midfield control or lower-value wide forcing.

Box Access+5

The final-third work became penalty-area access often enough to call the attacking process alive.

High Press+16

The high-regain signal supports the Wellens pressing identity. The next layer is whether those regains became shots before the block reset.

With The Ball

Pass Map

progressive final third box 244 completed passes shown

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

O'NeillAdaramolaJamesMizouniBecklesHappeSimkinKoromaJaiyesimiClareConnollyBakinsonAbdulaiCraig progressive hub pass link

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

+2+12+31+3+24-46+11+26+29-6-35+43-111-68-12-176-59-112-128-90+110-107+84+49 Orient advantage opposition advantage

Positional passing proxy v2, in points (value ร—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 400/403; opposition 361/364.

Line-Break Map

central line break box value

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

Left touchline871710-721Left half-space3275-489Central30108-94Right half-space43126-306Right touchline52912-804 AllProgEntriesThreat

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

O'Neill 7:03Costelloe 20:19Mizouni 23:38Jaiyesimi 30:35O'Neill 38:33Connolly 43:15Weir 49:44Hungbo 54:45GKoroma 59:33Jaiyesimi 62:23Koroma 63:06Koroma 67:54O'Neill 73:35Connolly 79:31Weir 84:12White 87:19O'Neill 92:28James 92:30 Orient shot opposition goal

Pressing Heat Map

defensive action density event

Territory Share

37%37%30%45%30%52%42%45%53%51%50%49%64%71%44%71%43%85%83%71% Orient event share opposition contested

Phase Momentum

0-157116-3014631-4518146-60141561-7532576-90+3011 Orient Opposition

Press Payoff And Rest Defence

High-Regain Outcomes

RRRRRERRRRSSRRRRSSRRSRRRR shot 5entry 1retained 19

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

Orient loss opposition danger route

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

StartOriginEventsProgBoxxGNet threatOutcome
62:18Build-up / Right touchline5100.140.18Shot
73:24Build-up / Right touchline6200.080.24Shot
30:35Final third / Left half-space1000.080.00Shot
59:29Progression / Right half-space3100.080.30Shot
43:10Final third / Right touchline4000.070.12Shot
87:19Final third / Right half-space1000.070.00Shot
7:03Final third / Central1000.060.00Shot
79:30Final third / Right half-space3000.06-0.21Shot

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
T. Simkin571181000
I. El Mizouni87230134
J. White11190002
T. Bakinson23-100112
D. Happe72-160001
J. Moorhouse10-430001
A. Abdulai12-620000
M. Craig11-640001
A. Connolly37-880214
O. Beckles84-1992003

Role-Adjusted Threat Context

Net passing threat /90 vs Attempted passing threat /90

0 High return High attempt / high return High attempt / low return SimkinJamesBecklesAdaramolaHappeO'NeillKoromaBakinsonMizouniJaiyesimiCraigClareConnollyWhiteAbdulaiMoorhouse Attempted passing threat /90 Net 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.

Wide isolation attackerT. JamesHigh attempt / low return

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

Do not read the low net passing threat as simple underperformance. This is a high-risk wide role: the player is trying to access value through crosses or ambitious passes, so the video question is decision quality and support timing.

Minutes
96
Net passing threat
-381.8
Attempted passing threat
757.2
Attempted /90
709.6
Adventurous
33
Turnovers /90
20.6
Wide isolation attackerT. AdaramolaHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 87 mins; starter withdrawn from player-off event.

Do not read the low net passing threat as simple underperformance. This is a high-risk wide role: the player is trying to access value through crosses or ambitious passes, so the video question is decision quality and support timing.

Minutes
87
Net passing threat
-279.1
Attempted passing threat
538.1
Attempted /90
559.0
Adventurous
40
Turnovers /90
22.9
Forward / box threatO. O'NeillHigh 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
-518.1
Attempted passing threat
368.9
Attempted /90
345.7
Adventurous
26
Turnovers /90
15.9
Forward / box threatJ. KoromaHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 81 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
81
Net passing threat
-438.4
Attempted passing threat
292.1
Attempted /90
324.6
Adventurous
19
Turnovers /90
14.4

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
T. SimkinBuild-up defender96117.8806.3755.7110.4645.3+125.315%2518High attempt / high return
T. JamesWide isolation attacker96-381.8757.2709.6-357.91067.5-76.8-50%3322High attempt / low return
O. BecklesBuild-up defender96-198.9637.4597.4-186.4783.8-171.5-31%3123High attempt / high return
T. AdaramolaWide isolation attacker87-279.1538.1559.0-290.0849.0-8.9-52%4022High attempt / low return
D. HappeBuild-up defender96-15.9390.4365.8-14.9380.8+0.0-4%1713High attempt / high return
O. O'NeillForward / box threat96-518.1368.9345.7-485.5831.3+0.0-140%2617High attempt / low return
J. KoromaForward / box threat81-438.4292.1324.6-487.2811.8-1.7-150%1913High attempt / low return
T. BakinsonWide isolation attacker40-10.0139.8315.5-22.6338.1+258.5-7%114Low attempt / efficient return
I. El MizouniWide isolation attacker9623.2247.0231.521.7209.8+302.89%3010Low attempt / efficient return
D. JaiyesimiWide isolation attacker86-269.4192.5200.9-281.1482.0+0.0-140%1510Low attempt / efficient return
M. CraigWide isolation attacker10-63.766.1608.0-585.81193.8-304.7-96%84High attempt / low return
S. ClareWide isolation attacker56-205.5122.5196.3-329.2525.5-48.2-168%169Low 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
O. O'Neill942723124
T. Adaramola92339580
T. James88286671
I. El Mizouni873567151
O. Beckles84259330
D. Happe72124140
T. Simkin57178340
D. Jaiyesimi52122192
J. Koroma5291273
S. Clare43153260

Incident Timeline

  1. 0:35DispossessedD. Jaiyesimi
  2. 1:45Take OnA. Connolly
  3. 1:48Take OnO. O'Neill
  4. 4:27Player OffJ. Carragher
  5. 4:27Player onJ. Mellish
  6. 6:17FoulS. Clare
  7. 6:17FoulT. Brenan
  8. 6:48Take OnO. O'Neill
  9. 6:53DispossessedS. Clare
  10. 7:03Attempt SavedO. O'Neill
  11. 7:04SaveS. Tickle
  12. 7:57Offside PassS. Tickle
  13. 8:32DispossessedT. Brenan
  14. 8:34Take OnT. Adaramola
  15. 9:20Take OnI. El Mizouni
  16. 12:01DispossessedT. Brenan
  17. 12:21FoulA. Connolly
  18. 12:21FoulS. Sessegnon
  19. +145 more incidentsavailable in source feed