Leyton Orient Match Report

Leyton Orient vs Stockport County

2025-08-16 Orient perspective 1642 match-play events 170 reportable incidents Expected-goals feed merged. xG coverage: 19/19 shots; xGOT coverage: 19/19 shots. Signed passing threat proxy ยท v2

Match Control Board

Passes574Opp 243
Pass Completion77%Opp 54%
Progressive Passes85Opp 42
Final Third Entries41Opp 17
Box Entries2Opp 3
Shots13Opp 6
xG1.63Opp 0.80
xGOT0.82Opp 1.70
High Regains18Opp 5

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; 58 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.
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 4/18 times (22%).
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 31-45, 46-60, 61-75.

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 2/10 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 13%; central entries did so at 50%.

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 4/18 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 2/20 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 1020%positive rate20Wide final-third entrysample 3113%positive rate40Central final-third entrysample 850%positive rate40High regainsample 1822%positive rate40Opp final-third entrysample 2010%danger rate142

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 height0-15High press phasedeep actors 6 | wide deep 5 | direct 22%16-30High press phasedeep actors 6 | wide deep 5 | direct 24%31-45Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 8 | wide deep 7 | direct 24%46-60Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 7 | wide deep 7 | direct 22%61-75Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 6 | wide deep 5 | direct 14%76-90+Balanced phasedeep actors 5 | wide deep 5 | direct 22%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
0-1548.934.349.16522%5High press phase
16-3053.234.553.76524%3High press phase
31-4535.553.922.78724%0Back-five/low-block review
46-6043.241.830.97722%3Back-five/low-block review
61-7554.531.237.96514%5Back-five/low-block review
76-90+49.131.741.25522%2Balanced phase

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-13.64Opp: -10.5 | 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+4Opp: +6 | Orient median: -3 (61) | Above Orient baseline.

Orient broke more vertical lanes than the opponent. That points to a functioning first-progression mechanism.

Press Payoff4/18Opp: 20% | 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 Height48Opp: 37.8 | 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-13.6-10.5-0.561Below 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+4+6-361Above Orient baseline.Central vertical passes that broke useful pitch lines versus those allowed.
Press Payoff22%20%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 Height47.937.842.861Above Orient baseline.Average Orient event location on the x-axis. It is a territory indicator, not automatically a quality indicator.
Territory To Box5%18%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 confidenceDirect exits may not have stuck

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

Signal
58 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 confidenceScoreline includes low-probability finishing noise

A low-xG goal can make the performance look worse than the repeatable chance process.

Signal
Opposition scored 1 goal from <=0.08 xG at 35:07.
Video question
Treat the finish as a separate incident, then check whether the shot was still allowed too easily.
Caveat
Low xG does not mean no defensive error; it means the shot itself is rarely scored from that location/type.
Medium confidenceFinal-third access looks too wide-channel dependent

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

Signal
86% of entries came from wide or half-space lanes; central share 14%.
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.
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
4 of 18 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
0-150.230.0020
16-300.270.2131
31-450.200.5815
46-600.250.0040
61-750.050.0010
76-90+0.640.0020

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
T. Adaramola200.0041'-44'
T. James200.0048'-71'
O. O'Neill100.003'-3'
O. Beckles100.0027'-27'
D. Mitchell100.0082'-82'
J. Koroma100.0091'-91'

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%46%
Side/back completed pass share63%50%
Progressive pass rate19%32%
Line-break rate2.3%4.6%
Failed long/direct passes58/11864/99
Central completed pass share25%31%

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+43

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-1

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

High Press+13

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 443 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

HappeBecklesAdaramolaJamesMizouniJaiyesimiO'NeillClareSimkinKoromaConnollyBakinsonCraigMitchell 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

+9-0+17-1+28+33+43-14+8-146-154-105-227+176-37-60-157-34+63-150-354-159+12-154 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 574/577; opposition 244/251.

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 touchline1171412-500Left half-space103229-429Central74246-41Right half-space61126-537Right touchline881310-906 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

Connolly 0:47Connolly 7:47Connolly 18:17Connolly 19:07Mizouni 23:37GLowe 28:09GOlowu 35:07Connolly 39:55Jaiyesimi 41:06Olowu 42:31Diamond 45:14Wootton 45:57Clare 52:59Connolly 54:02GConnolly 56:45James 59:50Koroma 68:15Happe 89:46GO'Neill 92:15 Orient shot opposition goal

Pressing Heat Map

defensive action density event

Territory Share

43%33%52%41%39%57%57%61%63%62%81%72%60%64%72%80%62%71%68%68% Orient event share opposition contested

Phase Momentum

0-1519516-30281331-45113846-6023261-7512376-90+140 Orient Opposition

Press Payoff And Rest Defence

High-Regain Outcomes

RRRSRRRRRERRRRSSRR shot 3entry 1retained 14

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
92:10Progression / Left half-space5100.500.23Shot
18:08Progression / Right touchline5100.21-0.18Shot
0:46Final third / Right half-space2000.200.08Shot
40:55Progression / Left touchline6100.200.37Shot
89:46Final third / Central1000.140.00Shot
56:42Final third / Right half-space3000.10-0.19Shot
52:59Final third / Central1000.060.00Shot
59:50Final third / Central1000.050.00Shot

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. Simkin621253000
A. Connolly58-101526
A. Abdulai3-180000
T. Bakinson33-251002
O. Beckles99-282002
M. Craig25-370010
J. Moorhouse18-500001
D. Happe117-920114
D. Mitchell23-880000
S. Clare64-1150132

Role-Adjusted Threat Context

Net passing threat /90 vs Attempted passing threat /90

0 High return High attempt / high return High attempt / low return JamesBakinsonHappeMitchellAdaramolaSimkinBecklesO'NeillCraigClareJaiyesimiKoromaMizouniConnollyMoorhouseAbdulai 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.

Support playerT. JamesHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 79 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
79
Net passing threat
-258.8
Attempted passing threat
722.7
Attempted /90
825.2
Adventurous
27
Turnovers /90
19.4
Wide connectorT. AdaramolaHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 78 mins; starter withdrawn from player-off event.

Healthy risk profile: adventurous involvement without a damaging turnover burden.

Minutes
78
Net passing threat
-154.5
Attempted passing threat
420.3
Attempted /90
482.9
Adventurous
37
Turnovers /90
13.8
Wide isolation attackerD. MitchellHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 19 mins; very small sample. Treat this as a usage clue, not a verdict.

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
19
Net passing threat
-87.9
Attempted passing threat
183.0
Attempted /90
875.9
Adventurous
7
Turnovers /90
19.1
Wide isolation attackerM. CraigHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 18 mins; very small sample. Treat this as a usage clue, not a verdict.

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
18
Net passing threat
-36.5
Attempted passing threat
105.7
Attempted /90
519.4
Adventurous
7
Turnovers /90
9.8

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. JamesSupport player79-258.8722.7825.2-295.61120.8-151.5-36%2717High attempt / low return
T. BakinsonSupport player18-24.5205.11000.5-119.71120.3+24.4-12%157High attempt / high return
D. HappeBuild-up defender97-91.6606.2561.6-84.9646.5-100.3-15%4120High attempt / high return
D. MitchellWide isolation attacker19-87.9183.0875.9-420.91296.8-173.4-48%74High attempt / low return
T. AdaramolaWide connector78-154.5420.3482.9-177.5660.5-84.3-37%3712High attempt / low return
T. SimkinBuild-up defender97124.9455.1421.6115.7305.9+100.327%2210High attempt / high return
O. BecklesSupport player97-27.6448.5415.6-25.5441.1+118.5-6%4012High attempt / high return
O. O'NeillWide isolation attacker97-488.2397.8368.6-452.3820.9-204.8-123%3216Low attempt / low return
M. CraigWide isolation attacker18-36.5105.7519.4-179.5698.9+68.0-35%72High attempt / low return
S. ClareWide isolation attacker79-114.7261.9299.5-131.2430.8+116.3-44%239Low attempt / efficient return
D. JaiyesimiWide isolation attacker78-274.1251.4289.4-315.5604.9-68.0-109%2116Low attempt / low return
J. KoromaForward / box threat97-742.8240.2222.6-688.3910.9-515.3-309%2018Low 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
D. Happe117627241
O. Beckles995414450
T. Adaramola894295120
T. James87505641
I. El Mizouni85538571
D. Jaiyesimi731630131
O. O'Neill64224241
S. Clare64325871
T. Simkin622317020
J. Koroma60150041

Incident Timeline

  1. 0:47Attempt SavedA. Connolly
  2. 0:47SaveC. Connolly
  3. 0:48Corner AwardedA. Connolly
  4. 0:48Corner AwardedC. Connolly
  5. 2:05FoulC. Camps
  6. 2:05FoulI. El Mizouni
  7. 3:50Take OnO. O'Neill
  8. 4:37FoulK. Wootton
  9. 4:37FoulO. Beckles
  10. 5:59DispossessedJ. Koroma
  11. 6:32DispossessedD. Jaiyesimi
  12. 7:47Attempt SavedA. Connolly
  13. 7:47SaveC. Connolly
  14. 7:49Corner AwardedA. Connolly
  15. 7:49Corner AwardedC. Connolly
  16. 8:24FoulC. Connolly
  17. 8:24FoulO. Beckles
  18. 11:50Take OnO. Norwood
  19. +152 more incidentsavailable in source feed