Burton Albion vs Leyton Orient

2025-11-29 Orient perspective 1626 match-play events 153 reportable incidents Expected-goals feed merged. xG coverage: 20/20 shots; xGOT coverage: 20/20 shots. Signed passing threat proxy · v2

Match Control Board

Passes341Opp 402

Pass Completion61%Opp 64%

Progressive Passes67Opp 90

Final Third Entries28Opp 35

Box Entries5Opp 7

Shots14Opp 6

xG0.89Opp 0.53

xGOT2.20Opp 0.00

High Regains13Opp 9

Performance Verdict

Reality checkMixed performance with clear tactical faults

There were usable passages, but enough structural warnings showed up to make the video review specific.

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 35; line breaks 10 vs 13; average event height 42.9 vs 40.2.
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: 44% of completed deep passes were low-progression; 75 of 116 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 1/13 times (8%).
Video Check: Review the first two touches after every high regain. The coaching question is support angle and first-pass quality, not effort.

poor signalSet-piece volume disguised attacking poverty

Corner count can make territory feel better than it was. If that many restarts do not move the xG needle, the attack still lacked clear chances.

Evidence: 8 corners, but only 0.89 total xG.
Video Check: Separate open-play attacks from dead-ball pressure. Do not let corner volume pass as attacking control.

Bottom-Line Pattern Board

warning signalRepeated phases need a defensive-shape review

The event profile flagged low-block/back-five review phases at 16-30, 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 2/10 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 14%; central entries did so at 71%.

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 1/13 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 3/42 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

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	50.9	31.8	55.3	5	5	37%	5	Direct exit phase
16-30	38.1	47.9	28.1	7	4	32%	1	Back-five/low-block review
31-45	42.4	33.2	41.6	8	6	40%	3	Direct exit phase
46-60	39.9	48.4	23.1	10	7	28%	2	Back-five/low-block review
61-75	44.7	38.1	38.5	4	3	36%	1	Direct exit phase
76-90+	39.6	39.7	32.2	9	9	30%	1	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+4.84Opp: -21.7 | 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-3Opp: +13 | Orient median: -3 (61) | In normal Orient range.

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

Press Payoff1/13Opp: 0% | Orient median: 17% (61) | Below desired 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 Tilt50%Opp: 50% | Orient median: 48% (61) | In normal Orient range.

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

Average Event Height43Opp: 40.2 | Orient median: 42.8 (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	4.8	-21.7	-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	-3	+13	-3	61	In normal Orient range.	Central vertical passes that broke useful pitch lines versus those allowed.
Press Payoff	8%	0%	17%	61	Below desired 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	50%	50%	48%	61	In normal Orient range.	Share of final-third event volume owned by Orient.
Average Event Height	42.9	40.2	42.8	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%	20%	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: 44% of completed deep passes were low-progression, with line breaks -3.
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: 75 of 116 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: 94% of entries came from wide or half-space lanes; central share 6%.
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: 1 of 13 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

Phase	Orient xG	Opp xG	Orient Shots	Opp Shots
0-15	0.30	0.00	4	0
16-30	0.08	0.15	1	2
31-45	0.00	0.05	0	2
46-60	0.06	0.00	2	0
61-75	0.15	0.00	3	0
76-90+	0.28	0.32	4	2

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

Player Leak Responsibility

Player	Leaks	Minute Span
D. Ballard	2	18'-62'
A. Connolly	2	73'-84'
J. Koroma	2	77'-91'
J. Simpson	1	19'-19'
S. Clare	1	61'-61'
C. Wellens	1	64'-64'
A. Abdulai	1	69'-69'

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	44%	46%
Side/back completed pass share	55%	51%
Progressive pass rate	32%	35%
Line-break rate	4.8%	5.0%
Failed long/direct passes	75/116	66/129
Central completed pass share	25%	32%

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-23

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-2

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

High Press+4

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

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 345/349; opposition 405/412.

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
4:01	Final third / Central	1	0	0	0.16	0.00	Shot
79:38	Build-up / Right touchline	4	1	1	0.13	0.58	Shot
25:44	Build-up / Right touchline	3	0	0	0.08	0.00	Shot
4:06	Progression / Left half-space	4	2	0	0.08	0.29	Shot
95:50	Final third / Central	2	0	0	0.08	0.00	Shot
64:45	Final third / Right half-space	4	0	0	0.06	-0.01	Shot
74:06	Final third / Central	5	0	0	0.06	0.00	Shot
11:51	Final third / Left half-space	1	0	0	0.05	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
K. Cahill	54	259	6	0	0	2
D. Happe	76	92	1	0	0	4
T. Archibald	13	29	0	0	1	3
Z. Obiero	5	20	0	0	0	0
J. Moorhouse	2	0	0	0	0	0
A. Lloyd	28	-72	0	1	0	5
O. O'Neill	46	-102	0	1	0	2
J. Koroma	16	-110	1	0	0	3
D. Ballard	52	-137	0	2	2	6
M. Craig	67	-126	0	0	1	0

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.

Wide isolation attackerC. WellensHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 83 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: 83
Net passing threat: -354.1
Attempted passing threat: 751.2
Attempted /90: 809.9
Adventurous: 28
Turnovers /90: 18.3

Wide isolation attackerA. AbdulaiHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 89 mins; starter withdrawn from player-off event.

Minutes: 89
Net passing threat: -154.4
Attempted passing threat: 384.2
Attempted /90: 389.5
Adventurous: 23
Turnovers /90: 10.1

Support playerS. ClareHigh 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: -216.0
Attempted passing threat: 349.2
Attempted /90: 327.6
Adventurous: 18
Turnovers /90: 12.2

Support playerJ. KoromaHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 20 mins; very small sample. Treat this as a usage clue, not a verdict.

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

Minutes: 20
Net passing threat: -109.9
Attempted passing threat: 123.7
Attempted /90: 552.0
Adventurous: 4
Turnovers /90: 13.4

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
K. Cahill	Build-up defender	96	258.9	888.2	833.4	242.9	590.5	+361.6	29%	35	23	High attempt / high return
C. Wellens	Wide isolation attacker	83	-354.1	751.2	809.9	-381.7	1191.6	-222.8	-47%	28	17	High attempt / low return
J. Simpson	Build-up defender	96	-136.9	557.9	523.5	-128.5	651.9	-9.8	-25%	34	21	High attempt / high return
D. Happe	Build-up defender	96	91.9	415.7	390.1	86.2	303.9	+204.9	22%	19	9	High attempt / high return
A. Abdulai	Wide isolation attacker	89	-154.4	384.2	389.5	-156.5	546.0	+2.4	-40%	23	10	High attempt / low return
J. Koroma	Support player	20	-109.9	123.7	552.0	-490.4	1042.4	-287.7	-89%	4	3	High attempt / low return
S. Clare	Support player	96	-216.0	349.2	327.6	-202.7	530.3	+0.0	-62%	18	13	High attempt / low return
A. Connolly	Wide isolation attacker	89	-524.8	303.8	308.3	-532.7	841.0	-373.7	-173%	34	19	Low attempt / low return
O. O'Neill	Wide isolation attacker	76	-101.7	245.1	291.3	-120.9	412.1	+38.1	-42%	14	6	Low attempt / efficient return
M. Craig	Build-up defender	96	-126.5	303.2	284.5	-118.7	403.1	+0.0	-42%	21	11	Low attempt / efficient return
O. Beckles	Build-up defender	96	-157.5	209.2	196.3	-147.7	344.0	-29.1	-75%	16	9	Low attempt / efficient return
T. Archibald	Wide isolation attacker	7	29.1	29.1	367.3	367.3	0.0	+526.3	100%	2	0	High attempt / high 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
J. Simpson	96	30	14	5	7	0
D. Happe	76	22	7	3	4	0
A. Connolly	72	17	2	0	8	5
A. Abdulai	71	20	4	5	9	2
M. Craig	67	21	3	3	11	0
S. Clare	61	24	2	2	6	0
C. Wellens	60	15	4	4	5	2
O. Beckles	56	15	7	1	5	0
K. Cahill	54	12	12	3	1	0
D. Ballard	52	10	3	1	3	2

Incident Timeline

1:26Offside PassK. Cahill
2:46DispossessedD. Ballard
3:01DispossessedD. Williams
4:00ErrorD. Williams
4:01Attempt SavedC. Wellens
4:01SaveB. Collins
4:12Attempt SavedD. Ballard
4:12SaveT. Sibbick
4:13Corner AwardedD. Ballard
4:13Corner AwardedT. Sibbick
4:59Attempt SavedA. Connolly
4:59SaveK. Lofthouse
5:18FoulK. Lofthouse
5:18FoulA. Abdulai
8:11FoulJ. Armer
8:11FoulO. O'Neill
9:21Take OnT. Shade
9:24Take OnO. O'Neill
+135 more incidentsavailable in source feed