Leyton Orient Match Report

Stevenage vs Leyton Orient

2026-03-10 Orient perspective 1703 match-play events 182 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

Passes379Opp 345
Pass Completion63%Opp 55%
Progressive Passes55Opp 76
Final Third Entries19Opp 39
Box Entries6Opp 6
Shots7Opp 12
xG1.43Opp 1.46
xGOT2.11Opp 1.08
High Regains5Opp 11

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 signalAttack barely arrived

This was not mainly a finishing story. Orient did not create enough repeatable attacking volume for the forwards to change the match.

Evidence
7 shots, 6 meaningful attempts, 19 final-third entries and 6 box entries.
Video Check
Clip every attack that reached the final third but not the box; identify whether the missing action was a central runner, cutback option or brave first-time pass.
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 19 vs 39; line breaks 8 vs 7; average event height 38.2 vs 47.4.
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
64% of completed deep passes were low-progression; 70 of 114 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 12 shots, 1.46 xG and 1.08 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, 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 2/8 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 23%; 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 signalInitial entries were contained, but defending still leaked shots

Only 1/45 pass entries became immediate danger, but the opposition still produced 12 shots and 1.46 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 2/5 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

WHEN THIS HAPPENED, WHAT CAME NEXT?Orient useful / first contactOpp switchOpp dangerCentral line breaksample 825%positive rate20Wide final-third entrysample 1323%positive rate30Central final-third entrysample 771%positive rate50High regainsample 540%positive rate20Opp final-third entrysample 452%danger rate321

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 7 | wide deep 8 | direct 26%16-30Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 9 | wide deep 8 | direct 18%31-45Direct exit phasedeep actors 6 | wide deep 6 | direct 29%46-60Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 10 | wide deep 9 | direct 40%61-75Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 7 | wide deep 8 | direct 35%76-90+Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 8 | wide deep 6 | direct 45%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
0-1542.344.833.87826%0Back-five/low-block review
16-3042.246.635.59818%2Back-five/low-block review
31-4539.542.939.46629%0Direct exit phase
46-6029.750.919.610940%1Back-five/low-block review
61-7537.249.628.37835%1Back-five/low-block review
76-90+36.848.524.08645%1Back-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+2.49Opp: -19.3 | 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+1Opp: +7 | Orient median: -3 (61) | Above Orient baseline.

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

Press Payoff2/5Opp: 18% | 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 Tilt38%Opp: 62% | 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 Height38Opp: 47.4 | Orient median: 42.9 (61) | Below desired 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 Balance2.5-19.3-2.061Above 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+1+7-361Above Orient baseline.Central vertical passes that broke useful pitch lines versus those allowed.
Press Payoff40%18%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 Tilt38%62%48%61Below desired baseline.Share of final-third event volume owned by Orient.
Average Event Height38.247.442.961Below desired baseline.Average Orient event location on the x-axis. It is a territory indicator, not automatically a quality indicator.
Territory To Box32%15%22%61Above Orient 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 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 38.2 vs opponent 47.4; final-third tilt 38%, Orient baseline 42.9.
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
70 of 114 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 confidencePenalty event heavily affects the scoreboard read

Penalty xG can dominate the scoreline without proving the opponent created superior open-play attacking structure.

Signal
Opposition penalty goal logged at 21:55.
Video question
Separate open-play chance quality from the foul/penalty incident.
Caveat
The data cannot judge whether the penalty was soft; it only tags the event type.

Phase xG Audit

PhaseOrient xGOpp xGOrient ShotsOpp Shots
0-150.010.2512
16-300.010.9812
31-451.060.0532
46-600.240.1214
61-750.000.0101
76-90+0.100.0411

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
D. Mitchell300.0011'-59'
A. Abdulai200.0033'-33'
T. Bakinson100.0095'-95'

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 share64%29%
Side/back completed pass share56%45%
Progressive pass rate23%40%
Line-break rate3.3%3.7%
Failed long/direct passes70/11470/120
Central completed pass share34%21%

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-21

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+0

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

High Press-6

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

progressive final third box 239 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

SimpsonMorrisJamesAbdulaiO'NeillDennisWellensBallardClareMitchellForresterCaseyArchibaldBakinson 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

-1-8-13+1+20-17-53-35+31+81-13-7+239+38+49-84-173-36-104+84+191-188+186+61 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 382/387; opposition 345/359.

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 touchline61117-324Left half-space51125-268Central45184-109Right half-space3874-351Right touchline4472-632 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

Phillips 0:36Forrester 3:31Phillips 12:09Reid 19:40GReid 21:55O'Neill 23:37Piergianni 35:55Phillips 39:32O'Neill 40:01Ballard 40:04GBallard 43:50Thompson 47:23Freestone 48:09GBallard 54:45White 57:42Freestone 60:34Roberts 68:34Ballard 83:20Piergianni 87:58 Orient shot opposition goal

Pressing Heat Map

defensive action density event

Territory Share

43%62%77%66%56%58%72%56%35%35%48%62%26%27%56%58%49%18%43%61% Orient event share opposition contested

Phase Momentum

0-1591716-3091531-45191646-60162961-753676-90+1014 Orient Opposition

Press Payoff And Rest Defence

High-Regain Outcomes

SRBRR shot 1box 1retained 3

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
40:04Final third / Central1000.480.00Shot
43:46Progression / Central3110.480.56Shot
54:34Final third / Left half-space5210.240.61Shot
83:16Final third / Right half-space2000.100.00Shot
40:00Final third / Central2000.100.00Shot
23:32Progression / Left touchline4000.010.22Shot
3:31Final third / Central1000.010.00Shot
54:19Progression / Right half-space6210.000.80Box entry

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
W. Dennis611303000
J. Simpson113751000
J. Morris109400203
T. Bakinson18-300001
K. Casey28-590000
W. Forrester45-741111
S. Perkins10-720000
D. Mitchell48-931112
D. Ballard54-1080315
S. Clare49-1200000

Role-Adjusted Threat Context

Net passing threat /90 vs Attempted passing threat /90

0 High return High attempt / high return High attempt / low return JamesDennisMorrisCaseySimpsonMitchellWellensArchibaldAbdulaiForresterClareO'NeillBakinsonBallardPerkins 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 attackerC. WellensHigh 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
-260.4
Attempted passing threat
282.8
Attempted /90
264.7
Adventurous
20
Turnovers /90
11.2
Support playerT. JamesHigh 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
-390.0
Attempted passing threat
1227.7
Attempted /90
1149.2
Adventurous
47
Turnovers /90
28.1
Wide connectorT. ArchibaldHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 23 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
23
Net passing threat
-189.5
Attempted passing threat
75.1
Attempted /90
293.9
Adventurous
5
Turnovers /90
15.7
Wide isolation attackerD. MitchellHigh attempt / high return

Inferred 73 mins; starter withdrawn from player-off event.

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

Minutes
73
Net passing threat
-92.7
Attempted passing threat
282.5
Attempted /90
347.5
Adventurous
19
Turnovers /90
12.3

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
T. JamesSupport player96-390.01227.71149.2-365.01514.2-84.6-32%4730High attempt / low return
W. DennisBuild-up defender96130.4479.2448.6122.0326.5+155.227%1613High attempt / high return
J. MorrisBuild-up defender9640.4420.5393.637.8355.8+71.010%3517High attempt / high return
K. CaseyBuild-up defender51-59.2213.1374.9-104.1479.0-71.0-28%75High attempt / high return
J. SimpsonBuild-up defender9674.6390.4365.569.8295.6+103.019%2816High attempt / high return
D. MitchellWide isolation attacker73-92.7282.5347.5-114.0461.6+64.8-33%1910High attempt / high return
C. WellensWide isolation attacker96-260.4282.8264.7-243.7508.4-64.8-92%2012High attempt / low return
T. ArchibaldWide connector23-189.575.1293.9-741.61035.5-593.0-252%54High attempt / low return
A. AbdulaiSupport player96-299.5235.4220.4-280.4500.7+0.0-127%2617Low attempt / low return
W. ForresterBuild-up defender45-74.3107.4214.7-148.7363.4-115.5-69%93Low attempt / efficient return
S. ClareBuild-up defender51-119.9109.9192.7-210.2403.0-177.1-109%176Low attempt / low return
O. O'NeillWide isolation attacker85-234.5168.0177.2-247.4424.6-68.5-140%1913Low 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
J. Simpson11339131110
J. Morris1093143140
T. James104378350
A. Abdulai782454140
O. O'Neill7063382
W. Dennis61227200
C. Wellens54123490
D. Ballard5481064
S. Clare49173030
D. Mitchell4892160

Incident Timeline

  1. 0:36MissM. Phillips
  2. 2:33Take OnC. Wellens
  3. 2:48Corner AwardedT. James
  4. 2:48Corner AwardedD. Phillips
  5. 3:31Attempt SavedW. Forrester
  6. 3:32SaveF. Marschall
  7. 6:40FoulS. Clare
  8. 6:40FoulL. Thompson
  9. 7:47DispossessedJ. Reid
  10. 8:25Take OnD. Phillips
  11. 8:28FoulD. Phillips
  12. 8:28FoulS. Clare
  13. 10:00Take OnD. Ballard
  14. 10:01Take OnD. Ballard
  15. 12:09MissM. Phillips
  16. 15:31Take OnD. Mitchell
  17. 15:39Take OnD. Mitchell
  18. 16:16FoulD. Phillips
  19. +164 more incidentsavailable in source feed