Leyton Orient vs Peterborough United

2026-03-14 Orient perspective 1800 match-play events 185 reportable incidents Expected-goals feed merged. xG coverage: 31/31 shots; xGOT coverage: 31/31 shots. Signed passing threat proxy · v2

Match Control Board

Passes371Opp 540

Pass Completion63%Opp 76%

Progressive Passes55Opp 120

Final Third Entries25Opp 33

Box Entries6Opp 5

Shots16Opp 15

xG2.32Opp 1.46

xGOT1.94Opp 0.89

High Regains37Opp 8

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 25 vs 33; line breaks 5 vs 24; average event height 45.3 vs 39.0.
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: 60% of completed deep passes were low-progression; 67 of 106 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 5/37 times (14%).
Video Check: Review the first two touches after every high regain. The coaching question is support angle and first-pass quality, not effort.

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 15 shots, 1.46 xG and 0.89 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 31-45, 46-60.

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 1/5 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 36%; central entries did so at 80%.

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 5/37 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.

warning signalInitial entries were contained, but defending still leaked shots

Only 9/36 pass entries became immediate danger, but the opposition still produced 15 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.

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	38.6	45.5	45.2	6	6	27%	4	Territory dropped
16-30	40.1	40.0	53.1	4	3	21%	4	High press phase
31-45	46.0	39.8	33.6	8	6	33%	5	Back-five/low-block review
46-60	39.8	43.8	36.2	8	4	35%	2	Back-five/low-block review
61-75	54.8	29.8	46.8	7	9	28%	18	High press phase
76-90+	48.0	35.6	43.2	7	5	30%	4	Direct exit 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-9.41Opp: -11.7 | 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-19Opp: +24 | 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 Payoff5/37Opp: 38% | Orient median: 17% (61) | In normal Orient range.

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

Rest Defence1Orient median: 0 (61) | Above desired baseline.

1 advanced Orient losses turned into box or shot danger. That is the rest-defence audit list.

Final-Third Tilt57%Opp: 43% | 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 Height45Opp: 39.0 | 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	-9.4	-11.7	-0.5	61	Below 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	-19	+24	-3	61	Below desired baseline.	Central vertical passes that broke useful pitch lines versus those allowed.
Press Payoff	14%	38%	17%	61	In normal Orient range.	Share of high regains that became a shot, box entry or final-third entry.
Rest Defence	1	-	0	61	Above desired baseline.	Advanced Orient losses that became opposition box or shot danger.
Final-Third Tilt	57%	43%	48%	61	Above Orient baseline.	Share of final-third event volume owned by Orient.
Average Event Height	45.3	39.0	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	24%	15%	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: 60% of completed deep passes were low-progression, with line breaks -19.
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: 67 of 106 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 84:34.
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 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: 5 of 37 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	0.14	0.12	2	4
16-30	0.03	0.09	1	2
31-45	0.73	0.21	4	3
46-60	0.39	0.46	5	4
61-75	0.13	0.00	2	0
76-90+	0.89	0.58	2	2

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

Player Leak Responsibility

Player	Leaks	Danger Leaks	xG Against After Loss	Minute Span
D. Mitchell	2	1	0.03	13'-54'
O. O'Neill	2	0	0.00	10'-86'
C. Wellens	2	0	0.00	29'-61'
D. Levitt	2	0	0.00	41'-56'
D. Ballard	2	0	0.00	62'-66'
T. James	1	0	0.00	0'-0'
K. Casey	1	0	0.00	11'-11'
A. Abdulai	1	0	0.00	21'-21'

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	60%	52%
Side/back completed pass share	63%	55%
Progressive pass rate	23%	29%
Line-break rate	2.1%	5.8%
Failed long/direct passes	67/106	60/127
Central completed pass share	29%	35%

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-65

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+1

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

High Press+29

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 375/381; opposition 542/549.

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
87:27	Progression / Central	7	2	0	0.69	0.58	Shot
43:31	Final third / Right touchline	3	1	1	0.52	0.55	Shot
80:33	Build-up / Central	6	0	0	0.20	-0.14	Shot
49:37	Final third / Left touchline	4	0	1	0.12	0.30	Shot
42:48	Final third / Central	1	0	0	0.11	0.00	Shot
47:58	Progression / Central	3	0	0	0.09	0.17	Shot
49:36	Final third / Central	1	0	0	0.08	0.00	Shot
15:01	Final third / Central	2	0	0	0.08	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
W. Dennis	47	135	1	0	0	0
J. Simpson	84	14	0	1	0	2
J. Morris	71	3	0	1	1	0
D. Happe	33	-1	1	0	0	2
K. Casey	48	-31	1	1	2	1
D. Levitt	37	-43	2	1	2	4
I. El Mizouni	16	-36	0	0	0	0
T. James	85	-58	0	2	1	3
S. Perkins	11	-56	0	0	2	0
A. Abdulai	47	-183	0	0	5	2

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 attackerD. MitchellHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 60 mins; partial-match sample. Totals need minutes context.

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: 60
Net passing threat: -246.6
Attempted passing threat: 381.8
Attempted /90: 575.4
Adventurous: 21
Turnovers /90: 16.6

Wide isolation attackerT. ArchibaldHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 40 mins; substitute-sized sample. Compare rates, but validate the role on video.

Minutes: 40
Net passing threat: -231.4
Attempted passing threat: 150.8
Attempted /90: 340.3
Adventurous: 13
Turnovers /90: 18.1

Wide connectorT. BakinsonHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 39 mins; substitute-sized sample. Compare rates, but validate the role on video.

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

Minutes: 39
Net passing threat: -185.1
Attempted passing threat: 233.0
Attempted /90: 534.8
Adventurous: 18
Turnovers /90: 22.9

Wide isolation attackerO. O'NeillLow attempt / low return

Inferred 100 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: 100
Net passing threat: -689.2
Attempted passing threat: 284.0
Attempted /90: 256.6
Adventurous: 25
Turnovers /90: 15.4

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
W. Dennis	Build-up defender	100	135.0	793.7	717.2	122.0	595.3	+117.4	17%	20	15	High attempt / high return
T. James	Support player	100	-58.0	754.0	681.3	-52.4	733.7	+0.0	-8%	36	17	High attempt / high return
D. Mitchell	Wide isolation attacker	60	-246.6	381.8	575.4	-371.7	947.1	+150.4	-65%	21	11	High attempt / low return
T. Bakinson	Wide connector	39	-185.1	233.0	534.8	-424.8	959.6	-107.7	-79%	18	10	High attempt / low return
K. Casey	Build-up defender	60	-31.1	312.6	468.3	-46.6	514.9	-51.2	-10%	13	9	High attempt / high return
J. Simpson	Build-up defender	100	13.7	507.6	458.7	12.4	446.3	+7.8	3%	25	11	High attempt / high return
D. Levitt	Wide connector	60	-43.3	270.2	402.7	-64.5	467.2	+252.6	-16%	15	6	High attempt / high return
T. Archibald	Wide isolation attacker	40	-231.4	150.8	340.3	-522.1	862.4	+0.0	-153%	13	8	High attempt / low return
J. Morris	Support player	100	3.3	363.6	328.6	3.0	325.6	+55.3	1%	21	13	Low attempt / efficient return
C. Wellens	Forward / box threat	100	-239.0	343.8	310.7	-216.0	526.6	+22.2	-70%	16	8	Low attempt / low return
O. O'Neill	Wide isolation attacker	100	-689.2	284.0	256.6	-622.8	879.4	-100.7	-243%	25	17	Low attempt / low return
D. Happe	Build-up defender	40	-1.4	79.3	180.6	-3.3	183.8	-7.8	-2%	6	1	Low attempt / efficient 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
T. James	85	25	12	9	13	2
O. O'Neill	85	19	1	1	14	2
J. Simpson	84	33	9	4	9	1
J. Morris	71	21	9	3	11	0
D. Mitchell	55	11	1	2	8	2
D. Ballard	50	8	0	1	4	4
K. Casey	48	16	2	1	6	1
C. Wellens	48	17	2	2	6	2
W. Dennis	47	16	6	2	1	0
A. Abdulai	47	15	2	0	12	0

Incident Timeline

0:59Take OnD. Frith
1:23Attempt SavedK. Lisbie
1:23SaveT. James
1:48DispossessedJ. Morris
2:04Attempt SavedC. Johnston
2:04SaveK. Casey
4:40FoulD. Levitt
4:40FoulK. Lisbie
6:19FoulO. O'Neill
6:19FoulD. Frith
6:58FoulB. Khela
6:58FoulD. Levitt
7:57FoulJ. Morris
7:57FoulD. Frith
10:41FoulC. Johnston
10:41FoulD. Mitchell
11:23Take OnO. O'Neill
11:25ErrorD. Okagbue
+167 more incidentsavailable in source feed