Leyton Orient Match Report

AFC Wimbledon vs Leyton Orient

2026-03-17 Orient perspective 1708 match-play events 163 reportable incidents Expected-goals feed merged. xG coverage: 29/29 shots; xGOT coverage: 29/29 shots. Signed passing threat proxy ยท v2

Match Control Board

Passes348Opp 442
Pass Completion66%Opp 64%
Progressive Passes58Opp 88
Final Third Entries27Opp 31
Box Entries2Opp 9
Shots14Opp 15
xG2.74Opp 1.99
xGOT3.31Opp 1.75
High Regains20Opp 16

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 27 vs 31; line breaks 8 vs 16; average event height 41.8 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
52% of completed deep passes were low-progression; 64 of 103 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 15 shots, 1.99 xG and 1.75 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 16-30, 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 3/8 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 18%; 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 5/20 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 9/39 pass entries became immediate danger, but the opposition still produced 15 shots and 1.99 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

WHEN THIS HAPPENED, WHAT CAME NEXT?Orient useful / first contactOpp switchOpp dangerCentral line breaksample 838%positive rate30Wide final-third entrysample 2218%positive rate40Central final-third entrysample 250%positive rate10High regainsample 2025%positive rate50Opp final-third entrysample 3923%danger rate229

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 height0-15Direct exit phasedeep actors 6 | wide deep 7 | direct 30%16-30Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 10 | wide deep 8 | direct 37%31-45Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 9 | wide deep 7 | direct 25%46-60Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 9 | wide deep 9 | direct 31%61-75High press phasedeep actors 5 | wide deep 2 | direct 26%76-90+Territory droppeddeep actors 8 | wide deep 7 | direct 33%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
0-1546.842.340.26730%3Direct exit phase
16-3031.755.124.410837%4Back-five/low-block review
31-4541.845.026.79725%1Back-five/low-block review
46-6038.550.735.69931%1Back-five/low-block review
61-7552.137.341.95226%7High press phase
76-90+41.047.638.18733%4Territory dropped

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+8.86Opp: -21.3 | 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-8Opp: +16 | 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 Payoff5/20Opp: 12% | 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 Tilt43%Opp: 57% | 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 Height42Opp: 47.4 | Orient median: 42.9 (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?

MetricOrientOpponent / AgainstOrient MedianSampleReadWhat It Means
Threat Balance8.9-21.3-2.061Above 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-8+16-361Below desired baseline.Central vertical passes that broke useful pitch lines versus those allowed.
Press Payoff25%12%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 Tilt43%57%48%61Below desired baseline.Share of final-third event volume owned by Orient.
Average Event Height41.847.442.961In normal Orient range.Average Orient event location on the x-axis. It is a territory indicator, not automatically a quality indicator.
Territory To Box7%29%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
52% of completed deep passes were low-progression, with line breaks -8.
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 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 41.8 vs opponent 47.4; final-third tilt 43%.
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
64 of 103 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.

Phase xG Audit

PhaseOrient xGOpp xGOrient ShotsOpp Shots
0-150.930.1821
16-300.060.6715
31-450.260.4523
46-600.410.1422
61-750.960.0050
76-90+0.130.5424

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. James200.002'-24'
D. Ballard200.0029'-44'
A. Abdulai100.008'-8'
C. Wellens100.0017'-17'
F. Fawunmi100.0091'-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 share52%42%
Side/back completed pass share59%54%
Progressive pass rate25%31%
Line-break rate3.5%5.7%
Failed long/direct passes64/10377/141
Central completed pass share31%22%

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-30

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-7

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

progressive final third box 228 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

BakinsonJamesMorrisWellensSimpsonAbdulaiDennisMitchellO'NeillBallardCaseyHappeMizouniArchibald 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

+0+35-36+1+7+75-18-4+95+42-152-12-29+67-47+64+90-157+290+302+568-76-50-168 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 349/360; opposition 443/449.

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 touchline52125-302Left half-space40116-339Central54176-114Right half-space3783-190Right touchline45107-294 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

Browne 5:06O'Neill 14:56GBallard 14:59Hippolyte 18:17Nkeng 22:38Nkeng 25:00Bugiel 26:21Mitchell 28:05Nkeng 30:26O'Neill 33:05Simpson 35:29GNkeng 38:31Johnson 45:04GNkeng 45:45GBallard 47:01Nelson 48:40Browne 50:52GMorris 56:42Ballard 65:56Archibald 69:39GBallard 69:42Wellens 75:20Abdulai 75:50Bakinson 77:20Happe 78:05Browne 78:43Smith 89:58Stevens 90:00Reeves 90:03 Orient shot opposition goal

Pressing Heat Map

defensive action density event

Territory Share

49%57%74%55%47%44%68%49%29%47%54%52%47%44%62%48%33%22%40%50% Orient event share opposition contested

Phase Momentum

0-15151016-30133631-45152546-60111561-7532376-90+2032 Orient Opposition

Press Payoff And Rest Defence

High-Regain Outcomes

RRRRERRRRRRRRSSSRSRR shot 4entry 1retained 15

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
14:59Final third / Central1000.820.00Shot
69:42Final third / Central1000.690.00Shot
56:42Final third / Central1000.220.00Shot
35:24Progression / Central3110.200.64Shot
45:55Progression / Central25500.180.47Shot
65:46Progression / Right half-space5100.120.32Shot
14:51Progression / Right touchline5100.110.61Shot
75:46Progression / Left half-space5000.07-0.00Shot

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
W. Dennis571493000
I. El Mizouni2110010
J. Simpson70-271106
D. Happe36-220102
T. Archibald20-300013
K. Casey38-390011
S. Perkins7-440000
D. Ballard43-8004313
F. Fawunmi14-630010
T. James91-791024

Role-Adjusted Threat Context

Net passing threat /90 vs Attempted passing threat /90

0 High return High attempt / high return High attempt / low return JamesDennisBakinsonMorrisWellensO'NeillSimpsonCaseyMitchellPerkinsAbdulaiFawunmiHappeMizouniBallardArchibald 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
-104.7
Attempted passing threat
344.7
Attempted /90
323.1
Adventurous
21
Turnovers /90
11.2
Wide isolation attackerO. O'NeillHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 45 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
45
Net passing threat
-141.6
Attempted passing threat
144.6
Attempted /90
289.2
Adventurous
13
Turnovers /90
14.0
Support playerT. BakinsonHigh 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
-139.7
Attempted passing threat
451.8
Attempted /90
423.6
Adventurous
41
Turnovers /90
20.6
Wide connectorJ. MorrisHigh 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
-176.6
Attempted passing threat
416.0
Attempted /90
390.0
Adventurous
28
Turnovers /90
14.1

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. JamesBuild-up defender96-79.5717.6672.7-74.5747.2-35.6-11%4322High attempt / high return
W. DennisBuild-up defender96149.1512.4480.4139.7340.7+178.629%2314High attempt / high return
T. BakinsonSupport player96-139.7451.8423.6-131.0554.5-66.7-31%4122High attempt / low return
J. MorrisWide connector96-176.6416.0390.0-165.6555.5-4.2-42%2815High attempt / low return
C. WellensWide isolation attacker96-104.7344.7323.1-98.2421.3+185.1-30%2112High attempt / low return
O. O'NeillWide isolation attacker45-141.6144.6289.2-283.3572.5+0.0-98%137High attempt / low return
J. SimpsonBuild-up defender96-27.2261.7245.3-25.5270.9+13.4-10%199Low attempt / efficient return
K. CaseyBuild-up defender45-39.077.1154.3-78.1232.3-39.1-51%64Low attempt / efficient return
D. MitchellWide isolation attacker68-295.898.1130.7-394.1524.9-110.9-301%2010Low attempt / low return
S. PerkinsWide isolation attacker13-44.143.3299.6-304.8604.4-21.5-102%22High attempt / low return
A. AbdulaiWide connector83-145.5119.8129.4-157.1286.5+4.2-121%126Low attempt / low return
F. FawunmiWide connector13-63.439.9282.9-450.1733.0-288.8-159%31High 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
T. Bakinson973385121
T. James913513570
J. Morris852272101
C. Wellens73163371
J. Simpson70226241
A. Abdulai651413141
W. Dennis572213230
D. Mitchell56162231
O. O'Neill4952192
D. Ballard43130144

Incident Timeline

  1. 1:04FoulOmar Bugiel
  2. 1:04FoulO. O'Neill
  3. 5:06Attempt SavedM. Browne
  4. 5:06SaveT. James
  5. 7:24DispossessedD. Ballard
  6. 7:25Corner AwardedJunior Nkeng
  7. 7:25Corner AwardedD. Ballard
  8. 8:32DispossessedA. Abdulai
  9. 10:21FoulT. Bakinson
  10. 10:21FoulOmar Bugiel
  11. 12:34FoulR. Johnson
  12. 12:34FoulD. Mitchell
  13. 14:16Take OnD. Mitchell
  14. 14:56PostO. O'Neill
  15. 14:57ErrorI. Ogundere
  16. 14:59GoalD. Ballard
  17. 17:26Take OnC. Wellens
  18. 17:34Take OnOmar Bugiel
  19. +145 more incidentsavailable in source feed