Leyton Orient Match Report
OverviewMatch centrePlayersReports

Walsall vs Leyton Orient

2026-08-25 Orient perspective 1870 match-play events 214 reportable incidents Expected-goals feed merged. xG coverage: 33/33 shots; xGOT coverage: 33/33 shots. Shootout excluded Signed passing threat proxy · v2 24 video clips

Match Control Board

Passes635Opp 422
Pass Completion84%Opp 78%
Progressive Passes114Opp 83
Final Third Entries31Opp 30
Box Entries10Opp 8
Shots20Opp 13
xG1.28Opp 1.21
xGOT1.50Opp 0.42
High Regains19Opp 13

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.

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 31 vs 30; line breaks 7 vs 13; average event height 43.6 vs 41.9.
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; 46 of 126 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 2/19 times (11%).
Video Check
Review the first two touches after every high regain. The coaching question is support angle and first-pass quality, not effort.

Wide By Design Or Default?

One-off tactical diagnostic Wide looks like the escape route

Orient are not simply using width as a planned acceleration. The first pass from the deep line is going outside, but the next connection is not arriving often enough to join the attack.

Sample214deep build-up passes
First pass wide69%wide/down-line outlet
First pass central17%midfield/interior outlet
Wide payoff14%pressure within 3 actions
Deep Build-Up: First Outlet And Consequence Sample: 214 passes from the deep build-up line First outlet361092926 Wide consequence18243549 Into midfieldWide outletDirect to wingDown the lineLong/directRecycle/back OWN GOAL OPP GOAL Deep line30.9Midfield50.6Attack59.5

First Outlet Audit

First OutletUsesShareInside NextPressureDied
Into midfield3617%100%8%78%
Wide outlet10951%21%12%82%
Direct to wing2914%14%21%76%
Down the line105%20%20%80%
Long/direct42%50%0%100%
Recycle/back2612%12%4%92%

Central Receiver Audit

ReceiverRoleDeep ReceiptsForward NextResetLost
Z. ObieroWide connector838%62%0%
D. LevittBall-winning midfielder617%83%0%
I. El MizouniSupport player333%67%0%
C. WellensWide isolation attacker10%100%0%
D. MitchellWide isolation attacker10%0%100%

Deep build-up actors sampled: Forrester, Gilchrist, Morris, Chinedu, Hayden, Olowu. Inside bounce from early width: 20%; wide possessions dying before pressure: 80%. Video check: freeze the wide receipt and ask whether the near-side 8 is available beyond the cover shadow, or whether the ball has simply been pushed outside because midfield was not connected.

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, 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 1/7 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 25%; 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 2/19 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 11/38 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 714%positive rate10Wide final-third entrysample 2825%positive rate70Central final-third entrysample 1080%positive rate80High regainsample 1911%positive rate20Opp final-third entrysample 3829%danger rate1711

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 height0-15Balanced phasedeep actors 8 | wide deep 4 | direct 17%16-30Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 7 | wide deep 6 | direct 21%31-45Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 9 | wide deep 6 | direct 18%46-60High press phasedeep actors 6 | wide deep 4 | direct 28%61-75Back-five/low-block reviewdeep actors 8 | wide deep 7 | direct 24%76-90+High press phasedeep actors 8 | wide deep 5 | direct 17%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
0-1545.835.044.78417%0Balanced phase
16-3039.247.621.57621%1Back-five/low-block review
31-4534.749.136.39618%4Back-five/low-block review
46-6049.136.651.06428%7High press phase
61-7541.042.433.68724%2Back-five/low-block review
76-90+49.240.340.58517%5High press 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-2.80Opp: -10.8 | Orient median: -3.2 (7) | Above Orient 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-6Opp: +13 | Orient median: -3 (7) | Below desired baseline.

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

Press Payoff2/19Opp: 8% | Orient median: 12% (7) | In normal Orient range.

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

Rest Defence2Orient median: 0 (7) | Above desired baseline.

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

Final-Third Tilt55%Opp: 45% | Orient median: 48% (7) | Above Orient baseline.

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

Average Event Height44Opp: 41.9 | Orient median: 41.9 (7) | 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 Balance-2.8-10.8-3.27Above 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-6+13-37Below desired baseline.Central vertical passes that broke useful pitch lines versus those allowed.
Press Payoff11%8%12%7In normal Orient range.Share of high regains that became a shot, box entry or final-third entry.
Rest Defence2-07Above desired baseline.Advanced Orient losses that became opposition box or shot danger.
Final-Third Tilt55%45%48%7Above Orient baseline.Share of final-third event volume owned by Orient.
Average Event Height43.641.941.97In normal Orient range.Average Orient event location on the x-axis. It is a territory indicator, not automatically a quality indicator.
Territory To Box32%27%30%7In normal Orient range.Share of final-third entries that became box entries.

Historical context loaded from 7 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 confidenceIndividual-error cluster may have distorted the game state

This points to the match being partly shaped by a concentrated execution problem rather than only a team-wide tactical failure.

Signal
I. El Mizouni was the source event for 2 dangerous transition leaks worth 0.10 xG against between 84' and 90'.
Video question
Clip each leak and ask whether the error was technical, poor support around the ball, fatigue, or a bad receiving angle.
Caveat
The event data identifies the loss event, not sole blame. The pass option, body shape and surrounding support still need video.
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 -6.
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 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
2 of 19 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
0-150.120.4133
16-300.110.2322
31-450.120.2414
46-600.250.1031
61-750.300.1351
76-90+0.380.1062

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
I. El Mizouni220.1084'-90'
T. Archibald200.005'-6'
Z. Obiero200.0029'-54'
D. Mitchell100.003'-3'
J. Morris100.004'-4'
A. Gilchrist100.0040'-40'
F. Stevens100.0083'-83'

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 share60%53%
Side/back completed pass share59%53%
Progressive pass rate21%25%
Line-break rate1.3%4.0%
Failed long/direct passes46/12641/111
Central completed pass share27%22%

This is the check for claims like "too deep", "too safe around the back", or "direct exits did not stick".

Video Review Board

Big Chance15:1516sxG 0.19

15:15 Attempt Saved: T. Sodje

Attempt Saved by T. Sodje. xG 0.19.

Open MP4
24 clips generated

The report is no longer just describing the match. Every key claim now has a video queue behind it: goals, big chances, transition leaks, high-regain payoff and line-breaking possession.

Use this section as the coaching audit: does the event-data diagnosis survive the actual body shape, support angle, pressure and recovery run on the video?

Scoreline & Chance State

Big Chance29:5416sxG 0.15

29:54 Attempt Saved: A. Dallas

Attempt Saved by A. Dallas. xG 0.15.

Open MP4
Deep Error Shot15:1526sxG 0.19

15:05 deep loss: D. Levitt to T. Sodje shot

Pass by D. Levitt in the defensive half led to attempt saved by T. Sodje. xG against 0.19.

Open MP4

Transition Leak Review

Transition Leak Shot90:3529sxG 0.08

90:22 transition leak: I. El Mizouni

Orient loss by I. El Mizouni led to shot within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Shot84:5725sxG 0.02

84:48 transition leak: I. El Mizouni

Orient loss by I. El Mizouni led to shot within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Progression3:0923s

3:02 transition leak: D. Mitchell

Orient loss by D. Mitchell led to progression within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Progression4:4724s

4:39 transition leak: J. Morris

Orient loss by J. Morris led to progression within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Progression5:4220s

5:38 transition leak: T. Archibald

Orient loss by T. Archibald led to progression within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Progression6:4826s

6:38 transition leak: T. Archibald

Orient loss by T. Archibald led to progression within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Progression29:4621s

29:41 transition leak: Z. Obiero

Orient loss by Z. Obiero led to progression within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Progression39:2120s

39:17 transition leak: N. Oyekunle

Orient loss by N. Oyekunle led to progression within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Progression40:4842s

40:22 transition leak: A. Gilchrist

Orient loss by A. Gilchrist led to progression within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Progression54:1929s

54:06 transition leak: Z. Obiero

Orient loss by Z. Obiero led to progression within the next sequence.

Open MP4
Transition Leak Progression83:4425s

83:35 transition leak: F. Stevens

Orient loss by F. Stevens led to progression within the next sequence.

Open MP4

Pressing Payoff

High Regain Shot47:2216s

47:22 high regain: D. Levitt

High regain by D. Levitt led to shot within 3 actions.

Open MP4
High Regain Shot32:4716s

32:47 high regain: D. Mitchell

High regain by D. Mitchell led to shot within 2 actions.

Open MP4

Build-Up & Line Breaks

Line Break7:0816s

7:08 line break: A. Gilchrist

Central/progressive line-break pass by A. Gilchrist. xT+ 47.7.

Open MP4
Line Break52:1916s

52:19 line break: N. Phillips

Central/progressive line-break pass by N. Phillips. xT+ 23.5.

Open MP4
Line Break46:0316s

46:03 line break: J. Olowu

Central/progressive line-break pass by J. Olowu. xT+ 17.2.

Open MP4
Line Break34:1516s

34:15 line break: Z. Obiero

Central/progressive line-break pass by Z. Obiero. xT+ 15.1.

Open MP4
Line Break19:0816s

19:08 line break: W. Forrester

Central/progressive line-break pass by W. Forrester. xT+ 14.0.

Open MP4
Line Break2:0916s

2:09 line break: N. Phillips

Central/progressive line-break pass by N. Phillips. xT+ 8.2.

Open MP4
Line Break37:1116s

37:11 line break: W. Forrester

Central/progressive line-break pass by W. Forrester. xT+ 8.0.

Open MP4
Line Break11:1716s

11:17 line break: A. Gilchrist

Central/progressive line-break pass by A. Gilchrist. xT+ 8.0.

Open MP4

The Plain-English Read

Progression+31

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+2

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

High Press+6

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 533 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

ArchibaldForresterWellensObieroMorrisMitchellGilchristPhillipsLevittHaydenOlowuMizouniChineduStevens 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

+5-38-16+7-29+4-0+55-54+44+10-52-30+28-73+43-28-29-215+10-373+203+197+53 Orient advantage opposition advantage

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 636/648; opposition 423/435.

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 touchline8914882Left half-space972387Central105238-154Right half-space125349-279Right touchline117208-1019 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

Obiero 9:18Mitchell 9:49Archibald 9:55Smith 12:06Sodje 15:15Dallas 15:17Wellens 19:19Archibald 20:07Sodje 28:44Dallas 29:54Smith 32:31Oyekunle 32:54Dallas 37:26Dallas 40:47Moore 45:11Mitchell 46:15Levitt 47:30Crew 47:56Archibald 57:39Oyekunle 64:30Wellens 64:33Obiero 65:45Forrester 67:59Simper 69:53Wellens 71:22Mitchell 82:43Clarke 84:57Kabia 87:18Sodje 90:35Morris 91:21Archibald 91:56Archibald 92:20Olowu 95:09 Orient shot opposition goal

Pressing Heat Map

defensive action density event

Territory Share

51%50%51%37%63%71%62%45%65%63%41%52%64%59%41%48%62%63%60%33% Orient event share opposition contested

Phase Momentum

0-15212416-30172131-45132246-60261761-75351076-90+4720 Orient Opposition

Press Payoff And Rest Defence

High-Regain Outcomes

RSRRRSRRRRRRRRRRRRR shot 2retained 17

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
46:15Final third / Central2000.200.00Shot
63:37Build-up / Left touchline16310.130.72Shot
32:52Final third / Central2010.120.27Shot
92:20Final third / Central2000.120.00Shot
18:43Build-up / Central12200.090.15Shot
86:58Final third / Left touchline5100.080.55Shot
91:53Final third / Left touchline3000.080.39Shot
71:19Final third / Right touchline3000.060.00Shot

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. Forrester921232107
N. Phillips661132003
A. Gilchrist671012001
P. Chinedu49900002
J. Olowu51230104
J. Morris8570228
I. El Mizouni49-460016
F. Stevens44-490125
J. Kabia14-570113
I. Hayden53-1040013

Role-Adjusted Threat Context

Net passing threat /90 vs Attempted passing threat /90

0 High return High attempt / high return High attempt / low return StevensArchibaldWellensGilchristObieroMorrisHaydenChineduMizouniLevittPhillipsMitchellForresterOlowuOyekunleKabia 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 attackerT. ArchibaldHigh 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
-409.1
Attempted passing threat
791.0
Attempted /90
740.9
Adventurous
41
Turnovers /90
16.9
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
-189.0
Attempted passing threat
708.7
Attempted /90
663.8
Adventurous
39
Turnovers /90
11.2
Wide connectorZ. ObieroHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 96 mins; starter/full-match estimate from event timeline.

Read alongside role and video. The score follows fixed positional assumptions; interpretation depends on where, why and under what support conditions the passes were attempted.

Minutes
96
Net passing threat
-273.0
Attempted passing threat
405.8
Attempted /90
380.1
Adventurous
33
Turnovers /90
14.1
Build-up defenderI. HaydenHigh attempt / low return

Inferred 51 mins; partial-match sample. Totals need minutes context.

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

Minutes
51
Net passing threat
-104.2
Attempted passing threat
184.3
Attempted /90
324.8
Adventurous
14
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
F. StevensSupport player22-49.3402.11675.3-205.51880.8-46.6-12%209High attempt / low return
T. ArchibaldWide isolation attacker96-409.1791.0740.9-383.21124.1-77.7-52%4118High attempt / low return
C. WellensWide isolation attacker96-189.0708.7663.8-177.0840.9+128.5-27%3912High attempt / low return
A. GilchristBuild-up defender45100.6282.8565.7201.2364.5+95.336%215High attempt / high return
Z. ObieroWide connector96-273.0405.8380.1-255.8635.9-80.0-67%3315High attempt / low return
J. MorrisBuild-up defender966.7358.8336.06.2329.8-99.72%298High attempt / high return
I. HaydenBuild-up defender51-104.2184.3324.8-183.7508.4-289.6-57%147High attempt / low return
P. ChineduBuild-up defender4590.1160.5320.9180.1140.8+74.256%173High attempt / high return
I. El MizouniSupport player37-45.8128.7315.5-112.4427.9+46.6-36%123Low attempt / efficient return
D. LevittBall-winning midfielder59-128.5208.0315.3-194.8510.0-19.0-62%237Low attempt / low return
N. PhillipsBuild-up defender96113.1322.4301.9105.9196.0+0.035%167Low attempt / efficient return
D. MitchellWide isolation attacker96-356.9288.9270.7-334.3605.0-28.8-124%2913Low 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. Archibald1044897105
W. Forrester9259131121
C. Wellens87379753
Z. Obiero86436682
J. Morris853972111
D. Mitchell79313473
A. Gilchrist674312330
N. Phillips664517010
D. Levitt63376281
I. Hayden53256170

Incident Timeline

  1. 0:08FoulJ. Connolly
  2. 0:08FoulD. Mitchell
  3. 0:48FoulJ. Morris
  4. 0:48FoulT. Sodje
  5. 2:10Take OnC. Wellens
  6. 2:35FoulI. Moore
  7. 2:35FoulZ. Obiero
  8. 3:00Take OnD. Mitchellclip
  9. 3:06FoulT. Sodjeclip
  10. 3:06FoulA. Gilchrist
  11. 4:49Take OnA. Dallas
  12. 7:29Corner AwardedJ. Furlong
  13. 7:29Corner AwardedC. Wellens
  14. 8:01FoulJ. Ward
  15. 8:01FoulN. Oyekunle
  16. 9:18Attempt SavedZ. Obiero
  17. 9:18SaveH. Burke
  18. 9:20Corner AwardedZ. Obiero
  19. +196 more incidentsavailable in source feed