A week earlier, Nottingham Forest had been finding chances almost everywhere against Crystal Palace.
Morgan Gibbs-White hit the crossbar. Liam Delap was denied from close range. Dan Ndoye kept troubling the Palace defence, and even after Oliver Glasner’s side fell behind, they continued to threaten.
Forest eventually lost 3–1, but they left Selhurst Park having attempted 24 shots and created enough good opportunities to make the defeat particularly frustrating.
Seven days later, against Arsenal, the story was different.
Forest took another 14 shots at the City Ground. They defended well enough to keep Arsenal waiting until the 80th minute for the breakthrough. Yet when the final whistle confirmed a 1–0 defeat, Forest had rarely looked capable of scoring themselves.
It would have been easy to blame the finishing again.
The problem was that this time, the chances themselves had largely disappeared.
The difference began before the shooting
Against Palace, Forest had made a flying start. Ndoye opened the scoring after just three minutes when he capitalised on a defensive mistake.
That early goal was a gift, but Forest’s attacking performance did not depend entirely on Palace making errors.
In the 21st minute, Ndoye forced goalkeeper Walter Benítez into a save with a header. Seven minutes later, Neco Williams crossed for Daniel Muñoz, whose volley went wide.
Then came two of Forest’s biggest opportunities. Gibbs-White struck the crossbar before Benítez stopped Delap from close range.
Forest were getting players into threatening positions. Their wing-backs were joining attacks, their forward players were finding space, and the ball was reaching areas where a decent finish could make a difference.
Palace came back to win, but those attacking moments still mattered.
According to Sky Sports, Forest recorded 43 touches inside the Palace penalty area and missed seven big chances. Their expected goals, or xG, reached 3.34.
That last figure estimates the quality of their shooting opportunities. It does not tell us how many goals a team should definitely score, but it helps explain why Forest had good reason to be disappointed.
They had created the openings. They just had not finished enough of them.
Against Arsenal, even reaching those positions became much harder.
Arsenal made Forest work for everything
For 80 minutes, Forest managed to keep the score level.
That deserves some credit. Arsenal controlled almost 74 per cent of possession but produced only one shot on target all afternoon. Glasner’s team kept the visitors from regularly turning that possession into clear chances.
Unfortunately for Forest, their own attacking play suffered too.
In the 19th minute, a loose pass from Riccardo Calafiori offered Ndoye an opening. He fired into the side netting.
Early in the second half, Delap tried his luck with a shot that took a deflection and went wide.
There were other attempts, but Forest struggled to build the kind of sustained attacking pressure they had produced against Palace.
The numbers make the contrast clearer.
Against Palace, Forest’s 24 shots produced 3.34 xG. Against Arsenal, 14 shots produced just 0.75.
Their xG from open play fell from 2.36 to 0.35. Touches inside the opposition penalty area dropped from 43 to 17.
Even their crossing told a similar story. Forest had completed ten of 29 crosses against Palace. Against Arsenal, only one of 14 found its target.
These were not simply ten fewer shots. They were fewer opportunities in genuinely dangerous positions.
Then, in the 80th minute, Noni Madueke scored with a deflected effort.
Forest suddenly had to chase the game.
Chris Wood had a late shot blocked by Declan Rice. Murillo drove forward and sent an effort narrowly wide. Delap also threatened in the closing stages.
Those moments offered Forest a chance to rescue something, but they arrived too late to change the overall picture.
Arsenal had made Forest spend most of the afternoon defending and looking for ways out. Forest had made Arsenal work defensively, but they had not given them enough serious problems around the penalty area.
Gibbs-White was missing. So was an important connection.
There was another difference between the two matches.
Morgan Gibbs-White had played against Palace. He missed Arsenal because of a muscular problem.
Before the Arsenal game, Forest’s official preview credited him with creating 17 Premier League chances this season, including seven big chances.
Those numbers help explain what Forest were missing.
Gibbs-White is not valuable merely because he might score himself. He helps connect midfield possession with the players making attacking runs.
Against Palace, he had found his own way into a dangerous position and hit the crossbar. More broadly, he had been an important source of opportunities for his teammates.
Without him, Glasner had decisions to make.
Nicolás Domínguez came into the starting side, playing alongside Xaver Schlager. James McAtee operated farther forward, supporting Delap with Ndoye.
Daniel Muñoz and Neco Williams continued as wing-backs.
Forest still had attacking players on the pitch, but the responsibilities between them had changed.
It is tempting to say that Gibbs-White’s absence explains everything. That would give one player too much responsibility for a team-wide performance.
Arsenal defended differently from Palace. Forest had far less possession, and the score remained level much longer. Against Palace, they had been chasing the match from the 59th minute, giving them more reason to commit players forward.
All of that affected how the chances developed.
Still, the selection change creates a question Glasner cannot ignore.
When Gibbs-White is unavailable, who takes responsibility for getting the ball from midfield into dangerous attacking areas?
Against Arsenal, Forest did not find a convincing answer.
Glasner needs more than another finisher
The obvious reaction after another defeat is to demand more from the forwards.
Delap could have used better service. Ndoye might have done more with his early opening. Forest could have been sharper with their final touches.
But asking the forwards to finish better will not solve a problem that begins before they receive the ball.
Forest need a more reliable way to connect their midfield with Delap and the runners around him.
One possibility worth testing is giving McAtee clearer supporting responsibilities when Forest win possession, while Ndoye or the nearest wing-back offers another passing option.
If Muñoz or Williams pushes forward, somebody such as Domínguez or Schlager must remain ready to protect the space behind them.
That choice comes with a cost. Keeping extra protection in midfield can mean committing fewer players to the penalty area. Sending more men forward creates greater exposure if possession is lost.
The published match evidence does not establish that a particular passing route was repeatedly available and ignored against Arsenal. This is a possible adjustment for a future match, not proof that Glasner rejected an obvious solution.
Forest’s next match against Ipswich will offer another opportunity to investigate it.
If Gibbs-White returns, can the team restore the attacking connections that helped create so much against Palace?
If he remains unavailable, can McAtee and the other midfielders find a way to provide Delap with better service?
Those questions matter more than whether Forest take 14 or 24 shots.
Against Palace, Forest created opportunities they should have made better use of. Against Arsenal, they spent too much of the game searching for those opportunities in the first place.
Glasner’s next job is to make sure his forwards have something worth finishing.
Sources
- Sky Sports — Crystal Palace 3–1 Nottingham Forest
- Sky Sports — Palace vs Forest statistics
- Sky Sports — Nottingham Forest 0–1 Arsenal
- Sky Sports — Forest vs Arsenal statistics
- Nottingham Forest — Arsenal team news
- Previous MATCHIQ research — Glasner against Palace
Evidence cutoff: 19 October 2026. Both statistical sets use the current Sky Sports figures.