Caoimhín Kelleher had to wait until the 79th minute to make his first save against Nottingham Forest.
By then, Brentford were already 2–0 ahead.
James McAtee sent a tame shot towards goal, and Kelleher gathered it without much difficulty. It was the only one of Forest’s 15 attempts that finished on target.
That was how Oliver Glasner’s side ended October: another defeat, another afternoon without a goal, and a manager who was no longer willing to explain everything through missed opportunities.
A week earlier, Forest had created enough chances against Ipswich to feel they should have won. The return of Morgan Gibbs-White had given their attack more options, and the team seemed to be finding its way into dangerous positions again.
Brentford was supposed to show whether that improvement could continue.
Instead, the 2–0 defeat exposed two problems. Forest were struggling to turn attacking possession into dangerous shots, and another direct ball from an opposition goalkeeper had contributed to a goal against them.
Glasner had plenty to address at both ends of the pitch.
One long ball put Forest behind
Forest had an opportunity to take the lead in the 24th minute.
McAtee carried the ball into Brentford’s penalty area, found room to shoot and curled his effort wide.
It was a promising opening, but Brentford had already shown they could threaten Forest without needing long periods of possession. Igor Thiago had also gone close after Mathias Jensen played him forward.
Six minutes after McAtee’s miss, Brentford struck.
Kelleher sent a long ball towards Dango Ouattara on the right. Ouattara advanced beyond Murillo, reached the byline and sent a low cross into the penalty area.
Nikola Milenković tried to deal with the delivery. Instead, he turned the ball into his own net.
Brentford led 1–0.
The speed of the move made it particularly damaging. Forest had gone from defending a goalkeeper’s long pass to conceding an own goal after a wide attack.
It was also the kind of situation Glasner would return to in his post-match comments.
The published accounts establish the main sequence: Kelleher’s long delivery, Ouattara’s run, the cross and Milenković’s attempted intervention.
They do not establish every defensive responsibility behind it. It remains unclear from those reports exactly where Forest lost control of the initial contest, how the supporting players were positioned and what alternative decision would have prevented the cross.
Those questions matter because Forest had already encountered problems against direct play earlier in the season.
For now, the immediate consequence was straightforward: another mistake to recover from, and another match in which the attackers had to find a way back.
Yates had the chance to change the afternoon
Glasner made two changes at half-time.
Ryan Yates replaced Xaver Schlager, while Daniel Muñoz came on for Ola Aina.
Forest began to spend more time in Brentford’s half. Gibbs-White helped move the ball into attacking areas, and the visitors started finding opportunities around the penalty box.
In the 54th minute, Gibbs-White sent a cross towards Yates.
The midfielder arrived close to goal and met it with a stooping header. He could not keep the ball down.
It flew over the crossbar.
That was Forest’s clearest opportunity to equalise.
There is an important difference between a player missing a difficult attempt from distance and failing to direct a close-range header towards goal. Yates had reached a position from which Forest could reasonably expect to threaten the goalkeeper.
Kelleher was not forced to intervene.
Forest continued pushing forward. Arnaud Kalimuendo, introduced for Dan Ndoye, had an attempt blocked by Sepp van den Berg. Gibbs-White also threatened from a corner, but Thiago cleared his effort.
Brentford were defending more often now, though Forest still could not turn their pressure into a goal.
In the 76th minute, the home side struck again.
Aaron Hickey and Jaidon Anthony were involved in moving the ball into a dangerous position. Anthony supplied Thiago, whose shot deflected off Milenković and struck the underside of the crossbar before crossing the line.
Milenković had now been involved in both goals, although in different circumstances. The first was an attempted clearance that became an own goal. The second was Thiago’s shot taking a deflection.
Reducing both incidents to one defender making the same error would hide those differences.
Three minutes later, McAtee finally made Kelleher work.
Forest had left themselves too much to recover.
The attack had looked very different at Ipswich
For Glasner, the Brentford defeat was especially frustrating because his team had recently shown it could create better chances.
On 11 October, Forest took 24 shots against Crystal Palace and generated 3.34 expected goals, according to Sky Sports.
They lost 3–1.
The attacking opportunities were there. The goals were not.
A week later, Arsenal presented a different problem. Forest managed 14 shots, but only 0.90 expected goals in Sky Sports’ currently displayed statistics.
They struggled to move the ball into dangerous positions.
Gibbs-White had missed that game with a muscular problem, leaving Glasner with fewer established connections between midfield and attack.
His return against Ipswich on 23 October helped change the picture.
Forest scored through Neco Williams, took 17 shots and put five on target. Their opportunities were worth 2.29 expected goals.
They still drew 1–1.
At the time, MATCHIQ’s assessment was that Forest had recovered an important part of their attacking threat. The problem had shifted towards making better use of those chances while avoiding defensive mistakes.
Against Brentford, the evidence became less encouraging.
Forest’s 15 shots produced just 0.85 expected goals. Their expected goals on target — a separate measure that takes shot placement into account — stood at only 0.10.
Against Ipswich, that latter figure had been 1.05.
These numbers are not interchangeable. Expected goals estimate the quality of shooting opportunities before the shot is taken; expected goals on target evaluate attempts that actually reach the goal.
Together, they help explain what happened at Brentford.
Forest did not simply repeat their Ipswich performance and fail to score. They created less threatening opportunities, and their shooting gave Kelleher almost nothing to deal with.
That distinction changes what Glasner needs from his attackers.
Better finishing alone will not help if Forest cannot regularly create the kind of chances they found at Portman Road.
Gibbs-White’s return remains valuable. It cannot guarantee the same attacking performance against opponents who defend differently.
And while Forest were searching for that consistency, the problem at the other end had become harder to ignore.
Glasner recognised a familiar problem
After the defeat, Glasner said Forest had conceded four times following long balls from opposition goalkeepers.
There is independently verifiable evidence of at least one earlier example.
On 19 September, Coventry City goalkeeper Carl Rushworth played a long ball forward. Jay Dasilva controlled it and finished past Matz Sels to give Coventry a 1–0 victory.
The Premier League’s official report identifies Rushworth’s delivery as the starting point.
The Brentford goal also began with a goalkeeper’s long ball, but the subsequent attack was different.
Dasilva received the ball and finished himself against Forest. Ouattara advanced down the right and crossed before Milenković’s own goal.
The two incidents establish that Forest have been hurt more than once by direct deliveries from goalkeepers.
They do not yet establish that the same defensive responsibility failed in both cases.
Glasner has spoken about four such concessions. Without independently reconstructing the other two, and checking the first challenge and supporting defensive positions in each incident, it would be premature to prescribe one tactical solution for all four.
Glasner’s response nevertheless marked a change in tone.
Earlier in October, he had repeatedly pointed to positive performances and encouraged his players to maintain confidence.
After Brentford, he spoke about having made too many compromises and said changes were necessary.
He had not, at that point, confirmed a new formation or identified a particular player who would lose his place.
What he had made clear was that he no longer considered the current results acceptable.
Better performances have to become better results
There is still a credible case for Forest’s attacking approach.
They have created meaningful opportunities against several opponents. At Palace, they repeatedly reached dangerous positions. Against Ipswich, they threatened the goal with different players and forced important defensive interventions.
Those performances should not be dismissed because of one poor afternoon at Brentford.
They also make Forest’s league position more concerning.
After nine Premier League matches, Glasner’s side have scored just six goals. They have failed to score in five of those games and won only once.
Opposition goalkeepers have contributed to that record. So have defensive blocks, missed opportunities and the changing quality of chances from one opponent to another.
None of those explanations removes the manager’s responsibility to find more reliable ways of scoring.
The next test is Manchester City’s visit to the City Ground on 7 November.
Forest do not need to reach an arbitrary number of shots to show improvement. They need to create opportunities that force the goalkeeper into meaningful saves and, when direct balls threaten their defence, show they understand how to deal with the next action.
Glasner has promised changes. The useful evidence will come from the decisions he makes and the responsibilities his players carry out.
Against Ipswich, Forest showed they could create chances.
Against Brentford, they showed how quickly that progress can disappear when the chances become less dangerous and another defensive mistake changes the match.
Glasner’s next task is to connect those parts of the game. Forest need enough attacking quality to score, and enough defensive reliability to make those goals count.
Sources and related MATCHIQ research
- Brentford FC — Brentford 2–0 Nottingham Forest
- Sky Sports — Match report and Glasner’s comments
- Sky Sports — Brentford vs Nottingham Forest statistics
- Premier League — Nottingham Forest 0–1 Coventry City
- Nottingham Forest — Glasner’s Ipswich assessment
- MATCHIQ — Forest Found the Chances. Not the Win.
- MATCHIQ — Forest Had 14 Shots Against Arsenal. Where Did the Chances Go?