Brentford’s 4-2-3-1 controlled the tempo through the ball, but the game’s rhythm swung dramatically. With 59% possession and 463 passes at 81% accuracy, they imposed a measured, territorial game, circulating through midfield and wide areas. Burnley, in a 3-4-2-1, accepted just 41% of the ball and 326 passes (79% accuracy), initially suffering as Brentford exploited spaces between their back three and wing-backs. The first half belonged to Brentford’s structure and spacing; they controlled both ball and territory. After the break, Burnley shifted the dynamic with more direct play and vertical runs, ceding possession but increasingly controlling the space behind Brentford’s full-backs and between their lines.
Offensive Efficiency
The shot profile underlines Brentford’s clearer attacking plan. They produced 16 total shots to Burnley’s 12, with a decisive edge in shots on goal (7 vs 3). Crucially, 13 of Brentford’s attempts came from inside the box, compared to Burnley’s 9, reflecting more consistent access to high-value central areas. Their expected goals (xG) of 2.25 versus Burnley’s 0.97 confirms that Brentford systematically generated better-quality chances rather than speculative efforts.
Eight Brentford corners to Burnley’s four show how often they pinned Burnley back and forced last-ditch interventions. The wide overloads and cut-backs suggested by those inside-box shots and corners fit a plan of repeatedly working the ball into the area rather than settling for long-range efforts (only 3 shots outside the box, same as Burnley). Burnley’s three shots on target from 12 attempts point to a lack of cutting edge; they needed a near-perfect conversion rate to match Brentford’s output but didn’t generate enough clean looks. Brentford, by contrast, married volume with quality, turning territorial control into sustained penalty-box pressure and, ultimately, a higher-scoring return.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
The foul count was balanced at 9–9, indicating a competitive but not overly cynical game. This was not an all-out disruptive contest; instead, both sides used tactical fouls selectively rather than systematically breaking up play. Each team collected two yellow cards, reflecting flashpoints rather than a sustained aggression-based strategy.
Defensively, Brentford’s goalkeeper faced only 3 shots on target and made 1 save, showing that their main protection came from structure and shot suppression rather than heroic keeping. Burnley’s keeper made 2 saves from 7 shots on target, and advanced metrics indicate that both goalkeepers actually conceded slightly more goals than post-shot models expected. Furthermore, Burnley's defense was frequently forced into last-ditch actions, throwing bodies on the line to block 5 of Brentford's shots. In contrast, Brentford's back line only needed to block 2 of Burnley's attempts, underlining how often the home side was under severe territorial and positional pressure.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Brentford’s controlled possession, superior chance quality (16 shots, 13 in the box, xG 2.25) and strong box defending outweighed Burnley’s reactive, more direct phases. Efficiency and territorial dominance turned Brentford’s ball control into a narrow but deserved away win, while Burnley’s late surge couldn’t fully compensate for earlier structural issues.
