Brentford’s 4-2-3-1 controlled the ball and territory, while Burnley’s 3-4-2-1 tried to compress space and spring transitions. The numbers underline this: Brentford had 59% possession and completed 376 of 463 passes (81%), versus Burnley’s 41% and 256 of 326 passes (79%). That share of the ball allowed Brentford to dictate the tempo for long stretches, especially in the first half, circulating through double pivots and wide zones to pin Burnley’s wing-backs deep. Burnley, by contrast, accepted less of the ball but tried to control the central corridor with a back three plus two attacking midfielders ready to break. The fixture evolved into Brentford’s structured possession against Burnley’s more direct, momentum-based surges.
Offensive Efficiency
The attacking data shows Brentford as the more consistent chance creator. They registered 16 total shots to Burnley’s 12, with a clear edge in shots on goal (7 vs 3). Crucially, Brentford generated 13 shots inside the box, suggesting their possession was not sterile but engineered entries into dangerous central areas. Their xG of 2.25 reflects repeated high-quality looks, supported by 8 corners that kept Burnley under sustained pressure.
Burnley’s attack was more episodic. Twelve shots, nine inside the box, and 4 corners indicate that when they did advance, they could reach the area, but the lack of accuracy – only 3 shots on target – points to a relative lack of cutting edge. An xG of 0.97 versus 3 goals (plus one VAR-disallowed goal) suggests they relied on moments and efficiency rather than a steady stream of clear chances. The early second-half substitutions, introducing Lyle Foster and Lesley Ugochukwu at 46 minutes, signalled a deliberate shift to more vertical, front-loaded play, which temporarily tilted momentum without changing the underlying shot volume balance.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
Defensively, both sides kept the game relatively clean: 9 fouls each and just 2 yellow cards per team indicate no overtly disruptive pressing or tactical fouling strategy. Instead, the contest hinged more on compactness and box defending. Burnley's defense was forced to throw bodies on the line under sustained pressure, blocking 5 of Brentford's shots. In contrast, Brentford's back four and midfield screen only needed to block 2 of Burnley's attempts, highlighting which team spent more time defending their own penalty area.
Goalkeeping was not a dominant storyline statistically. Burnley’s keeper made 2 saves, Brentford’s just 1, which aligns with the limited number of on-target efforts from the hosts. Advanced metrics indicate that both goalkeepers actually conceded slightly more goals than post-shot models expected, underlining that neither goalkeeper significantly outperformed xG; defensive structures and finishing quality decided the outcome more than shot-stopping heroics.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Brentford’s controlled possession and sustained box presence (59% possession, 16 shots, 13 in the box, xG 2.25) outweighed Burnley’s intermittent but efficient surges. Burnley’s late pressure and opportunistic finishing could not fully compensate for Brentford’s superior territorial control and more consistent chance creation.
