Oliver Glasner’s preparations for Nottingham Forest’s October 18 meeting with Arsenal centred on a problem that was becoming difficult to ignore: his team were creating opportunities without scoring enough goals.
Forest approached the fixture with five Premier League goals and none at the City Ground. Their attacking output offered reasons for encouragement, but the gap between promising performances and disappointing results was placing greater importance on every missed chance.
Glasner’s response combined finishing work on the training ground with an effort to protect his players’ confidence. He also invited experienced striker Chris Wood to address the squad, recognising that a player familiar with the demands of scoring could contribute something different from the coaching staff.
The approach was measured rather than dramatic. Forest’s head coach believed there were productive elements worth preserving, even as the results demanded improvement.
Against the reigning champions, that belief faced a demanding examination.
A Problem Beyond the Goals Column
Forest’s scoring record presented an uncomfortable contrast. Before facing Arsenal, they ranked among the Premier League’s most frequent shooters but near the bottom for converting attempts into goals. That combination suggested an attack capable of generating activity without delivering sufficient reward.
The distinction matters when considering the appropriate response.
A team struggling to reach shooting positions needs different adjustments from one repeatedly failing to complete promising moves. Forest’s performances indicated that their difficulties could not be explained solely by a lack of attacking ambition.
Nevertheless, shooting volume alone did not establish that everything apart from finishing was functioning perfectly.
Attempts vary considerably in quality. A hurried shot under pressure and an unmarked effort near goal both count towards the total, despite presenting very different prospects.
For Glasner, the task was to preserve the movements creating opportunities while improving the decisions and execution that followed.
Wood Offers a Striker’s Perspective
One of Glasner’s clearest responses was to draw on Wood’s experience.
During a discussion about scoring, the head coach handed over to the striker rather than presenting himself as the only source of advice.
Wood’s message emphasised maintaining belief and remaining ready for the next opportunity. Glasner welcomed that contribution because it came from someone with extensive experience of the position and its pressures.
The episode revealed an important element of his management.
He was prepared to use expertise within the dressing room, allowing a senior player to reinforce the coaching message through personal understanding.
That does not mean Wood had taken responsibility for solving the entire attack. Nor does it establish that a team talk would produce an immediate improvement.
Its value lay in addressing how players respond to failure. A missed chance cannot be recovered, but allowing it to dominate the next decision can make an already difficult spell more damaging.
Training Addresses the Practical Work
Forest had been working on finishing in training before the Arsenal fixture.
That was a logical response, although the existence of finishing practice should not be confused with evidence that a rapid solution was guaranteed.
The challenge is to make training useful for the situations players encounter in matches.
Finishing involves more than striking technique. The timing of a run, the quality of the preceding pass, body position and awareness of defenders all affect the final attempt.
Repeated practice can improve familiarity and help players recognise an opening sooner. It can also reinforce the movements that bring teammates into useful positions.
The specific details of Forest’s sessions were not fully public, so claims about particular drills or individual changes would go beyond the available information.
What was clear was the intention: Glasner was addressing the issue directly while trying to avoid making every attacking action feel like a test of confidence.
Palace Defeat Provides the Strongest Example
The defeat at Crystal Palace illustrated both the encouragement and frustration in Glasner’s assessment.
Forest registered 24 attempts and struck the woodwork three times, yet left without the result their attacking work had threatened to produce.
For Glasner, the performance contained evidence that his team could create danger through different routes. Those opportunities gave him reasons to remain committed to the broader approach.
For supporters, however, the outcome offered a reminder that promising numbers do not replace points.
Both interpretations can be valid.
Forest could recognise the quality of parts of their performance while accepting that the failure to convert chances had consequences. The analytical mistake would be to treat the result as proof that every attacking movement was ineffective, or the chances as proof that improvement would happen automatically.
The match strengthened the case for targeted work. It did not remove the need for results.
Confidence Requires Careful Management
Glasner was particularly conscious of the danger that missed opportunities could become a psychological burden.
A forward who begins anticipating another failure may hesitate, take an unnecessary touch or attempt to force a finish before the opening is ready.
Those are general possibilities rather than a diagnosis of any individual Forest player. They explain why a coach might address confidence alongside technique.
Wood’s contribution fitted that approach.
The emphasis was on remaining available for the next chance instead of allowing earlier misses to dictate subsequent decisions.
There is a balance to maintain, however. Reassurance cannot become an excuse to overlook poor execution, and criticism can become counterproductive if it leaves players afraid to act.
Glasner’s public position sought to occupy the middle ground: acknowledge the scoring problem, continue practising and preserve the willingness to make the runs and take the shots that could eventually change it.
The City Ground Record Adds Pressure
Forest’s home record gave the Arsenal fixture additional significance.
They had failed to score in their first three home league matches of the season, collecting only one point from those games.
That sequence made the search for a breakthrough more urgent in front of their own supporters.
The contrast between attacking intention and the absence of home goals was becoming an important part of the early campaign. Every unsuccessful attack risked reinforcing the impression that another frustrating afternoon was developing.
Yet the home figures also required context.
Forest’s overall chance creation could not simply be transferred to the City Ground as though every performance had been identical. Their task was to produce convincing opportunities in that specific setting and then complete them.
Breaking the sequence would require a successful attacking action, but the foundations involved positioning, passing and movement before the finish.
Glasner needed the team to remain focused on those controllable details.
Arsenal Present a Different Test
Arsenal’s visit offered little room for assuming that Forest would create the same volume of opportunities as in previous matches.
Glasner highlighted the champions’ collective work rate as a major strength. His assessment went beyond their technical ability, recognising the effort required to sustain their football.
That observation carried tactical implications.
Forest would need to move the ball accurately enough to escape pressure and make intelligent decisions when attacking space appeared. A delayed pass or an isolated runner could allow Arsenal to recover their defensive shape.
The head coach nevertheless expressed confidence that his side could create worthwhile chances.
That was a statement of belief before the match, not confirmation of what would happen.
The likely requirement was efficiency: if Arsenal restricted the number of openings, Forest would have less room to waste those they earned.
Their preparations therefore needed to support composure without encouraging rushed attempts.
Availability Complicates the Preparation
Fitness concerns also formed part of the buildup.
Morgan Gibbs-White and Nikola Milenković were identified as doubts before the fixture, leaving Glasner to assess how their availability might affect his selection.
Gibbs-White’s situation was particularly relevant to an article about attacking improvement because the absence of a creative player can change how a team connects midfield with its forwards.
That does not mean Forest’s scoring difficulties could be attributed to one player’s fitness.
Attacking performance is collective, and the team still needed alternative routes to move the ball into dangerous areas.
The uncertainty did, however, add another practical consideration to the training work. Glasner had to prepare for different personnel possibilities while retaining a clear attacking structure.
Finishing practice was one part of that preparation. Ensuring that the available players could create the chances remained equally necessary.
Belief Must Eventually Produce a Return
Glasner’s approach before Arsenal was built on a distinction between an attack with no apparent direction and one failing to convert enough of its promising work.
He believed Forest belonged in the second category.
That assessment explained the finishing sessions, the emphasis on confidence and the decision to involve Wood in the message to the squad.
It also left a clear responsibility with the players and coaching staff. Encouraging performances needed to become more effective performances, measured through goals and results.
There was no confirmed guarantee that confidence would return immediately or that one successful finish would resolve every difficulty.
The more credible expectation was gradual improvement through repeated good decisions.
Against Arsenal, Forest faced a demanding opportunity to demonstrate that progress. Glasner’s challenge was to ensure his team approached the next chance with clarity, rather than carrying the weight of all the chances that had already gone.
