Maybe we have it with Victor. As for tactics, I'm wondering what was the purpose last night in Frieser, Woodrow and Chaplin just standing quite a way off Pinnock and the other centre backs, allowing the keeper to roll the ball out to them. Pinnock especially was put under no pressure, allowing him to stroke the ball about, directing a precise pass upfield. This helped Brentford retain possession of the ball. This tactic was so unlike previous games where the defenders were closed down quickly, giving them little time on the ball.
We were trying to stop them passing the ball into the middle of the pitch, so Woodrow kept dropping onto the DM of Brentford and Chaplin and Freiser would cut off the inside passing line and make the outside one (to the full back) look slightly more appealing. Doing this means that we can use the touchline as an extra defender and it requires the pass from the CB's to be very accurate. Our players know that this is the most logical 'out-ball' for Brentford so we can try to pinch the ball high up the pitch if a pass or touch is sloppy and Brentford are out of position. VI was losing his rag in the first half because we kept allowing them to play low passes into the strikers feet, who would then invariably bounce the ball back out wide and overload us on the flanks - fortunately Styles and Brittain did a great job in those duels. This is one of the problems of a front three, because we're essentially missing an extra defensive player behind the ball. The aim is to not let the ball get past the front three with ease. I thought our tactics were spot on yesterday but feel that we're lacking the physical presence. Chaplin gave the ball away too often last night and as soon as Victor was introduced he created two good chances with his physical prowess. If we hadn't conceded the set piece we'd be saying that it was a professional performance.