All runs come to an end. That's why it was such a magnificent achievement to go 30 games unbeaten in 1920-21, and why it remains unmatched. So our run of 12 ended against the side at the top of the table. There is no shame in this. It isn’t always terribly easy to admit, but sometimes we play a team that are better than us, and sometimes that team wins. That's what happened against Portsmouth.
Defeat will always bring disappointment, naturally. After our stirring performances at Leicester and Ipswich, this was a game to anticipate. The two form sides would play each other, and there were grounds to hope we might get something from it, and in doing so establish our credentials as contenders. So it was disappointing in the sense that we learned we cannot currently match a table-topping team. Pity, but that doesn’t mean we’re a bad side. In any case, the real disappointments so far were the abject defeats to obviously poor sides like Reading and Brighton. This didn't come close. We're better than that now.
I was surprised by Portsmouth. I had expected to find them overrated, but they turned out to be a good team. I had a vague belief that the quality of this division wasn't high and Portsmouth would epitomise that as mediocre leaders, but I may be wrong. Their forward players were excellent: slick, skilful, and always pressing our defenders. True, they looked a little vulnerable at the back, but their emphasis was on attack. Don't take them for a one man team, either. Merson has quality that is obvious at this level, albeit he runs out of steam, but they have other useful players. The neophyte Stone, who I had been tempted to dismiss as a has-been, looked anything but, running, passing and prompting. Todorov is a player I like too, possessing quick feet, and Matthew Taylor impressed. Perhaps the least appealing thing about them was their gold strip, complete with curious sponsor's splodge.
People have criticised Portsmouth for throwing money around, but can you blame them? Sure, it’s a bit tongue in cheek for Redknapp to claim they haven’t made merry with the current account, as we all know it’s wages and not transfer fees that cost the earth these days, but why should we dislike them for having the wherewithal to challenge? As others are weak, they’ve realised this is their best chance of promotion and have acted accordingly. Would we have done different in their position? In the past I've regarded Portsmouth as a joke club, with a massive squad of non-achieving players and an inclination to employ hopeless managers, but the current vintage is different. They've still got a huge squad, but the difference is that some of them are good, and a credible manager picks the team. Money talks of course – while Redknapp has signed more than a whole XI since the end of last season, we’ve had a month of Lenny Johnrose and Marlon on loan – but money alone is never enough. On the strength of this game, they would appear to have invested wisely. Promotion must be theirs to blow.
Despite all this, it's possible that we lost simply because we didn't see any nuns. Nuns are good. If we see them, we know we won't get beat. If we speak to them it's even better. Wins at Derby and Sheffield Wednesday were both preceded by conversations with nuns. Not so here. In the face of this, all other omens were null. Even the Claret line number 16 bus we spied in Leeds did not bring an Ian Moore goal. (It was quickly followed by a Blackburn's waste disposal lorry. Slogan: we pay money for waste. Quite.)
And so to three o’clock at Turf Moor, where me and my brother watched the game from an unaccustomed position in the Longside lower tier. Every so often it's nice to try something different, but I can't say I'd go back. You don't get a particularly good view of anything, you get the sun in your eyes and you don't even get the magnificent view over the moors. Anyway, we lined up unchanged, the match kicked off, and it quickly became apparent that Portsmouth were going to score.
Stone prompted the first goal, finding a lot of space before him as we stood off. Todorov played it in and Quashie finished the swift attack with a hard, true shot. Stan responded by stiffening the midfield, bringing on Weller for Moore. We needed this change, as that was where Portsmouth were winning. Perhaps Stan could be criticised for getting his tactics wrong at the start, but what else was he to do? It had worked alright at Leicester and Ipswich, and we hardly have a rich squad brimming with midfield potential. That's why Davis is where he is, after all. A Portsmouth fan after the match suggested we might have been better trying to contain them, but we don't have the players to do that job, do we? We had to try to attack, but they did it better.
Despite the extra midfielder, Portsmouth continued to have the better chances. We were guilty, perhaps, of giving them too much respect, and certainly too much space. They attacked at will down our left, where Branch was uncomfortable and exposed, with a Briscoe-shaped hole in front of him. TLC Arthur also looked suddenly error-prone too. It was one of those games where you knew the next goal would be decisive, and we were a little fortunate not to have conceded it by half time. Merson and Todorov both had good chances to score as our defence was dragged hither and thither.
Now for the next challenge: getting food. When the interval comes, Burnley do not give the impression that they are a club in need of your money. How can one food stand have no pies and another piles of them, by the way? One other thing to report was the extraordinary number of young lads wearing checked caps. Why on earth would anyone wear these badges of yobdom, unless they want to be taken as yobs?
But – here we go – my main gripe with the supporters around me was their constant, unremitting negativity. Even after an unbeaten run and in a big game, the lack of positive support at Turf Moor is sickening. No one around us had a good word to say about Burnley.
We had the Branch-haters behind us, for whom all that went wrong was Graham's fault. Thus when we went forward he should have been supporting the attack and when Portsmouth broke back he shouldn't have gone forward! Even when Portsmouth exploited West's vulnerability on the right, it was somehow Branch's fault for failing to cover. I don't for a moment think that Branch had a good game – he was at fault for the first goal – but here was a player playing out of position and with no midfield protection against two players with considerable Premier League and even international experience. What do you expect? And why single out Branch when other players – such as West and Briscoe – were no better?
All Branch's good performances for Burnley have taken place away from home. Why could this be?
It wasn't just Branch who was a target. For the people to our left, Gareth Taylor was the thing obviously wrong with the side. Particularly depressing to hear was one kid parroting the anti-Taylor line he must have known his dad wanted to hear. But beyond this negativity was the lack of any positive support. When I attempted to shout words of encouragement, the young couple in front turned round and smirked, apparently finding my attempt to urge the team on amusing. This was when I realised something: no one around us was trying to give the team any support. People couldn’t criticise quickly enough when things went wrong, and misplaced passes, mistimed runs, mishit shots earned the crowd’s ire, but not a word was offered for anything we did right. Not once did I hear ‘well done’ or 'unlucky' or 'well played'.
It’s been said before, but we can't expect perfection from our players. I expect commitment, hard work and attacking intent, and certainly during the second half, I think we got that. But I don't expect some kind of magic blend between Brazil and Real Madrid. I know our players aren't the best. If they were, they wouldn't be here. If Little was a complete player, someone would have signed him by now. If Gnohere didn't have flaws in his game, ditto. If Taylor was the best centre forward in the division, he wouldn't have come to Burnley on a free transfer. This is our reality. What we have is a decent bunch of players, some with a lot of talent, who try hard and are managed well. They're better than a lot of teams, but sometimes they get turned over. They do many good things, but they cock things up too. It's also the case that for people of my generation, the Burnley team of the last few years is the best we've ever seen. We should be thankful.
Lord help me, I want to go to more home games because I want to support my club when financial times are hard. But how depressing is the atmosphere? Away games are a different world. Sure, we have our clutch of hard-core Burberry-topped brain donors, and they’re a problem, but most of the away crowd are there to support their team. Away crowds generally give a damn. They've made an effort to get to the game and they want to back their team. Home crowds give the impression of having strolled up looking forward to a good whinge. What can be done about this? I swear when that first goal hit the net there were people who took satisfaction because it meant they were right. Can't these people try supporting Burnley sometime?
It was a shame because Burnley actually gave them something to support in the second half. It seems strange to say about a half in which we conceded two, but for much of it, we looked the stronger side. Our two key creative players, Blake and Little, got more into the game now, Blake in particular sparking promising moves and always looking to turn to work an opening, while TLC Arthur got a grip at the back. Against this I’d put our utter lack of ideas at free kicks and hopelessness at corners, almost all of which we took short. Does anyone understand the point of short corners? You spend all game trying to get into a position to cross, so why not take the chance when it comes?
It was, unfortunately, from one of our corners that Portsmouth scored the second and decisive goal. West lost the ball, failed to get back, and Todorov had space to shoot. Marlon should have saved it, but somehow allowed the slow shot to bounce in front of him, over, and in. A soft goal, and a bad piece of keeping. Still, without wanting to labour the point, Marlon isn’t the best on the planet and sometimes he makes mistakes, but mostly he’s a good keeper, and amongst the best we could get for not very much money. I dare say NTG would have let in more soft goals in the last 13, and I know who I’d rather have.
Game over, really, as having to go forward we’d always leave ourselves vulnerable. Still, we had a go. Stan did the right thing, bringing on Maylett for Branch and later Papa for Cox. Might as well lose 3-0 and all that. We still had chances, particularly a close range miss by Blake from Maylett’s cross, but the gift to get back into the match was the penalty, given for Stone’s handball. I think handball penalties are usually harsh, but we seem to be getting them. Somehow, though, I always felt West was going to miss. I couldn’t get excited. So it proved as West stepped up, leaned back and blasted over. Rotten penalty. Shouldn’t a striker take them?
Deflated, we knew our chance of getting back into it had gone. Still we pressed – Blake had a shot cleared off the line – but Portsmouth got the inevitable third from a counter attack, Stone moving swiftly through space to play Harper through to an unmissable place. Then of course I upped and left, giving all the people who’d spent not a second backing their team a chance to criticise me for leaving a few minutes early. I was sorry to go, but the Three Goal Rule is a rule and rules have to obeyed. Still it didn’t feel right to be leaving, as this wasn’t a horrorshow and we hadn’t caved in. This was no Reading. Portsmouth deserved the win, but not the scoreline. It wasn’t that one-sided.
It was a defeat to take some heart from. We’ll play like that again and beat teams less good than Portsmouth. If we continue to play like that we’ll certainly achieve our aim of staying in the division, and that will do. Don't forget that success will be measured this season by staying in the division and avoiding administration, and on both fronts thing are much more encouraging now than they were back in August. If only our miserable home supporters would start bucking their ideas up.
Subs not used: Cook and Grant.
Scorers: Quashie (21), Todorov (58), Harper (86).
Attendance: 15,788.
Referee: the picky Mike 'Battenburg' Clattenburg (Northumberland).
Firmo's man of the match: Robbie Blake.
Balti pie-ometer: 6/10. Not as good as the start of the season.
It's not the end of the world