Filled in at Fulham
Fulham 4 Burnley 0, 12th December
1998
Tim Quelch
How
can I begin to describe this shambles? I could say that they were ‘outclassed’,
‘outfought’ and ‘totally humiliated’. But that would merely flatter
them. The monumental incompetence of this performance was taken to a new dimension,
rendering all damning expressions as wholly inadequate. Do they think that we’ve all
tuned into Buddhism, that we can put up this kind of indignity?
I have been watching Burnley for almost thirty
years. In that time, they’ve turned in more than their fair share of desperately
dismal performances. But even when in their most comatosed, ‘I think I shall lie down
and quickly die’ mode, they’ve always managed at least one goal-bound effort.
That is, until today. Of course Fulham are a good side. Given Al Fayed’s investment,
they bloody well should be. But that’s no excuse. Hartlepool ran Fulham very close
last weekend and Leigh held them to a draw. Burnley could and should have competed. They
didn’t, being absolutely clueless where to start.
From the beginning, Fulham denied Burnley space,
harassing their midfielders and quickly closing down their defenders. With Burnley’s
midfield shackled, Cooke and Payton were totally adrift, relying on Crichton for service.
The only accurate passes were those back to him and all clearances ended up as hopeless
high punts. Burnley’s three at the back, Heywood, Brass and Reid worked hard enough,
trying to contend with Peschisolido’s darting runs, Hayles’ blistering pace and
Horsefield’s power. But these three were never enough. The wingbacks ended up playing
as fullbacks and Armstrong and Ford spent an inordinate amount of time in their own box,
mostly getting in the way. Even with a nine-man defence, Burnley couldn’t keep Fulham
out. First, Simon Morgan crashed in a header from an oblique left wing cross. Then he
stabbed in a loose ball at close range following a poorly defended right wing corner.
The only way that Burnley could have damaged
Fulham was on the ground. For Symons, Coleman and Morgan just gobbled up Burnley’s
lofted forward balls. But to play effectively on the ground requires control, movement and
decisiveness. Burnley failed miserably on all three counts. If they could have mustered
some quick one -twos and probing runs, they might have created more space and exerted some
pressure. But they seemed incapable of doing this.
In order to find some space, Ternent substituted
the hopeless Hewlett with right winger Brad Maylett at the start of the second half.
Robertson moved into midfield and Brass took over at right back in a flat back four. I
should say that O’Kane was supposedly the fourth man. But he’d be better
described as a hole in the air. We’re talking very inert gases in that hole, too.
What does Ternent see in this guy? Did Howey et al play so much worse than he does?
Anyway, Cooke and Payton didn’t get any better service as a result of these changes.
The only difference was at the other end, where Fulham found acres of space in which to
run into. Only the Cottagers' carelessness prevented them running up a colossal goal
tally. As it was both Peschisolido and Hayles scored with scorching drives and that was
pretty much that.
Although this was a frightful display, I would
like to exonerate Brian Reid. I thought he performed magnificently. He may look like a
games period slacker, lolloping on a punishment run. You know the type. Those wasters that
are caught playing scissors / rock / paper with the goalie and end up being made to run
twice round the field. Today, he was terrific. Mattie Heywood tried hard, too. But so did
most of them. Effort isn’t the issue. It’s nous, technique and tactics. And
here, Stan should have something to contribute.
I welcomed Stan’s appointment. I thought he
might sharpen Burnley up, remove the sloppiness. I suppose I thought we had a reasonable
team that could become a good one with the right management. I think he felt the same way.
I’m not going to write him off on the back of this debacle, even though it closely
follows on from those at Bournemouth, Middlesborough and Preston. Not yet anyway. After
all, he has been largely forced into making a bewildering number of team changes.
That’s not been his choice. His hand has been forced because of the appalling injury
crisis. But I have to take issue with the way he presents himself.
Peter Shackleton was right. The peremptory
‘sacking’ of the ‘Gang of Four’ was poor business. Like many others, I
applauded this at first. I guess we were looking for strong leadership, ‘line in the
sand’ stuff. But you don’t get much for your motor if you tell a prospective
buyer that it’s a crock of shite. Burnley needs all the cash it can muster. Too
often, it has obtained poor value from outgoing sales. This isn’t exactly hard-headed
business, is it, Stan?
I don’t like the way he distances himself
from poor performances, either. This is not bad management; it’s non-management.
Sure, it pisses you off when you have to front a massive cock-up. It’s embarrassing
and infuriating especially when some toe rag employee has left you with cack on your
hands. But you never, never say it’s got nothing to do with you. The art lies in
acknowledging the fault, being able to convince others that you really mean it, that
you’ve got the situation in hand and that you are getting it sorted. It calls for
calmness without complacency and decisiveness without recrimination. If you need to get
mad and that shouldn’t always follow, then you must save your mug throwing for a
private showdown.
Stan talked a good talk, but can he do the walk?
Was he so arrogant that he thought he could turn things around with a flick of his
charisma? If Stan thinks that by distancing himself, threatening resignation or, even more
bizarrely, suicide will help him gain or retain respect, he should think again. It’s
a cop out and anyone with half a brain cell knows that. I read it as him not being able to
hack it. I hope he proves me wrong before the Directors get the same idea.
Stan will be judged by what happens in the
second part of this season. At present, he has one superb performance credited to him;
Colchester, away (definitely a solitary swallow), and one goodish one; Man City, away. The
rest have ranged between adequate and dross, with a definite tendency towards the latter.
The euphoria at the Reading performance was justified in that we got out of jail with a
spirited ten-man show. But Reading’s inexplicable caution let us back in. They should
have buried us. Our first half display was abysmal. Stan has shown that he can stir the
team into action at half time. But Jimmy Mullen could do that, too. For a while. Stan
shouldn’t confuse passion with impetuosity, or gratuitous volatility, for that
matter. Certainly, he’d do well to moderate his gob while locating his brain.
At present we are a poor team with some good
players. Stan’s talk of achieving the play-offs is high calibre crap. This is as much
a relegation battle as last year. Fortunately, we’ve gained a few more points than at
the same stage last season, but the Christmas games will be vital. We may not need fifty
points for safety, but we’re rapidly approaching the 23rd game and we
still need two more points to be half way there. I just hope to Christ that we don’t
have to put up with another Fulham or Bournemouth ever again. I’d even settle for a
season’s amnesty. But I’m not confident. There’s no sugar daddy and
there’s no bloody messiah.
Team: Crichton,
Robertson, O’Kane, Ford, Heywood, Reid, Armstrong, Hewlett (Maylett 46), Cooke
(Henderson 73), Payton, Brass. SNU: Eastwood.
Links - Firmo's report and the triumphant home game
