Notts County’s managing
director, Geoff Davey, complimented Burnley’s ‘excellent hospitality’ in
his programme column. On today’s evidence, the Clarets are prepared to extend this
generosity to their hosts, too. Their charity at Meadow Lane was of Oxfam proportions.
They should have won this game at a canter. ‘Thieving Magpies’? Not at all.
Burnley can only blame themselves for this failure. Surely, the referee gifted County
their opening goal in the 13th minute, seeing no fault when Branch was
blatantly obstructed as he attempted to clear. Ramage seized the loose ball and delivered
a low cross from the right for Angell to score with a diving header. However, Burnley had
at least ten good opportunities to reverse this injustice. Payton’s penalty on 70
minutes was the best of these. Unfortunately, he blasted the chance straight at Ward.
Incidentally, Ward was named as County’s ‘man of the match’. It said
something of the pressure his defence had to withstand, particularly in the second half.
What went wrong? The main problem was the quality of Burnley’s
final ball. Cook, Mellon and Little were superb in their forward running. They all created
or helped to create excellent scoring opportunities. Regrettably, they squandered most of
the chances that their industry and skill set up. True, Davis’ header from
Little’s corner hit the crossbar in the 41st minute and Payton twice
headed weakly at Ward when well placed. True, Ward had to scramble to clear from Branch
immediately after Angell had headed County into a 2-0 lead. But Ward should have been
tested more severely given that his defence was under siege for much of the second half.
The County programme featured some telling statistics on Glen
Little. His dribbling completion record for this season is 75%. This is a magnificent
achievement. On most occasions he has a least two men marking him and yet he wriggles
clear on three-quarters of occasions. However, his cross completion record is 30%. This is
not good enough for a player of his skills. I suspect that he won’t go much higher
until he improves this. I remember Terry Cochrane had the same shortcoming, although he
played for Middlesbrough in the First Division for a spell and represented Northern
Ireland. I wonder too, whether Glen is sometimes guilty of over elaboration. Of course, it
looks good as he beats his men all ends up, not once but twice or three times. However,
this gives the central defenders time to position themselves for the cross. The cross
which set up Cooke’s equaliser at Luton was delivered quickly. Is there a lesson
here? Nevertheless, it might help Glen if Burnley managed to get more men into the box to
support him. His twists and turns are sometimes necessary to allow the front runners to
catch up.
Cook also had a lot of the ball in this game but he spoilt a lot of
the good work by pinging hopeless centres well wide of the Burnley front men. Mellon, too,
scared the life out of the cumbersome County defenders with his thrusting runs down the
middle and along the left flank only to waste the final ball through indecision. Mullin
had some good runs as well but had a bit of an in-out game.
Although Thomas and Davis did well at the back for the most part,
both made errors which could have led to further County goals. For example, Davis’
poor clearance on 24 minutes gave Stallard the opportunity to chip Crichton. Fortunately,
the ball hit the crossbar and was scrambled clear. Is it just my idiosyncratic view that
Davis appears to be slowing? He never was the paciest of defenders but he now appears to
be decidedly laboured.
I was also concerned by Stan’s selection of Branch at left
back. Branch did a number of really good things going forward. For example, a brilliant
cross-field run in the 40th minute gave Little an opportunity to put the County
defence under severe pressure. He was also perilously close to putting Burnley back in the
game on 62 minutes. However, County’s greatest threats in the first half came from
their right flank. Three times in the first fifteen minutes, Ramage got behind our defence
in the inside right channel to set up dangerous chances. Fortunately, Cook and Mitchell
blocked the first two crosses although Angell got his head decisively to the third. He was
perhaps fortunate that his clumsy challenge in the 22nd minute didn’t
result in a penalty. Yes, it would have been harsh but we’ve all seen them given.
Like many other travelling Clarets, I would like to know what is wrong with Tom Cowan? He
is a better defender and no slouch going forward. Has his form dipped so alarmingly since
last year? Of course, Stan is in a better position to judge.
Let’s be positive, though. It was evident that Stan thought
that he could win this game and selected a side to achieve that. On another day, Burnley
might have scored five and we would all be purring about the performance, just as we did
after the Colchester show of last year. We shouldn’t forget that Burnley played some
good football at times in this game although Stan thought otherwise. He said that this
performance was ‘totally unacceptable’ despite Burnley having thirteen efforts
on goal (nine on target – twice what we managed at Reading). Perhaps he was more
concerned by the nine efforts that County managed on the break? Stan knows that success
rests upon a mean defence. Having conceded eight in the last three games, our defensive
fortress has been well and truly breached. Let’s hope that Coventry don’t
shatter our defenders’ confidence entirely next Saturday. Certainly, we will have to
defend free kicks better than we did in the 62nd minute at Meadow Lane. Angell
was given a free header. Perhaps this is why the rumours persist about the possible
signing of Gary Ablett. It remains to be seen whether this defeat is just another
momentary wobble or something much worse. Uncharacteristically, I’m going for the
optimistic view.
Team: Crichton, West (Swan),
Branch (Smith), Mellon, Davis, Thomas, Little, Cook, Cooke (Jepson), Payton, Mullin.
Subs not used: Weller, Johnrose.
