Editorial
Issue 136
How
often have we grumbled; ‘trust Burnley to foul up when it really matters’? I
know I’ve done this many, many times. I was at it again after the recent Gillingham
debacle. And yet despite Burnley’s many struggles, their record in crucial matches
since 1987 is very good. If we start with that Orient game, we can add York (’92),
Plymouth and Stockport (’94), Wrexham (’96), Plymouth, again, (’98), Fulham
(’99) and now Scunthorpe. All of those games had a critical bearing on how our season
ended. Against this record of success, there is perhaps just a solitary failure, Torquay
(’91). Portsmouth (’95) might qualify, although I’m unconvinced that
victory on that blustery, wet afternoon would have granted First Division survival. The
damage had already been done. I discount Wembley ’88 on the grounds that the Auto
Squeegy / Daft Van competition has always been just a side-play.
For all that, Burnley have rarely exhibited this
toughness on a consistent basis. Admittedly, Jimmy Mullen turned them into a hard-to-beat
side in 1991/92. Remember in that season how we can back twice from two goal deficits at
Walsall and Scunthorpe? But until Stan helped establish a ‘never-say-die’ spirit
this term, such fighting qualities have often been more evident in the opposition. Now our
strength of character is writ large in some basic statistics. This season, we’ve
achieved nineteen clean sheets in the league (twenty-two in all), won over 75% of games
with a single goal advantage and only failed to bounce back from a league defeat once.
Since the Christmas period, we’ve also managed an undefeated run of eleven away games
and scored vital last minute goals against Oxford (twice), Bury, Gillingham and Notts
County. In fact, 25% of our goals (many of these were crucial) have been scored during the
last fifteen minutes, which probably also reflects our improved fitness levels as well as
Stan’s astute substitutions. We’ve not always played well but now neither
inferiority nor adversity determines our results. Look at what happened at Stoke and
against Bristol Rovers and Bury at home.
This strength of character emerged belatedly
during the ‘98/99 season as we made a brilliant and unexpected recovery from
impending relegation (five wins and six draws). This year, after Luton had seemingly
drowned our promotion hopes, we managed an even better run in (nine wins, three draws and
just a single defeat). I know the squad needs strengthening but I believe that Stan’s
side has greater bottle than Jimmy Mullen’s team of ’94. It also has greater
ability. That is why I feel we will make a better fist of things in our return to the
First Division, providing our squad maintains form and fitness. Nevertheless, it might be
interesting to compare the class of ’94 with that of ’00. Here’s my view.
Goalkeeper: Crichton v
Beresford
At the end of last season, this wouldn’t
have been a contest. Now it is much closer. I still think that Beresford is the better
shot stopper but some of the brilliant reflex saves Crichton has pulled out this season
challenges that judgement (remember his performances at home against Millwall and away at
Gillingham and Brentford?). Crichton is sometimes vulnerable on crosses, tending to punch
when under pressure. But Beresford wasn’t always assured on crosses either. As
regards kicking, Crichton is clearly better. Beresford was painfully one-footed whereas
Crichton is fairly comfortable using either foot. Beresford’s poor kicking sometimes
cost us dearly (e.g. at Middlesbrough ’94, at home to Bristol Rovers ‘97).
Criticisms have been made of Crichton’s positioning. Some say he is slow to come off
his line. However, Beresford’s positioning was sometimes at fault, too. Luton’s
second goal at Kenilworth Road in ’97 was a case in point. But overall, I believe
Beresford is the better ‘keeper, not by that much, though, if Crichton maintains his
current form. It is difficult to argue with Crichton’s twenty-two clean sheets; our
best record for almost twenty years. Nevertheless, we still need experienced cover in this
position. Ronnie Jepson won’t do.
Full / wing backs: Parkinson
v West / Little and Vinnicombe v Branch / Armstrong / Smith
Parkinson was a better footballer than
West. He had better ball skills and passing ability but he neither had West’s
battling quality nor his pace. On balance, I think I’d rather have West in my side
but only if he’s supported by more skilful footballers – Cox, Davis, Thomas,
Little, Cook. I don’t think using Little as a wing back is a solution. In this role
Little has less opportunity to hurt the opposition in dangerous areas. We really need a
better right back but we probably can’t afford one given other priorities. However,
as was the case in ’94, a replacement left back is a high priority if Stan plans to
use a flat back four. Ironically, I thought Tom Cowan had resolved this problem but Stan
has decided otherwise. At the end of the ‘98/99 season, I would have put Cowan ahead
of Vinnicombe but that seems to be history. Cowan was a better tackler and stronger in the
air. He also had the considerable bonus of having a long throw. Vinnicombe was an assured
footballer but seemed more effective going forward than defending, being probably more
comfortable in the wing back role. As far as the current incumbents are concerned, neither
Branch nor Smith is Vinnicombe’s equal (if we judge them against the pre-Bernal
Vinnicombe). Armstrong was, though. I thought he played pretty well in that position this
season before injury forced a change. Despite that, I would be surprised if he made it at
First Division level again. As for Branch and Smith, neither were adequate Second Division
full backs so I can’t see them making the grade at a higher level. Nevertheless,
Branch must be credited for his utility. He’s done a lot to confound our earlier
criticisms. He might even prove to be a passable First Division left wing back but I think
he is an inferior player to David Eyres. Smith continues to frustrate us with glimpses of
real ability – remember his beautifully flighted crosses for goals by Payton (against
Colchester ’99) and Cooke (against Manchester City ’98)? Certainly, he has not
made much progress since ‘96/97 although allowances must be made for his injuries. As
things stand, he’s no more than a reserve wing back and some way behind the guy he
was supposed to replace; David Eyres.
Centre backs: Davis,
Winstanley, Pender and Hoyland v Cox, Davis, Thomas, Armstrong
While comparisons in the full / wing back
department might be inconclusive, Burnley’s centre backs of 2000 are much better than
their predecessors of ’94, even though this means putting Davis against himself.
Winstanley had pace but was probably no quicker than Cox and Cox is certainly a far
superior footballer. Thomas is as robust as Pender ever was and much more skilful, to
boot. Mind you, would Pender have been seen dead in that ‘jacket’? (Remember the
pre Coventry TV interview?) Cox is also some way ahead of Hoyland in the sweeper role and
Armstrong is at least his equal. Of course, it remains to be seen whether Davis is as
effective in 2000/01 as he was in ‘94/95. He’s looked better this year when
supported by both Cox and Thomas in central defence. Also, is it entirely coincidental
that most of Davis’ ‘99/00 goals were scored after Cox joined him at the back.
With the defence shored up, Stevie has had more freedom to venture forward, as at Cardiff,
for example. I think Stan has a bit of dilemma. Playing three centre backs gives us
greater solidity at the back but reduces our attacking options. On the other hand, we
haven’t looked too clever when employing a flat back four (look at the number of
goals we’ve conceded in the final weeks). This may point up defensive weaknesses in
midfield, of course.
Midfield: Harper / Hoyland /
Deary v Johnrose, Joyce / Randall / Thompson v Cook / Mellon, Francis / McMinn v Little,
Eyres v Mullin / Branch
Johnrose wins his contest with Harper hands
down. I put him some way ahead of Hoyland, too – more bite, more pace and equally
good in the air. John Deary at his best would have given Lenny more competition but I
think Johnrose (post Christmas) shades this one as well. It has taken me some time to
appreciate Lenny but I do now. We’ve been much stronger with his ruggedness in
midfield. Randall at his peak might have beaten Mellon. Both players have had their best
moments pushing forward. Both have been found wanting in a defensive struggle. Randall
possibly produced the killer ball more often but there’s not much between these two.
Joyce offered greater industry (and more goals) than either player but less creativity as
well. I suppose Cook and Thompson are an obvious pairing. Both lack pace but Cook has been
much more influential than Thompson ever was. True, many of his passes don’t come off
and sometimes his crosses are horribly awry. But when he does get it right it is usually
decisive. Consider how many of the ‘99/00 goals are down to Cook’s assistance.
Although slow, he’s a fighter and certainly gives his all in a battle. Much as I
loved John Francis, he was undoubtedly inferior to Glen Little. Francis had greater pace
and was a better finisher but he could never tie up two or three defenders like Little
can. Ted McMinn had great dribbling skills, too, and was a better crosser of the ball than
Glen. However, he hadn’t the strength, pace or perseverance of our current hero. I
reckon Glen wins both of these contests. The only midfield contest which would go
unreservedly to the ’94 side is that involving David Eyres. Although ‘94/95
didn’t see David at his best, I think he is still ahead of Mullin and Branch. Think
what a side we would have had this season with the ‘93/94 Eyres on the left. Mind
you, Mullin is beginning to challenge him more now and if John can finish off more of
those powerful runs, he might yet put himself in front of Eyres. However, none of this is
to say that our current midfield is OK – it’s not strong enough under pressure.
We don’t win enough tackles when we’re forced back and we give the ball away too
easily. I think it needs strengthening. It remains to be seen whether Cook and Mellon are
good enough in the First Division. Neither made much impact in their last outings there.
We may need to think about a new playmaker – Caskey might be good but would probably
cost too much. Perhaps Robertson might repay Stan’s faith? Perhaps Weller can step
up? However, I suspect we’ll have to buy.
Strikers: Heath / Robinson /
Philliskirk / Nogan / Gayle / Mullin v Payton / Cooke / Wright / Lee
Not a lot to say here. It’s all too
obvious. In ‘94/95 we didn’t have a proven First Division goalscorer and we paid
dearly. Heath was never prolific (despite his rich pickings in ‘92/93) and by
‘94/95 he was way past his best. Robinson worked his socks off but was out of his
depth. Gayle had a few effective moments, no more. Philliskirk had even fewer effective
moments, Mullin lacked strength and Nogan was too little, too late. Loanee Paul Shaw was
our best bet up front but our fate was almost sealed by the time of his arrival. However,
let us not run away with the idea that the present strikeforce is good enough. Assuming
Wright doesn’t stay or only remains briefly, I think we need a tried and tested First
Division goalscorer. I suspect that we’ll need to score around 50 goals to stay up
(assuming that the defence continues to do a sound job). Based on this season’s
distribution, that means the strikers will need to net approximately 30-33 of these.
Providing he remains fit and in form, Payton might get around half of these – roughly
his last full season tally for Huddersfield. I will be surprised if he grabs another 20
plus haul in this higher division. Consequently, his partners need to get the other 16 or
so. Cooke is unlikely to get anywhere near this total in his current role and Lee still
has some graduating to do. Wright might help the cause but his football career is probably
over. Unless the midfielders up their contribution (Mullin and Little have the ability to
do so), we’ll need to buy.
Anyway this is speculation of the grossest kind.
For the moment I’m content to bask in this unexpected glory. It has been a terrific
year. Everyone at the club deserves enormous credit for helping to turn around our
fortunes so dramatically, notably Barry and Ray. Obviously, the players achieved the
magnificent result for us but Stan, Sam and his management team had the nous to make it
possible. Stan’s selections sometimes caused us problems but our record tally of
eighty-eight points is probably conclusive proof that he’s known best. This time last
year, I gave Stan qualified praise. Now he deserves unqualified plaudits. Very well done
Stan! At the third time of asking let’s make this promotion count.
Tim Quelch
July 2000
Links - Season reviews from Cozzo, Firmo,
Hego, Phil Whalley and Igor Wowk
