When watching Burnley away from home, I
often have this notion that they don't have a full team out. It's probably because there
doesn't seem to be enough players in key positions. The opposition appear to have the
greater numbers. For much of the first half at Watford, Burnley's midfield was too sparse.
And when that was sorted, their attack became too thin.
At Southend, Waddle dealt immediately with both problems by playing
what seemed to be a 4-4-2 formation. The trouble was that the defence couldn't hack it,
particularly during the first half. The Burnley midfield didn't give them enough
protection and Southend's nimble attack was able to expose the limitations of Blatherwick
and Howey on the ground. In fact, Southend simply poured through the inside left channel,
which seemed not so much a corridor of uncertainty to the Burnley's defenders, as a
freeway of unknowing. Howey and Blatherwick, in particular, didn't seem to know who should
be where. As a consequence, Boere was given an estuary (ocean would be too much of a
hyperbole) of space and time to latch onto an oblique pass and whack a left foot drive
past Beresford, with only six minutes gone. Both central defenders then made some
atonement with their determined, muscular challenges, especially when dealing with
Southend's high quality crosses. But their lack of dexterity was painful to watch.
Southend could and should have scored at least two more during the first period.
Having said that, Burnley started with attacking purpose. Before
Southend went ahead, Cooke provided a superb through ball, which Barnes wasted with
frustrating clumsiness. Weller merited his return to the side, showing us again his
terrier qualities and his fleetness of foot. He and Huxford combined well on the right and
Eyres, playing on the left of midfield, frequently threatened Southend's right flank. In
fact, Eyres almost gained an equaliser with a beautifully struck free-kick which clipped
the top of the bar.
It was unfortunate that Williams had to be replaced, after he had
sustained a first-half leg injury. Up until that point, he had played authoritatively in
midfield, challenging strongly and finding space for his colleagues. Against Watford, I
thought that he was skilful, but underpowered. I was pleased to find this early assessment
to be wrong. Matthew replaced Williams and proceeded to demonstrate that his re-discovered
tenacity was not just a one-match wonder. But despite their various individual qualities,
the Burnley midfielders are not yet operating as an effective unit. Going forward, they
seem OK. It's when the ball has to be won back, that the problem emerges. Ford has yet to
convince me that he has the 'Batty touch'. But the midfield problems cannot be laid
entirely upon him. Although the team works hard, there needs to be more effective harrying
when possession has been lost.
After the break, Burnley had much more of the game, but the cutting
edge was lacking. True, Cooke's rising drive was pushed over by the agile Royce and Ford's
thunderous volley was scrambled clear. But despite their frequent forward sorties, Burnley
didn't seem likely to score. This was partly due to Barnes's poor form. Certainly, Cooke
did his bit, holding the ball up, often under extreme pressure. Meanwhile, Barnes seemed
to fall over everything and anything. Barnes' exasperation was evident when Waddle
eventually replaced him. Upon reaching the bench, he flung off his shirt in anger.
Not that Waddle was any more effective up front. I hope that he will
not repeat this ploy. He hasn't the physical strength or the speed to take on this role.
Again, the need for a third striker was underlined. As full-time approached, Howey was
pushed up front but he was as hopeless there as Swan had been, when asked to revert to his
former role.
I know that this opinion is probably premature, but just why have we
bought Lee Howey? As a central defender, he didn't seem to be Peter Swan's equal and as an
auxiliary forward, he was a pantomime performer. £200,000 may not be huge bucks any more
for aspiring teams, but it is still a fair whack for Burnley. Surely it would have
provided at least a reasonable down payment on a competent lower division striker. This
year, it would have bought us Colin Cramb. Last year, it would have bought us David
Reeves. Also, had our positions been reversed, it would have secured us both Nogan and
Parkinson. And to think we let Swan go to Bury for just £50,000! Why are we so crap at
transfers? We frequently seem to pay over the odds for new players and yet fail to gain
enough for outgoing moves.
And why are we signing so many central defenders? Are we proposing
to set up a new theme park just to tickle Glenn Roeder's vanity? Is this a case of
osmosis? At this rate, come the end of the season, the whole of the playing staff will
comprise arthritic central defenders. Maybe a 10-0-0 system might be worth a go, though.
Enough of the gripes. There were other positives to emerge from the
game. Beresford was stronger on the crosses. He is also bowling the ball out more.
Obviously, he has been helped here by the greater mobility of the backs. It is important
that this continues, particularly given his poor kicking.
Winstanley played well again, this time, in the more unaccustomed
position of left back. His distribution was not always good, but he fought hard for
possession and his pace was again an asset against such swift opponents.
The Burnley crowd was not as big as I had hoped, particularly given
the Watford turn-out and the bonus of a long weekend. Is the lustre beginning to flake
already? However, they really got behind the team in the second half. Alas, it was to no
avail. Their passion, like the points, was merely wafted away on the moist, warm breeze.
