They came in their thousands with
expectations as high as the temperature. Mine were more grounded. I don't know if it was
the heat or because I remain sceptical of instant fixes. Anyway, I didn't become carried
away in the lead-up. At least, my hopes had less far to fall as a result. It wasn't as if
it was a bad performance. Burnley did OK. Not that this was a consensus view. As the game
drained away from them, one dickhead near me yelled, with a fury, probably fuelled as much
by souring alcohol as frustrated prospects, "Lazy bastards! They're all lazy
bastards!" Now, it was probably somewhere around 100 degrees F at pitch level. Even
in the comparative coolness of the stands, each twitch brought on a bead of perspiration.
I thought that both sides showed phenomenal fitness and application in the conditions.
So what of the positives? Although Waddle's influence was fitful (a
legacy of his previous injury?), it should have yielded better returns. He managed to
release Huxford directly from kick off. Unfortunately, the right wing-back, who otherwise
had a splendid game, scuffed the opportunity. Barnes could have done better with two of
his manager's exquisite promptings. Incidentally, Barnes also failed to get on the end of
a superb right wing cross from Huxford, late in the game.
I thought Ford looked neat and purposeful, without being the
tenacious box to box player we're looking for after Deary's departure. Eyres and Brass
simply carried on their excellent form of last season, although some nasty gaps appeared
on the left flank in the second half, which Watford's Stuart Slater eagerly exploited.
Even the frequently written-off Winstanley played well. God knows, we were grateful for
his pace, particularly in the second half, when Watford mounted a series of very dangerous
raids.
As for the concerns? Well, nothing new here. I'm not sure that we
have the players to operate the 5-3-2 system with consistent success. Sure, we have an
excellent wing back in Eyres. On this showing, Huxford looked as if he had taken over
Parkinson's mantle without too much difficulty (a pleasant surprise, this). The centre
back situation remains problematic, though. With this formation, we really need a Steve
Davis i.e. a robust defender who can carry the ball forward. Maybe Gentile can fulfil this
role? Brass may be capable, too, but he seems to play more of a tidying up role.
Winstanley has pace but he isn't an assured footballer, preferring the 'whoosh' to the
dribble. As for Blatherwick, he seems like a Peter Swan clone. I admired his courage. He
got a right mugging from Jason Lee in the first half, but fought back after the break and
almost got us a headed equaliser. Nevertheless, he's no Steve Davis, either. Tough and
uncompromising, perhaps, but not a ball player.
Steve, our editor, reckoned last year that we were too lightweight
in midfield with the 5-3-2 formation. I think I agree with him. It was deja vu at Vicarage
Road. The midfield for this game comprised Waddle, Williams and Ford. Given that Waddle
isn't a combative midfielder (he did his best, though) and that Williams is another
Matthew, it was always likely that we would become over-run, which is what happened during
the latter part of the first half and the first part of the second.
It was rumoured that Waddle had toyed with the notion of playing
Barnes up front on his own. I'm not surprised that he didn't start out that way. Barnes
can't play as a lone striker. He is not particularly strong. He has difficulty holding the
ball up and frequently looks for preposterous free-kicks. It is amazing that this hasn't
got him into more trouble. Clearly, he is desperate for Cooke's return. Unfortunately,
Eastwood, his starting partner at Watford, wasn't up to the task. He began OK but quickly
became lost. His substitution was a merciful release.
As if to prove Steve's theory, the emergence of Matthew in his place
made an immediate difference to the balance of play. Moreover, Matthew seemed determined
to refute the belief (at least, mine) that he can't tackle, making a series of successful
rugged challenges, thereby trebling last season's tally almost at a stroke. The problem
then became the lack of firepower up front. It looked as if Burnley's best prospects of an
equaliser lie with their midfielders or possibly with David Eyres. Eyres did have a near
post blast which was parried away. Although I should mention that several Waddle corners
did give our centre backs a chance or two, as well. However, it wasn't enough.
After an indifferent start, Watford appeared to be a useful side.
They defended competitively and with Millen at centre back, they have a defender of high
pace. Up front they had the height, brawn and awkwardness of Jason Lee. Not the figure of
fun that Fantasy Football League made him out to be. The pineapple has gone and he looked
big and mean. He deserved his diving headed goal, seconds after Winstanley had hacked a
goal-bound effort clear, but not clear enough. Sure, Lee's physicality did sometimes
overstep the mark, but he will be a real threat to second division defences this year. is
partner Noel-Williams was of a similar ilk and when Stuart Slater began to display the
fast, dribbling skills that won him accolades as a West Ham starlet a few years back,
Burnley were in deep trouble. Thanks to a stunning point blank save from Beresford and
some amazing fortune, Burnley were able to stay in the game until the end. But it was a
fair result. No doubt about that.
I haven't said much about Beresford. Again, he did his shot-stopping
stuff with his usual skill and dexterity. His penalty-saving record is a direct reflection
of these powers. His weaknesses are more evident when challenging for high crosses.
Burnley's defenders didn't seem able to protect him on crosses and he resorted to flapping
on several occasions, particularly during the second half. Beresford's kicking hardly
merits mention. It was crap as usual.
So what needs to be done? Like Steve, I remain sceptical of the
5-3-2 formation. I know the players have still to become accustomed to one another, given
the scale of change. But if there is an inherent weakness in the system, then familiarity
alone will not solve that. If Waddle persists with the system and continues to play
himself, then they need a harrier and carrier as the third midfielder. At their most
determined, Smith and Weller can play this role, as they both did with startling
effectiveness at Plymouth last year. Even a rejuvenated Matthew will probably not suffice,
ditto for Williams, then, and Gleghorn is probably too slow. They need a centre back who
can play, too.
Up front, they need reinforcement soon. If Carr-Lawton is no better
than Eastwood, then we need to recruit a third striker. I'm not sure what the reasoning
was about the Howey purchase. I believe he can play up front but that isn't his favoured
position. I gather Waddle is bucking against the transfer fees set for lower division
strikers, after Lee Bradbury's multi-million move to Man. City. But he needs someone
quickly. He can't rely on Barnes and Cooke to do the business alone. He must have some
back-up to deal with injuries, suspensions and loss of form. Without these strengthening
measures, I foresee many barren away days and a mid-table position. Of course, I'm sure
this meandering will be shown up to be a lot of bollocks. I hope so, for the right
reasons.
