Liverpool trailed, led and drew against their fierce rivals. They were sloppy in and out of possession as can be summed up with two damning statistics.
Perhaps something that has gone under the radar (not if you look at PPDA) is the return of the lack of effectiveness of our press yesterday. It's been mentioned about United going long, but from memory, this was mostly from goal-kicks (build initiation) rather than open play. Earlier in the season, Slot used a 4-2-4 structure as the solution for teams playing out with 3, until opponents (like Chelsea) began working us out and dragging the two holding mids from pillar to post. Going to a 1-4-2-3-1 or 1-4-1-4-1 shape in build has been the norm recently, but from my own coaching experience, the 3-4-2-1 shape does present some natural challenges to variations of 4-3-3, particularly if the shape and triggers for the press aren't good, or, as it could be argued yesterday, the general intensity is down. The lack of organisation was highlighted when Trent went to close down Dalot in the early minutes of the game (probably the game plan), but then stayed put mostly and allowed United free reign to progress down our right side. It has to be said that the lack of adjustment to this and the later blunders with the subs (not hooking Trent earlier and putting Endo on on the middle) make this one of the occasions when I don't think Slot was at his best. It doesn't happen often, but even he is human and adjustments, whatever their potential logic, don't work. Personally, I think he was too worried about upsetting Trent on this occasion and needed to be more pragmatic.
The overriding feeling while watching the game was that this was all of our own doing, so thanks for backing that up. I don't have access to the data, but it felt like United pummelled us on ball recoveries - what felt like every second ball.
Funnily enough it was 41 apiece on ball recoveries. However, one thing I spotted but didn't mention in the piece was that it was 4-1 to United for recoveries in the final third, and it's rare for Liverpool to be outdone on that stat. It felt like their press was working a little better than the Reds', and that perhaps proves the point.
Great post. Question - do you think Arne would have subbed TAA earlier if there was no publicly discussed contract issue hanging over heads? Do you think this influences Arne’s timing? I’d have subbed him at 60 but even I was thinking about how it might “look”.
Thanks. I think we all get sucked into viewing subs in isolation. Player A is bad, bring on Player B etc. During the game, my assumption was that Slot felt Bradley could only do, say, 15 minutes, which is why he stuck with Trent. But thinking about it more, maybe he didn’t want an extended period of having the right side of the defence comprised of two players both returning after eight games out, especially with United clearly targeting that flank. Maybe he didn’t want to make too many early(ish) subs in case Konaté couldn’t last the distance? And as much as Trent was poor, he is always capable of a line breaking pass or a pinpoint cross, excellent skills to have when you need a goal. It might have only taken a moment for his performance to turn around. And who knows, as much as I think the contract stuff probably didn’t affect Slot’s decision to any great extent, he wouldn’t be human if he didn’t think “I can’t be arsed answering questions about that later”!
The conditions probably did level the match a bit. But we were under par and didn’t adapt to the conditions as well as you would expect an elite, such as us, to do.
It did feel like the biggest chances came our way in a match that was fairly even.
Perhaps something that has gone under the radar (not if you look at PPDA) is the return of the lack of effectiveness of our press yesterday. It's been mentioned about United going long, but from memory, this was mostly from goal-kicks (build initiation) rather than open play. Earlier in the season, Slot used a 4-2-4 structure as the solution for teams playing out with 3, until opponents (like Chelsea) began working us out and dragging the two holding mids from pillar to post. Going to a 1-4-2-3-1 or 1-4-1-4-1 shape in build has been the norm recently, but from my own coaching experience, the 3-4-2-1 shape does present some natural challenges to variations of 4-3-3, particularly if the shape and triggers for the press aren't good, or, as it could be argued yesterday, the general intensity is down. The lack of organisation was highlighted when Trent went to close down Dalot in the early minutes of the game (probably the game plan), but then stayed put mostly and allowed United free reign to progress down our right side. It has to be said that the lack of adjustment to this and the later blunders with the subs (not hooking Trent earlier and putting Endo on on the middle) make this one of the occasions when I don't think Slot was at his best. It doesn't happen often, but even he is human and adjustments, whatever their potential logic, don't work. Personally, I think he was too worried about upsetting Trent on this occasion and needed to be more pragmatic.
The overriding feeling while watching the game was that this was all of our own doing, so thanks for backing that up. I don't have access to the data, but it felt like United pummelled us on ball recoveries - what felt like every second ball.
Funnily enough it was 41 apiece on ball recoveries. However, one thing I spotted but didn't mention in the piece was that it was 4-1 to United for recoveries in the final third, and it's rare for Liverpool to be outdone on that stat. It felt like their press was working a little better than the Reds', and that perhaps proves the point.
Great post. Question - do you think Arne would have subbed TAA earlier if there was no publicly discussed contract issue hanging over heads? Do you think this influences Arne’s timing? I’d have subbed him at 60 but even I was thinking about how it might “look”.
Thanks. I think we all get sucked into viewing subs in isolation. Player A is bad, bring on Player B etc. During the game, my assumption was that Slot felt Bradley could only do, say, 15 minutes, which is why he stuck with Trent. But thinking about it more, maybe he didn’t want an extended period of having the right side of the defence comprised of two players both returning after eight games out, especially with United clearly targeting that flank. Maybe he didn’t want to make too many early(ish) subs in case Konaté couldn’t last the distance? And as much as Trent was poor, he is always capable of a line breaking pass or a pinpoint cross, excellent skills to have when you need a goal. It might have only taken a moment for his performance to turn around. And who knows, as much as I think the contract stuff probably didn’t affect Slot’s decision to any great extent, he wouldn’t be human if he didn’t think “I can’t be arsed answering questions about that later”!
Indeed. Turned out to be the standard sub he’s been making all season!
The conditions probably did level the match a bit. But we were under par and didn’t adapt to the conditions as well as you would expect an elite, such as us, to do.
It did feel like the biggest chances came our way in a match that was fairly even.