EPL: 4-1 v. West Ham (A)

For the first time in a long while (perhaps since the start of the season!), Klopp varied his starting formation. Liverpool went 4-2-3-1 with Wijnaldum and Can as the midfielders, Oxlade-Chamberlain and Mané flanking Salah as the no. 10, behind Firmino as the striker.

While it proved effective, it wasn't clear why Klopp felt a need to switch up, since the same personnel could have easily fitted into his usual 4-3-3. But it felt like the defence was more solidly covered by two deeper-lying midfielders, rather than the more fluid system that would have seen them bombing ahead more often. Perhaps Klopp expected a more bruising battle in midfield, and so there was an advantage to shielding the defence a bit more strongly while having pacy counter-attacking options in the form of Mané, Salah and Ox. (The speed of all three was showcased in the run-up to the first Liverpool goal, during which all three left the West Ham covering defence behind and advanced menacingly on the poor lone defender still between them and the goalkeeper.)

And so it turned out to be. While there was a gap in quality between the teams, for most of the game the Hammers were battling us hard in midfield, setting up passing moves and trying to make runs and commit players forward. That was completely unlike the games where we’ve faced ultra-defensive setups like United, Huddersfield, Burnley and Newcastle, which more or less ceded all the initiative to us. West Ham put some decent moves together and if they had enjoyed the luck that some of the aforementioned teams had (such as scoring an early through ball to Ayew in the 8th minute) they might have gotten a couple more goals. 

The tactical tweak by Klopp engendered some interesting possibilities. The clearest of these was  Salah mostly running through the center between lines or trying to catch the last defender out, both of which he did well with his pace and movement, thereby opening up other channels for this team mates. In place of Salah in his usual spot, Ox ran the channels superbly. This seems to be a good setup against teams that are more likely to get over the halfway line, with Liverpool better able to absorb midfield pressure and springing forward very quickly through the channels, especially with Salah drawing attention in the center.

But perhaps the most pleasant surprise of the game was the sudden turnaround in Liverpool's injury list. Heading into this game, the team seemed crisis-hit: Wijnaldum looked to have twisted his ankle against Maribor, Mané and Lallana were still on the road to recovery, Coutinho's injury looked more serious than expected. Then Henderson appeared to have been ruled out on the day of the game itself.

All of a sudden both Mané and Wijnaldum were ready to start, the former, in particular, providing a huge boost to Liverpool and a telling contribution in the form of two assists. With Lallana and Coutinho due back at the end of the international (fingers crossed no Liverpool player gets injured during the break!), and hopefully Clyne edging closer, Klopp could have a very strong squad to see out the end of the year and the traditionally crowded Christmas to New Year's window.

UCL: 3-0 v. Maribor (H)

Other than the cliché about it being a clinical and professional performance, I didn't have a lot of thoughts about this game, except that we seem to be a plausible threat from crosses. Two goals in three were from crosses: Trent Alexander-Arnold is proving to be quite a decent crosser, and his ball in from the right provided an opportunistic Salah the opening goal. Moreno - a less decent crosser - actually managed to swing one in for Sturridge to get the injury time goal. 

That was probably fortuitous, to say the least, but coupled with the goal by Firmino against Huddersfield just a few days prior - we're actually getting an above-average rate of crosses leading to goals (for Liverpool as a team at least). Long may it continue!

EPL: 3-0 v. Huddersfield (H)

In a morale-boosting win, Liverpool beat newly promoted Huddersfield decisively to (hopefully) put the Spurs debacle firmly in the rear mirror. It was a tale of two halves: Liverpool were slow to start, nervous in front of an equally nervous Anfield crowd (why can't folks just boisterously support their team no matter what? And it's not as if the team was playing rubbish football either, but just not reaching their usual high standards), before a much more clinical performance in the second half in which they scored all their goals.

To be fair, Liverpool had two instances of good fortune. The first was handily rejected in the first half: in a tight game against a well-organised, highly defensive side in which we are expected to have trouble creating chances, against the odds, referee Kevin “no friend of ours” Friend awards the Reds a penalty (after ignoring similarly blatant shoves and fouls by Huddersfield all half) for the type of foul that almost never called in our favour and which fans have been complaining all season should have been given more often. Salah (who, it must be noted, recently scored a last-minute match-winning penalty for Egypt under far greater pressure), stepped up and hits it straight at the keeper.

Thankfully, the second was gratefully accepted about five minutes into the second half. A defensive header by the Huddersfield captain provided the perfect through ball for Sturridge, who lifted the ball over the keeper emphatically. That forced Huddersfield to open up and try to play the ball, which provided counter-pressing opportunities and gaps for Liverpool. Eventually, Firmino and Wijnaldum joined Sturridge on the scoresheet, with Firmino proving perhaps that there was a third instance of good fortune when he scored a header from a corner kick. That almost never happens.

I admit I was wrong – Sturridge and Firmino in the same side seems to have worked reasonably well in this game, despite numerous instances beforehand when they didn't. Perhaps it was because there was more movement and interchanging between them and with Salah too. That meant that Firmino in particular was not as restricted as he usually is when deployed on the flank, and he could do what he does best, which is to draw defenders out with clever movement.

The great close control that both Sturridge and Firmino have is also a good asset in tight games like these, and both of them are good at finding space in tight situations. That could be why Klopp deploys them (when he's short of his first choice options like Coutinho and Mané).

But the plaudits for Sturridge should nevertheless be tempered. He’s always seemed ill-suited to Klopp’s pressing style, and yesterday was no exception. He appears to lack both the desire and instinct for pressing, which makes his efforts (when he does look like he’s attempting to press) look desultory. That’s why (in addition to his frequent injuries) he lost his starting place to Firmino.

But Klopp must see that Sturridge offers something that offsets his comparative inability to press. (And at this point, I don’t think Klopp would have illusions about turning Sturridge into Firmino, nor should he, because pushing Sturridge too hard physically might redound badly.) After all, he’s started Sturridge a few times, and throws him on as a substitute pretty often as well when chasing goals.

Today’s game offers some glimpses of what that might be. Other than the finish for the goal, Sturridge showed close control and good footwork. He can a magnet for defenders when he is on the ball, opening up gaps for others. Of course, as rightly pointed out, he’s not without his flaws, which were also in evidence during the game: he has a frustrating tendency to dawdle on the ball, allowing the opposition to reset, and he seems more hesitant about trying to beat defenders than in the past.

But my sneaky suspicion is that Klopp thinks that Sturridge can offer something that few in the squad can: an audacious bit of quality that no one can see coming. For example, think about Mané’s goal against Arsenal – cutting in from the left against a defender and then curling to the bottom far side of the goal; or many of Coutinho’s long range specials – cutting in on the edge of the box and curling something to the top end of the far corner. Great goals to be sure, but not exactly like we haven’t seen them doing similar before – the goals follow well-established templates for those players.

Think back to Sturridge’s goal against Sevilla in the Europa League final: curling the ball with the outside of his left boot with little backlift. Who the heck would have attempted that? Or against Everton in December ’16, the mazy run across from one edge of the penalty box to the middle and hitting a deceptively scruffy looking ball from outside the box onto the post, which provided an opening for Mané: again, few who have attempted that run and shot, given that the game had entered stoppage time – it would have been easier to try to work the ball to the flank.

Arguably, it could be harder to defend against Sturridge coz you’re not quite sure what he might do. Not that Mané and Coutinho are easy to defend against, but defenders watching videos of them might have some idea of their favoured moves. In the absence of Coutinho, Mané and Lallana, and without Keïta yet, Klopp might have thought that Sturridge was the one who could offer that bit of game-changing quality.

Moving on, Oxlade-Chamberlain and Solanke both looked good when they came on. The former showed why he's highly regarded: good technical ability and he's good at charging forward along the channels. He's due for a start soon. Similarly for Solanke, who looks like he’s getting used to the demands of the top tier. That's one of the positives from the game: the team was depleted (missing Coutinho, Mané and Lallana, with Can dropped) but still put in a solid Klopp-style performance and had enough quality off the bench in Ox and Solanke.

Before we think that the Huddersfield game is some kind of watershed for us defensively, it should be noted that it conforms to the pattern we've seen this season: our defence tends to be largely untroubled by teams that are set up defensively, which may disguise its inherently fragile nature. In such games, what is more important is whether the offense finishes the chances it gets. Prior to the penalty, Liverpool had done reasonably well in crafting openings, but not necessarily clear-cut ones. But unlike Burnley, Newcastle and United, Huddersfield gifted us several gilt-edge chances (including the penalty and the assist for Sturridge), which meant that we were able to produce an ultimately comfortable win this time. That may not always be the case in upcoming fixtures.

EPL: 1-4 v. Tottenham (A)

In an exquisite display of sadomasochism, the Liverpool defence today dug a hole, dove in headfirst, then invited Spurs to kick it in the arse as hard as they wanted for as long as they desired. Such was the culpability of the defence in the Spurs goals. 

Yet, on the other hand, this was not actually surprising. Fans would have known that the defenders, particularly Lovren and Mignolet, always seemed to be on the edge of making some game-changing mistake. In this regard the game was somewhat reminiscent of Groundhog Day, except more searing because the eponymous groundhog crawled out of the hole and took a two-by-four to your skull for a few gleeful minutes before slithering back to its lair and waiting for the next cycle. Lovren's almost amateurish pair of mistakes in the first 15 minutes dealt a body blow to team morale and left Liverpool with a steep climb. Matip's inadvertent "pass" to Alli for the third Spurs goal and Mignolet's misjudgment of a corner that led to the fourth were secondary, but were rather in keeping with Liverpool's Groundhog Day hell.

This prompted the usual groans that Lovren wasn't suitable to Klopp's system. But I feel that that's not really the problem: most of the errors Lovren makes are relatively generic, and not exactly down to the system per se.

Today was a case in point – for the first two goals, he essentially misjudged the flight of the ball badly, and furthermore in the case of the second, he made the poor decision of committing himself when there was no real need. While for the first goal, if he had more pace or game intelligence he might have recovered to hustle strongly for the ball, the point I’m trying to make is that a more consistent defender is much less likely to lose sight of the ball the first place, regardless of whether that defender turns out to be someone who fits into the Klopp system better (i.e. a ball-playing defender who can pass the heck out of defence while tap-dancing backwards as well as anticipate danger while blindfolded, listening to heavy metal music through his earphones in his car a mile away from the pitch). What seems to be the problem is that Lovren frequently fails to get the basics right, either by overthinking things or trying to make an otiose show of aggression and force. 

This is related to the point that is frequently made in tandem with criticisms of our defenders, which is that we need a good defensive midfielder to anticipate danger and shield the defence. But, again, when you look at a lot of the goals we’ve conceded, they don’t really come down to inadequate shielding of the defence (many come down to individual errors, particularly at setpieces) or our midfielders not tracking runs as they are supposed to. Fielding an expensive, specialist defensive midfielder would, in my opinion, be rather wasted when we play against packed defences, which frankly is going to happen very frequently under Klopp, while perhaps not exactly adding to our attacking options. In any case, the signing of Keïta seems to be an attempt by Klopp to induct precisely such a midfielder - one who is good at breaking up attacks while being a potent attacking force.

The problem is that the relatively decent run we've been in since the City debacle (with the exception of the League cup defeat) glossed over the usual deficiencies in our defence. While the defence had been criticised during that run for letting in goals that cost us wins, they had actually done a good job in restricting the chances of the opposition and the space that the opponents had been given. However, what was missing was the context: while the statistics (e.g. shots conceded, expected goals against, etc) were decent, the fact is that nearly every one of our opponents during that period took a highly defensive approach in their games against us, even Man Utd, which may have made our defence look better than it actually was. The pair of games where this wasn't the case, both against Leicester, was where we visibly struggled: we lost the League cup game to them, then in the subsequent EPL game days later had much less of our usual control over the game. In particular, the somewhat fortuitous 3-2 league win at Leicester (incidentally, our last win in the league so far) saw a jittery performance from our defence when up against an physical side that pressed more aggressively compared with when we faced ultra-defensive sides.

And so it proved again when facing against Spurs, who, unlike Leicester, took full advantage. There were times when our defence was exposed because we were stretched in trying to attack Spurs (a necessity foisted by the early goals we conceded), but in the final analysis, the goals Spurs scored didn't stem from some situations. They came about as a result of a raft of individual errors, pretty much the same for most of the goals we've conceded this season.

The positive I take away from the game is that the team didn’t seem broken, and kept going strongly to the end, scoreline notwithstanding. We kept grafting to the very end and created good chances against one of the league’s top defensive units.

If anything, hopefully the result forces a defensive rethink by Klopp and forces the players to focus more intently in the coming games. Hopefully Joe Gomez gets a run-out at centerback now, though this could be double-edged sword as well: a young player thrust into such a pivotal position before he’s ready, particularly with the scrutiny and pressure that Liverpool plays under, could flail badly and have his development set back. Then again, it’s really the only way to tell if we have a diamond in the rough.

Nevertheless, putting in Gomez might also be a matter of necessity. It may not be a good idea to field Lovren again so soon when his confidence is obviously low, and with the trust of his teammates possibly lacking as well. That could have a detrimental effect on an already shaky defence. Furthermore, if you’re not going to be dropped for very poor performances, then that undermines Klopp’s supposedly merit-based approach to team selection. The same probably goes for picking Karius over Mignolet, though Klopp really shouldn't chop and change keepers too much. The defence really needs a consistent, reassuring presence behind them, though I’m not 100% sure Karius is that yet. Perhaps Ward should be part of the conversation too.

In any case, Klopp now has to get his charges focused on next weekend's league fixture. We can't afford to fall further behind and need good results to turn around the increasingly negative narrative.

UCL: 7-0 v. Maribor (A)

Liverpool injected some much needed momentum into their season with one of their biggest wins in years. That it came in the Champions' League against little-heralded Maribor should not detract from a professional, composed performance by a team that deserved a solid win after toiling fruitlessly for a few weeks.

While satisfying, the lopsided win against Maribor also illustrates the randomness that comes with converting chances to goals. Maribor did have a couple of presentable chances, but unlike Burnley, Newcastle or Spartak, they didn't make the best use of them. In contrast, though the gap in the expected goals metric was large (close to 4 goals in Liverpool's favour), the previous games against aforementioned opponents also saw Liverpool with a healthy xG gap (at least 2 goals or more) yet they still found themselves frustrated by eventual draws. Thus one note of caution is that we should not delude ourselves into thinking that such 'poor' finishing won't necessarily persist, though hopefully there'll be a revision to the mean in due course.

If anything, the result is likely to prompt teams to try even harder to park the bus against Liverpool in upcoming games. Maribor took a relatively open approach to the game, commiting players up front more liberally as well as suicidally attempting to pass their way out of their penalty area. Unless you're Barcelona, Madrid or Man City, that's generally not a good idea: it allowed Liverpool to win the ball often in advanced areas and counterattack with much of the Maribor formation already out of a defensive posture. It's unlikely that teams (with the exception of Spurs who also favour a high line in this coming Sunday's game) will be tempted by the same approach. Even Maribor, scheduled to face Liverpool at Anfield next week, will probably not fancy a repeat of those tactics.

The next few weeks will show whether Liverpool's luck in front of goal has indeed changed for the better, but yesterday's game was certainly a morale booster for our much-maligned frontline. It also showed that we have a strong bench: Milner and Alexander-Arnold put in solid performances when starting for the first time in several games, as did Sturridge and Oxlade-Chamberlain when they came on in the second half. That in itself is a considerable improvement over previous seasons.

EPL: 0-0 v. Man Utd (H)

This sort of fixture used to be blockbuster fare, regardless of Liverpool's league standing, because of the intensity of the clash and usually because it generated some good football. I think expectations have been diminished since Mourinho took over at Old Trafford, because the last three league fixtures (including this one) have been one-dimensional in the sense that only one team really seemed keen to win it. (United under Moyes and van Gaal were quite grim too but at least Liverpool won some of those encounters; notably we also did lose to van Gaal's United, but at least they couldn't be accused of not trying.)

There have been complaints about United's defensive approach, but I’m not sure what the fuss is about. Mourinho got what he wanted, which was to avoid losing and thus having the positive narrative of United’s season so far turning into a negative one. His team played well to restrict our chances, but not well enough that we didn’t have a few clear opportunities. The word “masterclass” is so cliché – United mostly did what Mourinho asked but also got lucky that we weren’t more clinical. (Particularly that rebound from Matip’s shot in the first half, which Salah should really have left for Coutinho who was in a better position and on his favoured right foot.)

There might be some griping about how such defensive play is unbecoming of a team so expensively assembled. But that is to misunderstand Mourinho, who is a pragmatist with no deep allegiance to any system or style of play. More importantly, he has the luxury of a vantage point some distance above us in the league and less issues with putting away lesser sides than last season. There was simply no need for United to expose themselves more than they needed to.

We play with our kinetic, high line approach because it’s Klopp’s and, now, our identity and also because we have little choice: recent results notwithstanding, it’s still the approach that offers the best chance of winning (and we need to win in order to make up ground on the teams at the top of the table), and we’re unlikely to go back to the approach that we took at the tail end of last season unless our personnel options have been severely curtailed.

Nevertheless, for this game our fullbacks appeared less adventurous than in previous outings, particularly Moreno on the left. It may have been that they were instructed to hold back a little, which was probably a justifiable recognition that United had more potential to hurt us when turning over possession compared with Newcastle or Burnley.

While understandable, this tweak also shows up the gap in the system and our reliance on Mané when we play against packed defenses. Without Mané, Klopp seems to favour Coutinho on the left flank as an inverted "winger", but in games such as this – and particularly in games against Mourinho’s teams – Coutinho tends to be tightly marked and usually has to come very deep and centrally for the ball.  Once he gets it he has to turn around and start over again, but without any teammate ahead of him on the left if the fullback isn't given a license to roam. I don’t see many instances of our midfielders helping out in this regard either.

If Mané was playing he would be stretching the opposition’s right defence with Coutinho already starting in central midfield and looking to hit runners or play one-twos with them. It's a far more efficient arrangement.

Thus, against parked buses it might be best to retain the creativity of Coutinho in the middle, while putting another aggressive runner on the flank. Oxlade-Chamberlain is probably the best person for the job given his experience with Arsenal. Similarly, Lallana has shown he can play in that role, though another option is to retain Coutinho on the flank with Lallana as the central creative midfielder, which has also worked well for Liverpool in the past. Playing Coutinho in the Mané position (without Lallana to complement him) seems like a waste against packed defenses, in my opinion.

While our defence notched a rare clean sheet, the performance has to be put into context. Gomez, showing his inexperience, found himself outwitted by Martial a couple of times, though hopefully this will be a good learning experience for him. We were not really tested aerially - which is probably our gravest weakness - in the absence of Fellaini and Progba (both of whom would almost certainly have started if fit). 

While the centerbacks seemed to have coped well with the in-form Lukaku, United’s defensive posture meant that he was frequently isolated. However, in the first half he did turn and drive past Lovren into the box rather easily, which is a cause for concern. 

Lastly, the one chance that Lukaku got he delivered straight at Mignolet. I consider us lucky, given that in the last few games the opposition have scored with their one clear cut chance against us. Perhaps we're due for a bit of luck in that regard. Now, if only we had some luck when we attack, then perhaps the tide of negativity will truly turn.

EPL: 1-1 v. Newcastle (A)

A disappointing result to cap a deflating month bookended by breaks for international games. While it must be said that Newcastle defended well, we were reasonably good at penetrating their lines and had enough clear cut chances to put the game away. That LFC failed to do so is more or less the narrative of September.

While it’s true that many fans are impatient and may have unrealistic expectations regarding how their team should perform against one team or another, for me what constitutes a “must-win” game is one where we dominated the game to such an extent that we should have won it by some margin. Personally, I don’t come into games thinking that we should be spanking teams like Newcastle or Burnley or even Palace, because I am aware of the history we have against these teams and how much harder it seems to summon a good performance against so-called “lesser” sides compared with against bigger ones. 

But it’s after we’ve played well, created good chances, executed Klopp’s plans reasonably faithfully, only to be let down by sloppy finishing and defending, with the result not getting a win – that’s when I think “we should’ve won that”. After all, playing well and executing a tactical plan properly is about as much control a manager and a player can exert on a game: theoretically, you shouldn't need as much luck to win the match as say, if you're playing poorly.  If a team is playing badly then it probably requires a big serving of luck to come through with a win. 

In this sense, I wouldn’t feel as bad if we played poorly against such teams and end up drawing or losing; well, I would probably feel angry about the team’s performance but I wouldn’t think that it was a “must-win” game since we wouldn’t have done much to deserve winning it. One post I saw cited the xG statistics over the last 3 weeks (excluding the City game) as being +6.6 in LFC's favour, against the reality of a -1 deficit when counting actual goals. That about sums up LFC's disappointing match.

For the record, over the last month, with the exception of the City game after Mané had been sent off, I never thought we played poorly. Usually we played very well, but it just seemed like - with the exception of the Leicester league game - we always needed to be near our very best to get a win, and that was unrealistic even of an experienced title-winning team.

What seems clear is we have stopped being able to punish teams for mistakes since the Arsenal game. In the Newcastle game, Sturridge was gifted a glorious through ball after a defender failed to clear the ball only to fail to beat the keeper; Salah’s subsequently hoisted the ball over the open goal. Newcastle had the ball cleared off the line twice - one of which came after the ball was struck literally less than two feet from the goal. Not to mention we had several great counterattacking positions that culminating in poor final passes. And then the only goal we were able to score is the kind of world class goal from outside the area. It really didn't make much sense.

As has been pointed out, one key issue may be an apparent lack of confidence running through the squad at the moment. When it seems that nothing you’re doing is really coming off, that must take a toll psychologically. Paired to the fact that you feel that you’re always vulnerable defensively, that you’re always a simple mistake away from conceding, and that must be a struggle. The players just seemed visibly deflated when they conceded the equaliser.

I also don’t mean to rag on about defenders and individuals but if we look back at the goals conceded, how many of those would come down to individual errors as opposed to defenders not being able to cope well with the kind of offensive system Klopp has? It has been pointed out that our defenders might not be suited to Klopp's high line. But the goals we've conceded don't exactly come from brilliant counterattacking play. Today’s goal conceded is a case in point of a player bisecting the centerbacks who should have either picked him up or played him offside; it’s the same template for quite a few goals we’ve conceded this season.

This asymmetry – not punishing teams for mistakes but getting ruthlessly punished in return – will probably persist as long as the team is lacking in confidence. I’m not sure what Klopp can do about the team at the moment: they are playing better against parked opposition than last season – more patient, more penetrating – only the results haven’t improved much.  Despite my criticism of the defence, I don’t think it’s making many more mistakes (in fact, probably fewer since we are in a defensive posture less of of the time given our possession stats) than the opposition we face, though we pay much heavier prices for any mistakes.

It’s clear that the early season swagger and joy have dissipated for now, which undermines the team’s performance because that’s what the players thrive on. The players have become pensive and somewhat passionless, lacking flair and conviction. They are still playing well but not at that exciting level they are capable off, while being susceptible to the faintest setback becoming a full-blown panic. The only thing that might bring back the swagger and joy of the early season is a good result against United, so hopefully the players rise to the occasion.

UCL: 1-1 v. Spartak Moscow (A)

How did this end up a draw? It was as one-sided as it could get, with Spartak only having two shots of note (one ended up as the goal against the run of play, and the other one was on target but scarcely threatening.) But this seems to be the story of the season so far, with Liverpool dominant against "lesser" sides (though keep in mind these are the Russian champions, albeit somewhat depleted by injuries and poor form) that adopt highly defensive stances.

Once again it appeared to be the kind of game where Liverpool needed to be at their very best to get a win, and they failed to hit that level, despite playing very well. My guess is that, disregarding the fragile defending from set pieces, the mixed bag of results over the last week and a half is due to the fulcrum of our attack not playing anywhere close to his best. 

When Firmino, as the focal point of the attack, doesn’t play well, the whole offensive setup creaks. That may be the main thread running through the games (with the exception perhaps of the City game and the first half of the Sevilla one) since after the international break. This is more so than other teams that don’t use a false-9 because of Firmino’s heavier involvement in the buildup and comparatively bigger role in providing assists. Not only does the team suffer from the direct loss of goals that he would have contributed through better shooting, but from his poor passing or ball control resulting in chances not quite coming off. His movement is still first rate, which is probably why our chance creation has been pretty solid through the last two weeks, but the situations he found himself in today would likely have resulted in goals or assists on another day. 

It must be said that this happens to all players and hopefully he and Klopp sort it out soon – obviously, we need him to be at close to optimal levels. The pertinent question is whether you can slot another attacker in his place while he works his way out of  such a rut. Maybe Solanke could have done a better job, though his movement and passing don't seem to be as good yet at this point (even when compared with off-form Firmino; in any case he wasn’t in the squad). Sturridge showed a slight regression compared with the last two games, in terms of not really progressing with his sharpness - his shots seemed scuffed and hurried yet he was laboured when he needed to be quick. He displayed good movement and control on the ball but the decision-making was not optimal. 

In any case, neither player is a false-9 like Firmino. Therein lies what may be problem with Klopp’s first-choice system: it’s too dependent on one player, unlike say another system that plays a striker and you can just interchange strikers when they are lost to injury and suspension. Taking Firmino out will probably necessitate changing the system, such as going to a 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 diamond, which Klopp may be reluctant to do.

During the game, it was a surprise to see Mané making way for Sturridge as I felt he would have stretched the opposition much more than Firmino (who was having a turgid time) as the game wore on, and who didn’t seem to be in any difficulty or particular need of a rest. It may be that Klopp felt Mané’s defensive contribution was weaker than Firmino’s and the addition of Sturridge could have left more gaps for Moscow.

Can’s displays this season have overall been very promising but performances like today’s and against Leicester show why he shouldn’t get ahead of himself (apparently, the rumour why he continues to hold out on signing a new contract is because he wants to be assured his place in the first team, and Juventus is apparently willing to make such “promises” [one wonders how credible such promises can be, since once the player signs a contract the manager can do what he likes, particularly if you’re signing a comparative unknown with no constituency amongst the fans]). He still lacks the consistency and focus that are expected of someone playing in his position or of someone that would be automatic first-choice. Granted, even Hendo was not playing at his best in the first few games of the season, but I think what seemed to help Hendo through that difficult period was keeping his focus and keeping his play tidy and simple. Can probably needs to do the same.

Having said all that, I still think the team is playing well, just not at close to their full ability yet. The frustrating thing is that the recent run of games (with the exception of Leicester away in the league) required them to be playing at their best to win, which doesn't happen all the time even with championship-winning teams that are far more experienced or have more depth than Liverpool.

EPL: 3-2 v. Leicester (A)

Finally, a win to blog about!

For a fan, there was considerable symmetry in terms of the emotion felt over the results of the last three winless games and this one. The results against Sevilla, Burnley and Leicester (EFL Cup) felt incredibly frustrating as we put in very kinetic performances and were in control the vast majority of the time, yet failed to come away with maximum points. Conversely, this game was sweetly satisfying because we were noticeably less in control for more of the game - particularly in the last 10 minutes of the first half and and for long stretches of the second - having acceded to the Leicester style of play – high balls, long clearances, almost panicked passing – yet we came away with a win, and saved a penalty to boot.

In this context, it is not totally wrong for the media to play up the “lucky” angle, as I would also think that Klopp is probably less than satisfied with the performance. It was not exactly a "lucky" win, but it was certainly not the kind of dominance and confidence that we have seen in many of the games so far this season. But it’s satisfying that for once this season we don’t have to be playing at near 100% or completely outplaying the other side to get a win. The fact that we laboured under dodgy refereeing and “robust” (to put it charitably) physicality from the Leicester side is the extra shot of gin to my tonic.

In that regard, while the refereeing was really questionable, what was actually aggravating for a fan was that it was lopsided. While we didn’t concede a penalty through Can’s handball (which looked more like ball to arm), it only cancels out one of the many dodgy decisions that went their way: Vardy's blatant dive in the 45th minute, which earned Matip a yellow and eventually led to the first Leicester goal; Okazaki's pulling of Mignolet in the penalty box (which likely prevented him from reaching a corner) while he was offside, then coming from an offside position to nick the ball into the net; awarding a penalty to Leicester when Mignolet floored Vardy in the box even though the keeper was first to the ball and touched it. (Okazaki’s 40th minute effort was correctly ruled offside as Maguire was offside when he received the ball and crossed it.) It still has to be said that the account is deep in the deficit; more so if the season as a whole is considered.

While I think Mignolet deserves credit for the penalty save and for several good stops (particularly in the first half), this performance encapsulates the reasons why he makes fans nervous. The penalty decision, while incorrectly given, should never have materialised in the first place: most keepers would probably slide in to claim the ball with their hands, and while he may also have floored Vardy in that situation, penalties are hardly ever given when the keeper is able to claim the ball decisively. He is also likely to be quicker to the ball than when he tried to kick it. Furthermore, that poor attempted clearance (though he did touch the ball) is a reminder that one of his weaknesses is his kicking. Same with his attempt to take the ball round Vardy in the first half, which gave Okazaki the opportunity to shoot at an open goal. Yet, while he may not be a de Gea or Courtois, his ball stopping ability has helped Pool considerably over the years, and today (with the penalty save) is a case in point.

Lovren, while not conspicuously at fault for the goals, again demonstrates why fans have issues with him. The early Leicester chance in the 5th minute resulted in Mignolet saving from Vardy, but Lovren, nearest to the keeper, was guilty of ball watching as the ball flew into the air and Mahrez went for a volley that fortunately looped over the goal. Similarly, in the 44th minute,  Leicester attempt to play the ball out of their area, and Lovren does a good job intercepting the ball to Mahrez. But, possibly giddy with excitement at doing so and being in such an advanced position, and despite no Leicester player being close to him or moving towards him, he then attempts to bend the ball to Salah in the box with the outside of his right foot, which of course fell woefully short. Even a creative midfield type would probably have some hesitancy about trying a ball like that. One felt the fanbase collectively groaning loudly at that point.

These are decent players but sometimes one feels that they could do with trying to keep things simple and getting the basics right, rather than over-complicate things. The spotlight burns brighter when you already have a target on your back.

Still, these negatives and the generally wild nature of the game were offset by quite a few positives. Coutinho’s return to form is one, as he refrained from pointless shots and demonstrated lethal effectiveness when the opportunity arose. His reaction to the goal seemed cathartic for him, which hopefully puts him in a better place for the rest of the season.

Sturridge also had a good return, getting an assist and being somewhat unlucky not to get on the scoresheet himself. Many have been skeptical that he would return to his best, but hopefully this is a sign that he’s edging closer. He seems to be returning to the form that he displayed towards the end of last season: more confidence in his body, leading to better movement and positioning. One hopes that he’s just ironing out his shooting – that seems to be the last piece of the puzzle.

Henderson also put in a great shift, and appears to be on the way to returning to his best form from the last season. The goal helped, and it has to be said that it took composure to place the ball between the keeper and defender that were in his way, rather than just blasting it goalwards. (One wishes that the rest of the team did more of that in the second half than merely launching the ball forward.)

In particular, an uptick in Hendo's form may be key for the team. More than any other player, he represents a crucial part of the team's spine, knitting the defence and offense, with his stamina and physicality important elements of what made the team tick during the first half of last season. Emre Can has fantastic ability but tends to be mercurial and somewhat less conscientious defensively. Gini Wijnaldum puts in the miles but appears even less consistent. An increasingly influential and consistent Hendo could be the key to ensuring that LFC puts in more measured, controlled performances, rather than the see-sawing kickabout that we witnessed for long stretches today.

Carabao Cup: 0-2 v. Leicester (A)

Liverpool proved unable to snap out of a run of poor results despite their usual excellent start to the game. Since this is only the League Cup, more damage has been wrought by the sense of malaise intensifying rather than actual harm imposed on LFC's medal prospects. It's still worrying, as the threat of getting caught in a slump - the worst kind is to be playing well and dominating games but not getting any points - is a clear and present danger.

The result was downright deflating after an upbeat, incisive first half (albeit without the requisite finishing). If anything, one takeaway from the game is that Klopp's imprint on the team is very clear: he’s able to get a Pool reserve team to implement his ideas and play some pretty football.

The goals we conceded seemed to be the usual goof-offs. The first was partly our usual corner voodoo combined with a failure to deal with second balls; the second was a now more confident Leicester deciding to have a go for one of the few times in the game. And of course the “score against Pool with your first decent effort” is pretty axiomatic by now. What's frustrating is that teams don't seem to have to play particularly well to score against LFC, while we have to perform near optimal standards in order to get any joy in front of goal.

But it’s also the case today that we didn’t really test the Leicester keeper enough – we hardly had any clear cut chances. I think, as in the Burnley game, a sign of progress is that we are getting better penetration, but in this case the clear cut chances were paltry. Solanke sparkled but didn’t put away the half chances he had; Oxlade-Chamberlain had the best opening but his shot got deflected.

Still it was a relatively good run-out for the squad players. While promising, Grujic seemed nervous (and it usually seems to materialise in over-aggression) and not trusting enough of himself. Ox proved why he still can’t play central midfield at the moment, though he gave some good moments from the flanks. The rest of the youngsters - Gomez, Flanno, and Robertson (who has enough top-flight experience to not be considered a youngster) did pretty decent jobs. Two stood out: Solanke was eye catching, with great movement and an adroit use of physicality - a touch more sharpness and experience and he would have opened his account for the club. And Woodburn looked like a seasoned pro rather than a 17 year old: great mindfulness on the ball and skill in holding it up. He also almost got a sensational goal towards the end.

While there’s little end product from these prospects at the moment, the hard truth is that they need games to learn and progress. Hopefully they learn more from defeats than from victories that may paper over flaws. Of the youngsters that were similarly tested last season in non-league games, the likes of Woodburn, Trent and Gomez did well enough to be on the precipice of a first-team place now. Unfortunately today's result has lessened the number of games they’re going to get for their development.

EPL: 1-1 v. Burnley (H)

Start with the obvious: the result was frustrating, and a particularly poor one in the context in the race for top-four. Games at home and where you dominate as well as enjoy quite a few good chances are games that you need to put away and get points on the board, particularly this early in the season. Once the top teams peel away it's a bit more of a challenge mentally to keep up. 

Indeed, LFC were lucky towards the end to get away with a point as our "corner voodoo" nearly struck again. On another day, another team might have scored one of those chances, and the LFC would have had a much more negative narrative to deal with. (Of course it needn’t be pointed out that Burnley were also pretty lucky that we were less than clinical on most occasions, with the exception of Salah’s goal.) Then there's the glaring (and by now rather tripe) defensive error which gifted Burnley a goal on their first real attack. Come on, at least make them work for it. Or at least it has to be some rather spectacular goal like Burnley's second against Chelsea on opening day.

Having said that, I think there’s evidence of progress in one important aspect. Last season, one serious problem when playing against well-organised and more defensive-oriented teams was that Pool frequently failed to get any penetration behind defensive lines. We ended up passing sideways or punting hopeful long balls with little incision. Most of the time that resulted in some awry shot from outside the box or a pass that's easily cut out.

In contrast, this has not been the case so far against Burnley, Palace or Watford. We appear to be better able to get into good positions behind well-organised lines, mostly on the flanks. This seems down to the likes of Salah (and Mané) being able to stretch the other side and create space, but today it was Coutinho too who helped with his dribbling. That seems like relatively good progress to me.

The problem is that the finishing and decision-making haven’t been optimal. The forwards, of which Salah is culpable as well, haven’t been as ruthless as they need to be. In that regard Mané’s presence was missed. Couts still seemed rusty, as did Sturridge. The latter had in the past scored from positions less promising than some of those he found himself in today. 

Firmino’s starting position meant that he was hardly in areas he would have occupied as the lone striker/false 9, and his influence was barely felt today. This is not a new issue at all, and I think it compromises the team as a whole as it usually means there is a less effectual player on the flank. If Klopp chooses to start with Sturridge or Solanke, he might think about either resting Firmino or starting a more natural flanking player like Oxlade-Chamberlain or even Milner (whose best performances for City have come on the flanks) and putting Firmino in the no. 10 or no. 8 position.

I thought that Solanke actually seemed the sharpest of the bunch and maybe we would have benefited had he been brought on earlier. He seemed driven, quick and blessed with good positional sense. 

In games against the likes of Burnley, it might be interesting to experiment with a traditional striking partnership (of which it seems to be that Sturridge/Solanke or Ings is the natural fit) with the intention of maximising striking efficiency. The premise is that strikers tend to be more clinical in front and goal and are better able to strike in a wider variety of situations, such as headers or from just outside the box or positionally being better able to react to saves or blocks. Width can be still be provided by a roving no. 10 of the likes of Mané or Salah. This might be an option especially in cases when one of the pair of Mané/Salah isn't available.

The lack of finishing isn’t a new issue and hopefully will diminish as the season goes on as players get sharper. Sometimes you also need the rub of the green, and we haven’t really had that all week, or indeed much this season. The contrast with City is palpable: a rather lucky equaliser against Everton when down to ten men, then a winning goal against Bournemouth that came more than two minutes after the five minutes added on had been exhausted, then benefiting from a controversial sending off against Pool when the game was still in the balance. Now, as evident from the Watford game, their confidence is high and the team is clicking into gear. On the other hand, Pool conceded a last-minute offside (amongst other issues, such as pushing the keeper) goal against Watford, had its best player sent off against City and unavailable for three games, as well as suffering rather bad brain farts in front of goal against both Sevilla and Burnley. The only thing to do is to keep grinding on and work to change those fortunes.

Command and control

Klopp's LFC have been justifiably criticised for at times not controlling games better. This is particularly glaring in cases where the team has been dominant and is usually sitting on a lead, only to lose control of the match and eventually the scoreline. Prime examples include the 2016 reversals against Southampton and Bournemouth, or the stalemates against United and City in 2017.  Add to that the latest case, against Sevilla in the Champions' League.

Would a dedicated defensive midfielder (DM) improve matters? While I think this could be the case, it does not seem to be an idea favoured by Klopp. He hasn't really signed anyone for such a task: of those who come closest to specialising in that position for LFC, Kevin Stewart was sold last summer and Lucas was played more often in defence than in the midfield. It may be that Klopp resists the inclusion of such a player in favour of a more fluid midfield, with players that are drilled to run into space and support the press by the forwards. Indeed, even Henderson - in what has been called a quarterbacking role (I resist the traditionally elegant moniker of regista as I'm not sure he has shown enough flair and composure for that yet) - appears to be getting in more advanced positions much more frequently, interchanging often with the other midfielders.

While a DM might help to break up attacks and pre-empt counterattacks before they get too dangerous, there may not be a strong need for one provided the press is working well and Liverpool enjoy better possession.  In fact, these two factors are usually the case - the team gets possession back relatively quickly, and in most games - frequently those against lesser sides - enjoys the vast majority of possession. 

When these conditions are met, it seems to me what's needed is the players better knowing how to control proceedings: when to push forward and when to dampen the tempo. The latter is not simply about passing the ball amongst your own teammates: doing so invites pressure and forces your team further back into its own half. Drawing opponents in and inviting pressure is often more high risk than playing the ball forward, though the corollary is that it opens up space behind your opponents.

It would appear that LFC's default mode is simply the first approach: when possession is won, the team almost invariably tries to spring an attack, to try to get the ball to runners in advanced positions as quickly as possible. That's great to watch and goes to the heart of why LFC can be such a formidable attacking force, but it also results in a frustratingly high number of turnovers which leave spaces that encourage the opposition to come forth again. Doing well over the course of a season and in multiple competitions requires adroit game management.

I suspect that the team is frequently only executing Klopp's instructions. Being attack-minded, his gut probably says that pursuing turnovers is the key to discombobulating the opposition and putting the game out of their reach. He's not wrong when it works, but when it doesn't - and the spotlight always burns a bit more uncomfortably when it doesn't - it raises questions about his tactics.

But if that's not the case in some games, the other question is whether LFC have the personnel to carry out such controlled play. There haven't been many examples of it under the attack-minded Klopp. It takes players who are very comfortable in possession and under pressure, particularly in midfield, as those are the players that are called upon most frequently to circulate the ball or to compensate for their counterparts flitting in and out of position. With Lallana out with injury, Can seems the best bet at the moment, though he's still rather mercurial. Henderson's mobility has seemed crimped this season compared with seasons past, and he's too in favour of one-touch plays rather than ruminating with the ball on his feet to try to draw opponents in and to open up spaces for his mates. Overall, the midfield is built for feeding a lightning offensive than for a footballing cul de sac.

This is probably where Naby Keita will fill a big gap, with his mobility, silkiness and composure on the ball. His inclusion might see Liverpool finally improving on that aspect of game management, which I believe is what separates good teams from great ones.

UCL: 2-2 v. Sevilla (H)

Before saying anything about the game, one should set the overarching context for LFC. Coming off a 0-5 hammering at City, it was vital to shake off any sense of trauma and get some points on the board. LFC had to do this against a team that brought back bad memories for Pool and which is, despite some depletions, still a strong La Liga outfit. Moreover, LFC had been absent from the UCL for three years (and few in their squad have much UCL experience, with the exception of new signing Oxlade-Chamberlain), while Sevilla is a seasoned practitioner, especially when their unprecedented Europa League success is taken into account.

In this context, the outcome of the game was a mild success for Pool. Even after a conceding a silly opener early in the game, which, in light of the trauma of the last league game might have torched nerves and deflated confidence, they attacked in a way that suggested genuine will and self-belief. It was Klopp-vintage LFC attacking football - relentless and remorseless. Well, it would have been really remorseless had they put the game out of reach by half-time, which they were capable of doing. Moreno's sparkling performance, which perhaps for him came with some personal vindication after how many blamed him for Pool's capitulation in the Europa League final against the same opposition a year ago, is also indicative of Klopp's ability to improve players, even those that have been long written off (oh how one wishes that would rub off soon on the centerbacks).

But it also turns out that the game was a Klopp-vintage LFC performance in another manner, this time not in a positive way: conceding a late goal when leading and in firm control. Psychologically, for fans at least, it's one of those cases where at ten minutes in, one goal down and with the memory of a five-goal surrender painfully fresh, you would have taken a draw at the end. Being dominant and having Sevilla on the ropes, only to once again blow it because of a not-especially mesmerising goal (and thankfully Sevilla put a late chance wide with the goal gaping) feels somewhat like a letdown. That the goals were down to the usual culprits - individual error (for the first one) and a collective lapse of concentration (for the second) - won't do much to dispel the gloom.

It increasingly seems like Pool's form towards the end of the last season - where they scored fewer goals but were also much tighter defensive - was an aberration. That's not necessarily a bad thing: I thought that those outcomes flattered Pool somewhat, as they were certainly weaker in attack but defensively seemed to be getting away with more. Moreover, they were frequently up against teams with much less to play for.

Having said all that, I think it's still too early to pass judgment on how the next few months will turn out. There is a possibility that the relatively tough early games have helped Klopp iron out his team a little more and perhaps motivated them better after the recent mixed results. It also has to be noted that LFC are still playing without Coutinho.  We can't really be sure till October.  In the meantime, next up is Burnley, the kind of physical, well-organised side that typically thrives against Pool.  It may not be platform for bouncing back from the City game that fans hope for.

Transfer tidings

Much angst and bile about LFC's summer transfer dealings have already been spilled on social media.  Yet the context that is missing from most comments is the near total lack of verifiable information from clubs about the exact goings on during these dealings, meaning that complaints about clubs not doing this or that or having one motive or another are probably close to being pure speculation, usually in accordance with one's pre-conceived notions about the club.

Having said that, I do want to wade into the Virgil van Dijk affair, specifically to address the insistence of many on a moral equivalence between Pool's approach to VVD and Barcelona's courting of Coutinho (which was accompanied by what could only be construed as rather severe harassment of LFC).

While I have no first-hand knowledge, most public accounts point to several important differences between the two courtships. First, Southampton were initially unopposed to selling, while Pool have maintained their opposition throughout. By pulling the plug after at first signalling to VVD that he could move, it is probably not surprising that the player's relations with management soured after that (especially with reports that Pool was willing to pay £60-70 mil, a ridiculous amount for a player even in this day and age, much less a defender).

Second, Pool did not make an approach after that alleged tapping up incident (as per its statement after the incident and supposedly because it had made a promise to the Saints) and also went radio silent in the media, quite unlike Barcelona who not only tried using the media to unsettle Coutinho and the club but also, by coincidence surely, submitted its bids just before LFC games.

Third, VVD told his club months ago (as early as April, according to some accounts, but certainly by the beginning of summer) that he wanted to move. Coutinho handed in a transfer request the day before the season's first game, having not given any indication before that until perhaps a few days prior to the request. Obviously, Coutinho's actions were clearly something much more difficult for any club to accept.

Whether the above comparison proves to be accurate, what does seem certain is that comments about transfers inexorably reduce players to property or assets (which is disturbing on one level), failing to consider the intangible aspects that managers and club officials, who work closely with players, inevitably have to take into account. Things like social bonds, player comfort, loyalty or morale.

That is particularly the case when fans talk about outgoings at a club. Ultimately, football is a team sport and such intangibles count. I believe that's the case for LFC, especially under the intense, team focused Klopp, and also since when we've never been a club that could go out and drop £100-£200mil at the tip of a hat.

EPL: 0-5 v. City (A)

It was the searing indignity of this result that finally precipitated the creation of this blog so as to vent my frustrations online!

A few things of note.  Let's start with the Mané sending off. While I can see why he's been sent off, it's not necessarily a clear-cut case and I would like to take issue with some of the sentiments expressed about how it was a stone-cold red.

First, to those who say that it's a literal application of the rulebook, it should be noted that refereeing is to a large degree about interpretation and context. A literal application of the rulebook would probably see far more players in the book or sent off. Somebody on Twitter noted how in LFC's last game against Arsenal, Salah scored the third goal after nicking the ball with his head from Bellerin as the latter's foot went high. Should Bellerin have been sent off as well for "endangering" a fellow player? In that case, Bellerin missed and Salah came away with the ball, which leads to the conclusion that, in Mané's case, the circumstances that prompted the red were that he did catch a player in the face with his foot and that player happened to be the keeper. If that's the case, it would seem that he was sent off due to sheer bad luck: he actually hit his opponent (despite not meaning to, just as Bellerin probably had no intention of kicking Salah), and keepers are protected more than outfield players. That's patently unfair then. It's not to say that football isn't unfair at times, but I think it rather undercuts the case for a literal interpretation of the rulebook all the time.

Second, the question of intent. There are some who say that though Mané's eyes were firmly on the ball, he probably could have seen the keeper coming with his peripheral vision. Even if true, one is taking a big leap in implying that the quality of one's peripheral vision is as good as when one is firmly concentrating on looking ahead. In other words, when you are focused on something immediately ahead of you, it's unlikely that you will be able to see as well using your peripheral vision, in terms of judging distance, speed or direction of movement of an oncoming object. In Mané's case, what this means is that even if he did see the keeper coming from the corner of his eyes, he might not have gotten as clear a sense of whether that keeper would reach the ball before he got to it than in a situation where he is looking directly at the keeper.

So this could go some way to explaining why his leg was raised. While he probably saw the keeper coming, he may have thought that he could reach the ball ahead of the keeper if he stretched for it. It turned out to be a tragic mistake, but it does not necessarily fall into the ambit of endangering his opponent.

The Mané issue aside, it was a poor performance from LFC. It has to be said that Klopp may be tactically culpable here, in that he didn't adjust Pool's approach when down to 10-men. That failure greviously negated LFC's pressing and opened up too much space between the lines for City, turning a one-goal contest into a goal-fest. Someone on Twitter said that it's probably because LFC didn't know how else to play or didn't have the personnel for it. If that's the case, then it reflects poorly on Klopp. Over the last two seasons Pool had repeatedly paid the price for not knowing how to close out games, when moving from their fluid, expansive play to a more compact, disciplined shape might help to see out games where they had the lead. The same kind of switch would have come in handy here.

The irony of this result is that, just two weeks earlier, Arsenal were being criticised for many of the same perceived failings as Pool are now: lack of leaders on the pitch when things go south, tactical naiveté in the wake of the opponents playing between the lines and players just lost on the pitch or giving up. Hopefully, it'll serve as a big wake-up call, as the back-to-back defeats to Pool and Arsenal did for Chelsea last season.

The only problem is that it is difficult to see Klopp doing anything but persisting with the same tactics and personnel. Manager and players may be much more inclined to write-off the result as a one-off. One can only hope they are similarly seared by that experience and play with more fire in their belly in the next few months. In the EPL, that's the kind of mentality that intimidates and could prove the edge in tight contests.

First post!

Hello world!