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.