Passive-Aggressive Liverpool

We're learning more about Arne Slot's tactical acumen every week.

Ten years ago, Atlético Madrid were drawn to face Chelsea in the semi-final of the Champions League. It was Diego Simeone, a coach known for being a defensive expert, against José Mourinho, the man behind the concept of ‘parking the bus’ as a means of getting a result.

Imagine fire against fire. Imagine having a fight with your reflection. The prospect of Atlético facing a team who would behave as defensively as they would was very real, but Simeone’s captain was having none of it.

Speaking before the clash — which Atlético eventually won — Gabi was asked whether his teammates would be able to cope if they had to dominate possession at Stamford Bridge.

“If they give us the ball, we’ll give it right back to them,” he said.

---

Liverpool hosted a different version of Chelsea on the weekend. The bout was painted as Arne Slot’s first real test in charge of the Reds. Sure, Liverpool are top of the Premier League, but they haven’t played anybody good yet, etc.

Well, they won the game. Although, how they achieved their victory came as a bit of a surprise for many of us. Liverpool playing at Anfield in a high-profile contest usually involves going punch for punch with the opposition. We’ll knock you out, because we’ve got the Kop behind us.

Slot seemed to opt for a different plan on Sunday afternoon. Despite being a self-proclaimed possession coach, the Reds seemed eager to relinquish the ball for most of the match.

Indeed, Liverpool saw only 43 per cent possession, their lowest share under Slot to date. Chelsea completed 88.1 per cent of their passes, the highest ever (!!) recorded by an opposition side in a Premier League game at Anfield. And the Reds amassed an unhealthy total of just eight shots, their fewest at home in almost four years.

---

So what happened? Well, as I write this piece, I’m finding the game relatively difficult to analyse. From the start, Liverpool seemed to prioritise compactness above anything else. We will not get sliced open. We will always have a good number of players behind the ball.

Pressing high is cool, but you’ll get opened up if your closing down isn’t on point. And you’re more likely to get opened up when you’re facing good players, like those representing Chelsea.

So rather than igniting Anfield by hunting the ball in the final third, Liverpool installed more of a midfield block with a view to not giving away clear-cut chances and pouncing upon Chelsea’s errors in possession. At least that’s what I hope was the plan.

It paid dividends at times in the first half. Robert Sánchez, the guy being paid too much money to play in goal for Chelsea, gave Liverpool plenty of freebies.

The match we played was pragmatic and if we’re honest, quite defensive. The goal was not to beat Chelsea at their own game, no. It was to absorb their jabs with a sturdy shield before countering with heavyweight blows when possible.

How many times did you witness a Liverpool attacker running towards a vulnerable Chelsea defender in acres of space? Alright, now how many times did you witness a Chelsea attacker running towards a vulnerable Liverpool defender in acres of space? Exactly. I’d like to think establishing such a landscape was a deliberate ploy on Slot’s part.

There’s nothing wrong with playing like that — as long as it’s intentional — especially if you’re facing Arsenal or Manchester City.

---

But, here’s the bad news. I was left with a few concerns after the game. I thought Liverpool paid Chelsea a bit too much respect. Their pressing game was too passive at times, and it consisted of a few structural issues.

We saw a whole host of instances in which Enzo Maresca’s outfit simply passed the ball right through Liverpool’s shape, especially Slot’s front bank of four, thus removing them from the game.

You’ll see a few examples below. Good players do not need a second invitation to progress the ball. You need to disrupt them, outnumber them, become even more compact or adopt a new structure. Otherwise, you die.

The same door was left open too often. Chelsea didn’t create a great deal of note, but it shouldn’t be that easy to progress into our half. It’s still really hard to score against Liverpool, but the midfield block we’re adopting at times might need to be fine tuned.

Our midfield two of Ryan Gravenberch and Curtis Jones basically had to manage three — sometimes four — players too often. It was basically those two against Moisés Caicedo, Roméo Lavia, Cole Palmer and Malo Gusto, who played as a left-back but often drifted into space just in front of Ibrahima Konaté.

After the clash, Maresca was pretty happy with his players. “I have been in this stadium many times and seeing Liverpool in their own half for a long time is not easy,” he said. “Overall, we controlled the game and for most parts, we dominated the game.”

---

I’m not sure Chelsea completely controlled the game. The ball, yes. But you don’t need the ball to control the game. I think — and hope — Slot largely wanted the match to flow as it did, albeit without Chelsea having so much build-up joy at times.

Seeing Liverpool always have defensive coverage is a welcome change this season. I’m definitely enjoying that. And this was yet another game in which our opponents created shots worth a total of less than one expected goal. But the Reds do need to get better at the whole passive act.

What we saw against Chelsea wasn’t quite prime Atlético, but Gabi would have put in a shift next to Gravenberch, put it that way.