Interference
There are a few things to talk about, a few things to dissect. We could start with the fact we’ve lost back-to-back league games by three or more goals since 1965, or we could talk about the fact that during this period we conceded 7 goals in 2 games. At one point, across a 5-game span, we had conceded 12 goals, scoring only 3. We could also look at our set piece balance and contend with the fact that we’ve conceded 8 set pieces, scoring only 3. Questions are to be asked about Arne Slot’s tactical approach, are we pressing high enough? What are we doing with the ball in settled possession? How are we doing in the attacking transition phase? There’s quite a bit of interference to sift through.
Then we could look at what has been happening off the pitch, the death of our beloved Diogo Jota cuts deep, the psychological impact it continues to have on the football club is impossible to overstate. Whilst there are also some things to be said about the Mohammed Salah spectacle and the interference it has caused. Presented by yours truly, Jamie Carragher. The absurd response to Salah’s interview has even devolved into personal attacks, further whipping up the volume of negative noise surrounding the club. The loss of Trent Alexander Arnold is still a worthy mention, seeing as the ability to spring surprise attacks from deep areas has no doubt decreased.
After a rocky start, is it fair to say we’ve seen an uptick in performances for the summer signings? Hugo Ekitike started in style, but Florian Wirtz and Milos Kerkez have clearly needed time, Alexander Isak clearly needs more. So, interference is seen in everything and the easy thing to do would be to go into our tribes and focus on which factor takes precedent over the other.
I would like to take to the stage by putting forward a set of presupposing questions, before answering them. For one to find out about anything, at the very least one must first ask. What game scenarios are we finding ourselves in? How are we reacting to these game-scenarios with our tactics? And finally, what should we start doing? From the perspective of an out-of-possession enthusiast.
After having a conversation with our reliable friends at Opta, Liverpool have been behind for 36.9% of their game-time. Only West Ham and Wolves have been behind for a greater percentage of their matches. As noted on several occasions by Slot, Liverpool constantly found themselves in situations where the opponent end up scoring from their first chance of the game.
This is no doubt a discontinuous interference that has significantly influenced the story of the season. A fact that does not need much analysis. Nottingham Forest scored from their first chance after being dominated for 30 minutes, Van Djik freakishly handballed the ball against PSV, Bryan Mbeumo scored within 2 minutes after a questionable refereeing decision and Brentford scored from a throw-in within 5 minutes. Breaks and catastrophes have led to Liverpool having to chase games for prolonged periods, leaving themselves more open to opposition attacks. Alarmingly, also noted by Opta; only Burnley (34) and West Ham (32) have allowed more big chances than Liverpool (29). For all the talk of control, it is an undeniable fact that the scoreline is important when determining how much control a team has over a game. Control does not necessarily follow on from tactics, better yet, it follows on from the game-state.
Thus, the type of games we are playing has shifted. Our opponents have fiercely turned to long balls to create chaos. After their first 9 games Liverpool had faced 571 long passes, this accounted for 20.5% of their total passes against, the greatest proportion faced by any team in the league. This style shift introduces a scrappier feel to the game, where the outcome of duels is increasingly randomised. It seems most appropriate to mention here that in what was their most convincing performance against Eintracht Frankfurt, Liverpool conceded their lowest tally of long balls all season (38), the game ended 5–1.
Get Samuel AP’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Now that we have established some of the reoccurring game-states the Reds have found themselves in, it is important to not absolve Arne Slot of any blame. The out-possession phase is an area of concern and has been for some time. Like most teams, Liverpool prefer to leave an extra player in the backline as much as possible to provide defensive cover, sacrificing a player further forward who can support the team in defending higher up the pitch. The question then becomes; how do you stop the opposition from exploiting this fact? Or what do you do when the opposition locates this free player?
Upon asking these questions, tensions begin to arise for Arne Slot. Across the different phase of play, there is a constant ceding of time and space to the opposition. Whether it be pressing high or sitting in a block, these negative tendencies have been prevalent all throughout. The front 4 are sometimes seen to be standing on the same horizontal line, applying minimal pressure on the ball. Often due to being preoccupied with the opponents behind them. 2–3 passes are all that is needed to bypass this structure and if the opponent can move around stealthily, situations where they find themselves running at LFC’s backline reveal themselves.
Front 4 caught high up the pitch, Manchester City can access the space behind them by passing the ball out-wide.
In both these situations Liverpool recover the ball in the lower areas of the pitch, rather than the higher spaces, the most important distinction to be made here.
For coherent improvements to be made, Liverpool must improve their out-of-possession efficacy to stop the opposition from finding the free player. This is what we might call a continuous loophole, there are several ways to approach this dilemma, many of which we have already seen in recent games, Sunderland & Brighton in particular. An already seen solution is to compromise the rest attack and drop the right winger lower, to be closer the opposition left full-back. Though initially a reactive measure, thus compromise allows the rest of the team to keep to their designated opponent as no jumps are necessary. It is better that the free player be in-front, no longer behind.
Another tactical manoeuvre that Arne Slot has already turned to: keep your right winger on the oppositions left-back and use the choice to jump onto the opposition full-back, fully commit to the ball-side. The choice to keep the winger higher-up is a proactive choice, it is best that the team win the ball back quickly in these instances, as right-back and right centre-back must hand their opponents over to the team-mates to cover the one further forward. Though this approach is proactive it is more reliant on the team exuding physical superiority on the opponent, the +1 advantage is lost and everyone must physically defeat their opponent.
Another tactical manoeuvre that Arne Slot has already turned to: keep your right-winger on the oppositions left centre-back, and use the full-back to jump onto the opposition full-back, fully commit to the ball-side, the choice to keep the winger higher-up is proactive choice, it is best that the team win the ball quickly in these instances, as due to the number of jumps necessary to achieve optimal compactness, this could present the opposition with space to play into. Though this approach is proactive, it is heavily dependent on each-player not letting their opponent get pass them.
There are other player formations that we could divulge in, but the overall premise seems to be clear. Arne Slot will have to move players backwards and forwards in a more coherent manner to better achieve territorial dominance in the higher spaces when out-of-possession. Dominik Szoboszlai has been shifted to the right flank in recent games to provide the energy to better cover the free player, marked as a player profiling move by Slot to steady the defensive stability of the team.
To put a full stop to this discourse, it has become clear that some of Liverpool’s woes can be attributed to how well they are able to stop the opposition from locating the free player. As seen on various occasions, Liverpool have not been up to the task, whether that be whether sitting defensive mid-block or pressing high, the opposition have managed to poke holes in their defensive structure. It is important to note in this sense that allowing the opposition to have a free player in the build-up phase is not necessarily a negative thing if the objective of a team’s out-of-possession work is based on limiting the opposition from creating high quality chances.
This is a conscious choice does not mitigate the tactical tensions that come with it, however it does offer a context from which we can begin to understand Arne Slot’s underlying intentions and whether the team is executing his game-plan. Variance will no doubt take a turn as even if we point to certain tactical faults, the game against Leeds was influenced by instances (and a set-piece), they failed to make their early pressure against Sunderland count. Tactical trade-offs but also discontinuous interferences are as important as each other when measuring a team’s progress. After all, the sign of virtuous team is one that knows how to deal with interference.
