Frustration at the City Ground
By Kripa Krishnan
I think it mostly came down to lacklustre individual performances. One could easily say that the ‘Jurgen Klopp’ team could have easily won such games due to the intensity required that was otherwise lacking but I do feel if that had been the case, we would have definitely conceded more. IIn essence, I felt that no one stepped up or rose to the occasion and we experienced a sort of domino effect where the frustration, a byproduct of sloppiness, may have inadvertently seeped into all players. Not to mention, Forest were sharp and solid overall.
The overall sentiment is one of frustration and tension for Liverpool. The commentary and overall narrative based on post-game reaction highlights Liverpool’s persistent efforts and near-misses, while also praising Nottingham Forest’s defensive resilience and counter-attacking prowess.
"It was a stop-start game," Slot said. "You couldn't get a good rhythm and as a result of that we hardly created any chances. We had to be better with the ball than we were."
Overall Momentum:
Here are the main key takeaways that led to what I hope is a one-off result that we should learn from and put aside:
Impact of substitutions: The substitutions made by Forest were highly effective. Elanga and Hudson-Odoi provided fresh legs and attacking options, which ultimately led to the winning goal. The defensive substitutions helped Forest maintain their lead and secure the victory.
Despite the tactical changes and substitutions, Liverpool struggled to break down Forest’s defense. The substitutions did not have the desired impact, and Liverpool’s frustration continued as they were unable to find an equalizer.
Low Expected Goals (xG): Despite having 70% possession, Liverpool struggled to create meaningful chances, recording their lowest expected goals (0.87) of the season. The match was decided by a moment of quality.
Vulnerability to Counter: Liverpool failed to adapt quickly enough to these transitions and conceded a handful of counters one of which resulted in the goal.
Forest’s Resilience: Forest’s defense was resolute, making crucial blocks, clearances, and saves when needed adding to the frustration of our front line with their inability to make an impact.
Further, their compact midfield consisting of 5 players managed to successfully break our play. They did well to capitalise on individual shortcomings such as certain players uncharacteristically losing possession in critical areas, losing ground duels and tackles coupled with moments of reckless passing.
The following comparative stats are reflective of shortcomings as a team and indicative of how we underperformed as a team against Forest.
I also felt our front line were far from full potential with Mo and Diaz having an average of less than 0.2 expected goals over the course of the game significantly less than what they usually possess.
