Liverpool’s 3-0 loss to Manchester City at the Etihad left them eight points behind Premier League leaders Arsenal and prompted fresh questions about their physicality and intensity. Arne Slot’s side were outplayed and, critics said, overpowered.
The Sky Sports punditry team was sharp in its verdicts. Roy Keane: “City looked stronger, technically better and much better physically than Liverpool… Liverpool looked like a really weak team today.” Gary Neville added on co-commentary: “Liverpool look leggy. Physically, they look well off it.” Jamie Carragher highlighted a lack of bite in attempts to stop City’s build-up to the first goal: “It’s really poor from Liverpool… They should be able to get a challenge in and get a touch on the ball.”
Fixture context offers a partial explanation: Liverpool played an intense Champions League tie with Real Madrid on Tuesday and had an extra day’s recovery compared to City, who faced Borussia Dortmund on Wednesday. Still, should fans be worried about Liverpool’s physical edge? The data suggests cause for concern.
Intensity on the wane?
Post-match numbers revealed a significant gulf in duel success in the City game. Liverpool’s duel success rate was just 38.8%, the third-lowest for any Premier League side in a game this season — a striking low for a team that overall this season ranks highly for duel success. Pep Guardiola noted the importance of winning duels both by retaining possession under pressure and in direct challenges.
Across the season, though, Liverpool are trending down in several physical metrics. They are making fewer tackles and interceptions combined than in any of the last seven Premier League seasons. At the Etihad, City recorded 17 tackles to Liverpool’s eight despite similar possession shares. Tracking data showed City collectively ran about nine kilometres more than Liverpool in that match. Factoring stoppage time, City lead the league for distance covered per 90; Liverpool rank third from bottom.
Part of the reduction in distance covered under Slot has been deliberate. Last term Slot introduced a more controlled approach than Jurgen Klopp’s ultra-high-energy style, which helped conserve energy en route to a title while maintaining effective pressing. This season that pressing effectiveness has waned.
Pressing problems
Liverpool’s pressures and counter-pressures (pressures made within two seconds of a turnover) have both dropped significantly. Counter-pressing was a hallmark of Klopp’s Liverpool — he once described it as “better than any playmaker” — but the club’s counter-pressing has fallen faster than the Premier League average. A more direct league trend — teams using long passes and low blocks to bypass pressing structures — is a factor Slot has acknowledged, but it does not fully account for Liverpool’s sharper decline.
Cohesion and personnel changes are also important. Effective pressing demands collective synchrony and understanding; Liverpool are rebuilding that chemistry after substantial turnover. New arrivals such as Hugo Ekitike, Alexander Isak and Florian Wirtz can press but lack the ingrained tactical familiarity of those they replaced. All six midfielders and forwards who featured in last season’s title-winning campaign are registering fewer pressures and counter-pressures than they did a year ago. Dominik Szoboszlai’s numbers, for example, have been affected by occasional deployment at right-back.
Practical effects were visible: City’s first goal, when they played out from the corner flag, underlined Liverpool’s diminished ability to disrupt and recover possession. While Liverpool did profit from turnovers in their 2-0 win over Aston Villa, Carragher argued that was more down to Villa’s mistakes than Liverpool rediscovering their press.
What next?
Carragher urged Slot to be braver with his pressing — referencing Slot’s tendency to keep an extra player in the backline rather than aggressive man-to-man pressing. A tactical tweak could improve Liverpool’s out-of-possession threat, but the issue is also physical. Their tackling, interceptions, distance covered, pressures and counter-presses all point to a side that has lost some of the bite that defined recent Liverpool teams.
Reversing these trends will require both strategic adjustments and renewed physical output as the squad rebuilds cohesion. Until then, Liverpool will face questions about whether a previous area of strength has become a weakness.