Liverpool Broke Their Own Pressing Records Against Real Madrid (But Had Shit Luck)
A team in decline? No, a partially rebuilt side that lacked luck
Earlier today, Daniel posted the comment (below) about pressing, gathered via his work with Anfield Index.
I have since added it to the Main Hub’s Free Friday after he published the weekly roundup, but it won’t have gone in the email, so I thought I’d share on the ZenDen, as it needs to be read by as many people as possible, in the wake of a ludicrous and hysterical reaction to a freakish scoreline from an otherwise good performance (bar a couple of mistakes at the back).
It shows, as with the xG being 2-1 to Liverpool even when Madrid were 4-2 up, that the goals (two of Madrid’s were huge flukes, to only one of Liverpool’s, and Liverpool were also denied a stonewall penalty) were distortions of the performance into an unjust scoreline.
Nothing about this game screams “three-goal defeat”, and the underlying numbers all suggest a big step in the right direction.
But that’s why we analyse underlying numbers, as finishing is random, and never more so when you get two ultra-flukey goals. (Or was Karim Benzema aiming at Joe Gomez’s backside with a poorly hit shot?) Of course xG isn’t perfect, but if you do well on the ball (creating over 2 xG) and you break pressing records, maybe it was just plain bad luck, allied mostly to two moments of brilliances from the two Madrid strikers who also scored a hugely flukey goal each, to add the distortion.
Anyway, Daniel’s summary:
Pressing summary by Daniel Rhodes
I've collected the pressing in 51 matches now for Anfield Index's Under Pressure podcast, and there's a database of over 400 games in total across the Rodgers and Klopp era.
Total pressing actions: 332 (highest ever)
Possession wins: 54 (highest ever)
Group presses: 51 (high)
Efficiency: 86.7% (normal range)
Only one press led to a shot though, so there production wasn't there, but what it tells me is that throughout the match our intensity was back. The only goal caused by a failed press was the fifth.
Bajcetic - who struggled against Newcastle with a really low efficiency - was back to his previously set high standards with 35 pressing actions and TEN possession wins and a 97% success rate.
Henderson had the highest volume of presses with 44 and 9 possession wins (88%).
Gakpo was second on the list with 41, again 9 possession wins, and a 92% efficiency.
Robertson had his highest total (19) for four years, as did Trent with 20, but that is his highest ever - again both of them had high success rates as well.
The one caveat I'd pose is that for 20 minutes at the end we bumped up our numbers because we were chasing shadows and Madrid had no intention of taking risks and were knocking it sideways and backwards whenever we applied any pressure.
For more context, we had more presses in the first two minutes on Tuesday than the whole first half against Everton! The intensity was as high as it could for all the periods of the match apart from after we went 2-0 up until the equalised so could be an indication we slightly dropped off. One thing is for sure, the pressing was not the problem in this game, in fact it was a huge positive.
My Reply
To which I replied on the site:
This is excellent analysis.
We "learnt" that Madrid are exceptional at keeping the ball when 4-2 and 5-2 up, and there's no surprise there, with Modric and Kroos (who I suspected would travel when they said he hadn't travelled) et al are involved.
By that stage we had a weaker XI on the pitch, due to wanting fresh legs to chase, but also as our two excellent strikers (Jota and Firmino) are not match fit, while Nunez was likely only playing with a painkilling injection. I personally enjoyed seeing Milly try to close down even though we were 5-2 down, even if it was painful in other ways.
What has really pissed me off over all this analysis is the sweeping statements about the scoreline proving the decline and end of a team, especially a team that is actually being rebuilt already, and especially when nothing about the underlying numbers says a 5-2 scoreline was fair. It was largely a very even game, with Liverpool unable to stretch the lead when on top, which sometimes happens.
I'm furious at some of the scoreboard journalism, and can't believe people's poor sense of a game of football.
When we were shit at Brighton I said we were horrifically shit. The numbers then showed it. Again, if you can't "read" a game of football, maybe think before posting (on here) or writing articles (in the media).
If you read it wrong due to emotion, as happens, wake up the next morning with a rational head on. Otherwise, you've lost the ability to do anything other than make a lot of meaningless noise (which only adds to the problem).
Keep your heads, or become like headless chickens.