EBL

This specific idea would suggest that United would have little possession, but that was not the case. They held quite a lot of the ball and had good technical control in the game. But I would argue that this is because of Liverpool's passive pressure more than anything else..

3v2 on the first line, Trent rarely jumping to Dalot, Gakpo defending as part of a back 5. Slot was far too respectful of United. It allowed Amorim's team to excel in the moment where they are at their best tactically, in the 3-2-5 high build. Liverpool let them play.

For this reason, I would curb any enthusiasm on notion's that it was some sort of Amorim masterclass. United fans are happy with the result and performance, and rightly so because their players gave it their all and played well, but I go back to it - Liverpool let them play.

Arne Slot said it himself post-game. Manchester United played like Nottingham Forest (although this is too extreme, despite being true in certain senses). Forest pushed everybody high and kicked long, didn't press from goal kicks, and focused on defending deep versus pressing..

United were obviously more expansive from that as they tried to play out from the back when they passed it back to Onana, they had lots of possession in the high build, & they tried to get 'step-up-pressure' on the ball where possible. But the comparison makes sense in general.

The focus in this game centres around Liverpool's lack of pressure on the ball. It is the main tactical talking point. United exploited that well, but that's not a surprise. They are at their best in the high build. Overall, it was more so 'Liverpool bad' than 'United good'.

And, in terms of long-term trajectory, we have to acknowledge that it's a short-term solution to come away with something, but that is sensible. To go to Anfield and to play and to press high all of the time is asking for trouble. In a one-off game, the plan made sense.