How Liverpool’s Pass Network Failed in Defeat to Nottingham Forest | OneFootball

Liverpool’s Attacking Waves and Passing Dissected: Nottingham Forest Match Statistical Analysis

In the latest episode of the Under Pressure podcast from Anfield Index, the contributors delved into Liverpool’s 0-1 loss to Nottingham Forest, providing a detailed match analysis from both tactical and statistical perspectives. This article will explore Liverpool’s and Nottingham Forest’s game plan, match statistics, and key moments leading up to the decisive goal. Drawing from the discussions between Simon Brundish, Dan Kennett, and Dr. Phil Barter, we aim to break down the key insights from the podcast.

Liverpool’s Lineup and Game Plan

Liverpool’s approach to the game involved their typical high-possession, high-pressing style, but Nottingham Forest’s setup effectively neutralised their game plan. Liverpool enjoyed the lion’s share of possession at 63%, but it was clear that Forest’s low block was going to pose problems from the outset. Simon Brundish noted, “We’ve been playing through midfield, but Forest set up in a 2-2-2 shape with a man marker on Gravenberch. This blocked our build-up through the middle.”

Nottingham Forest’s defensive approach frustrated Liverpool, who struggled to break through the lines. Liverpool’s main builders — Ryan Gravenberch, Trent Alexander-Arnold and Alexis Mac Allister — found themselves either man-marked or blocked by the Forest press. Brundish described it as, “They played into Forest’s game plan, and we just weren’t playing wide.”

Nottingham Forest’s Lineup and Tactical Setup

Forest’s game plan was focused on stifling Liverpool’s midfield and preventing their key creators from influencing the game. By using a compact structure and marking key players, Forest forced Liverpool to attempt wide play, which they failed to execute effectively. Dr. Phil Barter emphasised Forest’s strategy: “Forest let Konaté have the ball but blocked his outlet passes, forcing him to carry the ball up the pitch, but it led to nothing.”

Moreover, Forest’s long-ball tactics were clear from the start. As Dan Kennett noted, “Forest had a 24% long-ball rate, and their goalkeeper, Matt Turner, didn’t attempt a single short pass.” This low-risk approach was designed to keep the game scrappy and prevent Liverpool from finding their rhythm.

Match Statistics: Possession, XG and Key Metrics

Liverpool’s dominance in possession didn’t translate into meaningful chances. They managed 14 total shots to Forest’s 5, with 10 of those coming inside the box. However, their expected goals (XG) of 0.95 reflected their inability to carve out clear-cut opportunities. Forest, on the other hand, managed an XG of just 0.45, but it was enough to secure victory. Kennett highlighted the disparity, “We had 581 passes to Forest’s 251, but Forest created two big chances to our one.”

One of the key metrics mentioned by Brundish was expected threat (XT), a measure of how dangerous a team’s build-up play is. Liverpool’s XT was considerably higher than Forest’s, but their inability to convert promising positions into goals was telling. “We only attempted four switches of play in the whole game,” Brundish remarked, “and that was key because Mo Salah was often standing free, waiting for the ball, but we just didn’t play it wide.”

Patterns of Play and First-Half Analysis

Throughout the first half, Forest’s game plan remained consistent. They were content to let Liverpool’s center-backs have possession while cutting off key passing lanes. Gravenberch, one of Liverpool’s main orchestrators, was man-marked by Morgan Gibbs-White, preventing him from influencing the game. Forest also pressed Liverpool’s fullbacks, further stifling their build-up play.

Liverpool had their best period between the 31st and 45th minutes, when they managed to break into Forest’s defensive third more frequently. Brundish explained, “That was our best period of the game — we had seven successful passes into the box, but still no real big chances.” Even during this period, Forest’s resolute defense kept Liverpool at bay.

Photo: IMAGO

Second-Half Breakdown: Key Tactical Decisions

The second half saw some tactical adjustments from Liverpool, including a triple substitution that brought on fresh legs. However, the pre-planned changes seemed to have little impact on the flow of the game. The substitutions included Darwin Nunez, Diogo Jota, and Wataru Endo, but Liverpool struggled to create meaningful opportunities even after these changes.

Brundish pointed out the small mistakes that led to Callum Hudson-Odoi’s winning goal for Forest. “The goal was a series of small errors — from poor positioning to a lapse in concentration. It was just one of those moments where everything that could go wrong did.” Liverpool’s defense allowed Hudson-Odoi space to shoot, and his well-placed effort left Alisson with little chance.

Liverpool’s Attacking Waves: Missed Opportunities

The image (below) highlights the rhythm of Liverpool’s attacks in terms of touches, passes, and shots. The graph is divided into periods, showcasing that Liverpool had several promising spells, particularly around the 15th, 45th, and 75th-minute marks. These moments are characterised by clusters of high touches and passes (represented by red and grey bars), yet Liverpool struggled to convert their build-up into shots (green bars), especially during key periods of pressure.

While Liverpool created opportunities, the lack of execution in the final third was evident, as shown by the minimal presence of green bars (shots) in contrast to the heavy red bars (touches). This visual underscores Simon Brundish’s analysis during the Under Pressure podcast, where he pointed out that despite dominating possession, Liverpool lacked precision in the final ball. Forest’s deep block limited Liverpool’s ability to translate touches into meaningful chances.

Pass Network: Stifling of Key Creators

The next image, a pass network and duel map, illustrates Liverpool’s struggle to find fluency in their passing. It’s divided into time segments and shows how, throughout the match, Liverpool’s key creators, such as Trent Alexander-Arnold (66) and Mohamed Salah (11), were often isolated or forced wide. The thicker lines in the earlier periods show some success in connecting central areas, particularly between Diogo Jota (20) and Luis Diaz (7), but this connection fades as the match progresses.

In the later stages, particularly after the 75th minute, the pass network shows fewer links between players, emphasising Liverpool’s increasing disorganisation as they searched for an equaliser. The network also demonstrates Forest’s tactic of leaving Ibrahima Konaté (5) unmarked, forcing him to carry the ball forward but ultimately limiting his options.

Dr Barter’s Stats Pack visualises Liverpool’s frustration — plenty of possession but minimal cutting edge where it mattered most.

LFC’s Execution and Final Third Issues

Liverpool’s final ball and execution in the attacking third were sorely lacking throughout the game. Brundish noted, “We only had two successful passes into the box in the second half. Our final ball and touch were just not there.” This inefficiency in the final third was a recurring theme, with Liverpool managing just 0.95 XG despite their dominance in possession.

Kennett also highlighted the inefficacy of Liverpool’s touch and final ball: “Our touches in the box were far below what we’ve come to expect from this team. The lack of penetration and final product was a huge issue.”

Small Margins and Missed Opportunities

Liverpool’s 0-1 loss to Nottingham Forest was a result of missed opportunities and tactical frustrations. Forest executed their game plan to perfection, stifling Liverpool’s creative outlets and taking advantage of a defensive lapse to secure victory. Despite Liverpool’s dominance in possession and attempts, they lacked the cutting edge to break down Forest’s defense.

As the contributors on the Under Pressure podcast concluded, this was a game where Liverpool’s tactical execution and decision-making were just slightly off, allowing Forest to snatch all three points. Liverpool will need to address these issues moving forward, particularly in terms of their build-up play and decision-making in the final third.