Liverpool Vs PSV [1–4] – Champions League 2025/2026: Why Did Liverpool’s Attack Break Down? – Tactical Analysis

Liverpool hosted PSV Eindhoven in the fifth fixture of the UEFA Champions League at Anfield, and the match ended with a 1-4 loss for the Reds.

The painful loss comes to aggravate Liverpool’s already existing issues as they have been suffering locally and on a European level this season.

It is true that they retain 13th place, with three wins and two losses, and a number of points that is not catastrophic and allows them to qualify for the knockout round playoffs; however, losing a home game to PSV is worrying, given it adds to their poor run of form.

What is even more worrying is the team’s unconvincing performance and their inability to be as dangerous as needed from an attacking perspective, for various reasons.

On the other hand, PSV achieved a new milestone in their current UEFA Champions League journey, beating Napoli 6-2, confirming that they do not fear any opponent.

In this tactical analysis, our main focus will be to explore what went wrong in Liverpool’s attacking tactics and performance, assessing the wrong decisions and the situations that they could have dealt with in a better way.

Liverpool Vs PSV Formations & Lineups

Arne Slot started the match in the 4-2-3-1 formation, with Giorgi Mamardashvili in goal, and a defensive line comprising Virgil van Dijk and Ibrahima Konaté as centre-backs, Curtis Jones at right-back, and Miloš Kerkez at left-back.

The midfield was made up of Alexis Mac Allister and Ryan Gravenberch as central midfielders, with Cody Gakpo and Mohamed Salah as wingers, and Dominik Szoboszlai as the advanced playmaker behind the main striker, Hugo Ekitiké.

On the other side, Peter Bosz preferred to start the game using a 4-4-2 formation with Matěj Kovář as a goalkeeper, and a defensive line composed of all Jerdy Schouten and Yarek Gasiorowski as centre-backs, Anass Salah-Eddine as a left-back, and Sergiño Dest as a right-back.

In midfield, he relied on Mauro Júnior and Joey Veerman as central midfielders, and on Dennis Man and Ivan Perišić as wingers, with both Ismael Saibari and Guus Til forming the attacking duo.

Liverpool Attacking Weaknesses

Liverpool were unable to convert their chances as the attacking players’ decision-making was not good enough.

Liverpool could have scored the equaliser shortly after PSV’s first goal and before Szoboszlai’s goal.

However, Liverpool missed that chance after Mac Allister intercepted the ball in a dangerous zone, but Ekitiké’s poor first touch and inability to control the ball in a way that does not lead to losing it made Liverpool miss a golden goalscoring opportunity early in the game.

The lack of awareness of his surroundings and the inability to protect the ball or deal with it in a non-superficial way during such a crucial opportunity represents a real issue within Liverpool’s players.

Without 100% determination to be first on the ball and to not fail the first touch, it is complicated for Liverpool to convert the created chances consistently, and that’s one of the reasons that lead to a weak goalscoring average per match.

In fact, Ekitiké could have dealt with the received pass in a very different and useful way in order to exploit the opportunity effectively, especially since he knows that defenders are behind him and that they will be very quick to close him down and try to intercept the ball while preventing him from shooting.

Ekitiké could have gone directly for an outside-of-the-foot shot to surprise the goalkeeper, be faster than the defenders, and lose his marker.

Furthermore, another solution would have been to use an outside-of-the-foot control with his right foot, followed by a quick turn and shot with his left foot.

This would have helped him win precious time over the opposing defenders and be able to shoot on goal before they arrive.

And if none of the mentioned solutions were possible for Ekitiké, providing a pass to Gakpo, who was coming from behind, would have made the action much more dangerous as well.

This opportunity highlights the fact that Liverpool lack clinical decision-making in terms of goalscoring and in terms of turning key passes into goalscoring opportunities.

Liverpool Poor Decision-Making Inside The Final Third & Reliance On Individual Solutions

Liverpool scored their single goal of the match thanks to Gakpo’s cut inside and shot as he exploited the spaces that he found within PSV’s defence, before the goalkeeper saved the ball but gave it away in front of Szoboszlai, who was reactive enough to use that second ball and score.

Nevertheless, Liverpool failed to build on their comeback and score additional goals despite having much more valuable attacking weapons compared to PSV.

One of the chances that highlights Liverpool’s precision to reach PSV’s goal without necessarily making the right decisions inside the final third was Salah’s chance, which confirmed the Egyptian is not having his best run of form at the moment.

In this action, Salah cut inside in his usual way and opted for shooting without considering the various options he had for passing.

It is true that Salah scored goals from such situations previously, but preferring to shoot from a difficult angle at the expense of providing key passes that can put his teammates in more suitable goalscoring chances cannot be the most logical choice, only if Salah is 100% sure of his ability to score or at least shoot on goal.

The absence of executed attacking plans was noticeable in this match, as most, if not all, of the team’s attacking players preferred dribbling and shooting rather than key final passing when needed.

Liverpool Lack Of Passing Accuracy Inside The Box

Liverpool were unable to convert their created chances mainly because the players were unable to make the right decisions, and even when they did so, their execution was not good enough to create the needed threat.

In the following action, Ekitiké chose to advance with the ball to the right side of the box, despite the possibility of passing to Szoboszlai and continuing his run to the centre of the box, where Ekitiké is very much needed.

Ekitiké was quick enough to dribble past the opponents on that right side, but instead of providing an assist to Salah, who was well-positioned in the centre of the box following Ekitiké’s movement to the right, the French striker opted for shooting on goal from a very complicated angle.

This led to another missed chance due to poor decision-making, a lack of collective planning and teamplay, and poor finishing in this case.

Liverpool Lack Of Teamplay & Variations Inside The Box

There were plenty of examples highlighting Liverpool’s inability to build quick attacks with one or two touches or with quick triangular passes and movements without the ball.

Liverpool’s attacks were mostly slow, with long passive possession phases before resorting to crosses or to desperate individual solutions.

The absence of attacking variations or solutions to break opposing defences was problematic, as Slot failed to apply tactics such as switching wingers’ positions or using Salah or Gakpo in a more advanced role as second strikers.

Failing to make attacking tactical changes that could help Liverpool equalise and get back in the game was a sign of managerial stubbornness from Slot and an unwillingness to be tactically fluid and adaptable to complex situations.

Slot’s reaction to the second PSV goal was simply to replace Ekitiké with Alexander Isak and to add Federico Chiesa as a right midfielder, instead of Gravenberch, who retreated to replace Konaté.

These changes sound too passive for a team that is losing at home to a weaker team on paper, as Slot needed more impactful changes, such as using Chiesa as a second striker alongside Isak and switching to a 4-2-4 formation.

That formation would have made the team a bit unbalanced, especially from a defensive perspective, but at least it would have guaranteed a stronger reaction as the team was losing the game, and in such cases, risks need to be taken.

Such tactical changes would have helped Liverpool have numerical superiority and disturb PSV’s defensive organisation.

The inability to take considerable risks, even when losing the game, was problematic, as it was one of the reasons that led to Liverpool’s loss.

The following picture highlights another time when Liverpool players were preferring individual solutions instead of collective ones despite repeating the same type of errors on a recurrent basis during this match.

The failure to change this attitude among the attacking players made the team look less united and, eventually, less powerful/dangerous in the attacking phase.

During this action, Ekitiké advances with the ball in a situation when PSV players were trying to retreat and when Liverpool were in a three vs three situation that favours Liverpool players.

Despite that, Ekitiké pretended to shoot from distance, but instead of serving Szoboszlai, who was very well-positioned on the left, Ekitiké preferred to dribble past the first opponent to his left before attempting another dribble to the right, complicating things for himself.

Ekitiké could have provided a through pass to Szoboszlai following the false shot or following the first dribble.

Instead, he preferred to dribble again, lose numerical superiority, and have his shot blocked, since three PSV players reached him as he took too long to dribble.

This was another one of the many wrong decisions made inside the box by Liverpool players, leading to a lack of understanding between the players and to missing numerous created chances.

Conclusion

Liverpool made a lot of attacking mistakes in this match and were unable to get back in the game or exploit the created chances due to a lack of organisation of roles, lack of teamplay, and reliance on individual plays that lacked determination and intelligent decision-making.

A lot of revisions need to be made at the level of Liverpool’s attacking and defensive performances, as the team is failing to do well in both phases and will only continue to do so if no reaction is made from the coaching staff or from the management.