Gallowgate Toon

Joao Pedro would've been a great option for us.

To be fair, there are lots of things we've not tried that we did last season - I'm sure that'll be down to the squad not being on a level playing field yet for fitness/sharpness/tactics. Barnes is new to our way of playing and missed preseason games so will be short of fitness. While Gordon looks in good shape, he's a player that's historically gassed out at about 70 mins so they might be trying to build up that extra level of fitness for him to stay on and move to another position when we look to make subs.

It's a very early and a small sample from this season to definitively say that Howe's only plan for 2 relatively big purchases is that they won't play in the same team together. He's referenced Gordon's versatility when he signed him as well: "He will give us a lot. He's a young player with huge attributes, huge potential, to have a big impact on our season. A very quick, dynamic player, who's versatile and can play off both sides. The best is yet to come from him." Miggy's place is by no means locked down which we saw that at the back end of last season. Barnes is too specialist for the right I think but I don't see any reason why Gordon wouldn't ever be in the mix.

Played on the right for his apps against West Ham (away), Brentford, Leeds and Man U. Took up central spots vs. Chelsea & Liverpool which were more enforced. Edit: played AM against Bournemouth as well.

You can't really apply shoulda, woulda, coulda here though, can you? The only thing we know is that VVD is last man on the edge of the box and takes Isak out. His only route to getting the ball at that time was to go through him. Making cases about what might've happened if he didn't make the challenge is kinda endless; lots of things could've happened but it's very reasonable to assume that he makes the move then because he knows he's been beaten.

Gordon played 3 different positions for us last season. If Barnes joins the squad earlier then I don't think we see him eased in either. Feels pretty situational to me which has just been exacerbated by Gordon's start to the campaign.

Howe hasn't bought Gordon and Barnes to exclusively fight for one position - I think Howe is pretty happy with the wing options he has and there's tactical flexibility there for when he wants to explore it. Whether that's right or wrong will be proven over the next few months but he's dropped/rotated Miggy before and will again as his limitations don't suit every match. If we played Sunday's game halfway through the season with the same squad, I don't think Miggy plays the full 90 either.

We had lots of opportunities to hit switches but I guess they're quite high risk when you don't want a team to break on you. Still, taking risks is what EH often believes in so I think that's something that'll be focused on.

The stick he gets is massively overstated but we've got a problem if he's playing full matches against the best opposition. He's a very useful starter to keep things tight to then be subbed off for someone with more fret or a sub. Howe recognised this more in the second half of last season so I'm hoping Sunday was related to fitness.

Howe said we were aware of their threat on the break and we definitely played like it. I still think we played the first 10 mins of the second half well enough; settled things down, kept possession, got into good positions on a few occasions which led to promising openings. We had their plan worked out and them penned in - this was the time to start upping the tempo. On the watch back, it was noticeable how much we went for the safe option until they scored. We had many chances to slip a ball in between the lines through the middle, play a quick one around the corner, make a switch, or whip a cross in earlier... but we didn't. It seems like we tried to be like a Pep/RDZ team by taking the ball a bit deeper and passing between defenders until we drew them out but they rarely took the bait. The amount of times we just played it backwards instead was very, very noticeable. I didn't clock it at the time but Trippier was potentially the worst offender for it when he'd moved back out onto the touchline - at least 4 occasions to keep good moves building and he chose to put his foot on the ball and go backwards. Schar was also weirdly conservative; one diagnoal attempt and no real carrying out. Tonali didn't do enough of what Longstaff is really underrated at which is get into that half space on the right when it was absolutely there to attack. Gordon was so much more positive with his touches than anyone else. Maybe I'll be over this one tomorrow

I don't think it's as genius as was made out as this was basically our plan against Liverpool when Pope was sent off, iirc, but it's just spot on generally. Didn't stretch them out of their shape enough, didn't get Isak involved enough, didn't have enough quality in key moments.

Christ, you'd have thought we'd been relegated last season and not pasted one of the fancied sides 5-1 already this campaign.

I think there was a moment where Tonali had some passes with Bruno then flicked it over someone's head to nobody. Feel like that was the moment Howe decided it was time to switch.

Decided to torture myself and watch some of the second half back. Initially, I thought we hadn't done enough to stretch them to create better chances - I still think this was true going forward but I also think we temporarily used a tactic that we should've carried on. For about 10 minutes, we went to a back 3 and Trippier started playing as a DM sort of alongside Bruno. It really helped us keep possession for a while as an extra option but also because they'd sacrificed width to get numbers in the middle - it gave us some extra protection for turnovers. I reckon if we'd have swapped Murphy for Miggy at that moment then it'd have worked a treat as Miggy was the one keeping width on the right but obvs kept looking to cut in. We could've even tried a 3-2-3-2 and put Isak and Wilson on together to disrupt their defensive shape. If we'd kept on doing this, I don't think the second goal happens due to the coverage. Maybe Klopp would've cottoned on and readjusted. Bruno attempted a stupid pass but he was encouraged into that situation because they'd got an advantage of numbers on us in that moment. It's bizarre that they had 4 around our 2 mids despite being a man down.

Has he ever assisted Wilson for a goal?

It's far too early to say for definite if we needed this or that. We have plenty to work with as it stands to have another good season.

It's not like we'd played a lung busting game in the second half either. Plenty left in his tank.

It's bad defending as well as play by Bruno. However, we've also got to wonder how they effectively were able to outnumber Bruno despite being a man down and we were caught short.

But Isak has to contribute to that too. It's hard for midfielders to find links with a static striker against a deep side. We were in plenty of situations around the box where if Isak offers the option for a 1-2 or moves slightly wider to help create angles then there's more to work with. Kane is absolutely excellent at it and Isak has shown he's extremely capable of that before.

I would've kept him but he was the worst of the 3 on the ball, like, which was a smaller contributing factor to our waning control. Worst pass completion rate by a margin and it's not like he was consistently attempting really difficult ones either. But the main difference between him and Longstaff is off the ball. Longstaff is very hard working but not exactly disciplined, he gets caught in bad spots quite often and has to make lung-busting recovery runs. Tonali is much more thoughtful and is a better athlete for when we're on the turn. Their first goal comes from Jota doing what Foden did last weekend, drifting inside. Feel like if Tonali is there and that doesn't happen the same way.

And he's often really good at this as well which is why it's so bewildering that it never happened.

Think I'm mostly annoyed that we didn't even lock down for the draw. Fair enough, they have a lot of quality going forward so it's conceivable (not acceptable) that they equalise if we don't take chances, and a point would've been an improvement from last season. But to fucking lose it from there Not felt like this after a result for a long time. Managed to shake the Cup Final off after a sleep but this one still rankles.

Think he'll be benched for Brighton. 10 touches and 5 attempted passes is absolute madness. His pressing felt very flat to me as well. Maybe Howe told him to stay and occupy the CBs but with how packed they had the centre that just felt like a total waste of his talents. He rarely seemed to move out of a zone but he's meant to be one of our key links for play in-and-around the box. Feel like if that's not Liverpool then Howe keeps him on with Wilson to find another route to score.

He definitely was losing the ball quite cheaply for a spell. He didn't look tired though and his positioning was still great - felt like if we'd have persevered then he'd have got a second wind.

It's too simple to say we win today just because you put Maddison in for Miggy though. We lost because we didn't do the basics of what has made us so good over the last year - aggression and movement. The latter would've been needed for Maddison to do what he does best but it just wasn't there. Very few decoy runs, over/underlaps, little player rotation. In fact, Trippier even tucked into CM for a chunk rather than help stretch the pitch. We tried to play it safe and it didn't work. It was mentality rather than quality. Also, ultimately, today is one game very early on in the season. The squad proved last year that they can rack up goals.