Quote from: Palakka on Today at 01:54:48 PM

Although their defence was very dilapidated in the match but the absence of haaland also had an impact on the sharpness of their attacking line, throughout the match their only relied on the two wings to dismantle liverpool defence, but when the ball was passed into the middle it was foden who became the main striker unable to complete existing opportunities well and I think that it would be different if haaland was the main striker, But apart from that, manchester city overall play has improved although guardiola does have to evaluate their defence, especially since their defensive problems are quite complex including lack of organisation, inconsistency and also poor chemistry between players after Stones and Akanji were injured.

I am annoyed with Guardiola's match strategy in this match. Manchester City's top scorer Haaland was not in the squad. And we know that Liverpool's defense is very strong. Did manchester City need to play attacking? I would say Manchester City should have played defensively and tried to draw the match.

Manchester City played attacking, that's why Liverpool were able to create scoring opportunities from counterattacks. Arne Slot is very clever. He kept his defense strong in this match. Keeping the defense strong, Liverpool attacked and tried to score goals. In the end, Liverpool succeeded. A wonderful 2-0 win for Liverpool.