Despite the 5–2 scoreline, this was not a classic dominance-by-possession performance from Liverpool. West Ham actually edged the ball with 51% possession to Liverpool’s 49%, reflecting Nuno Espirito Santo’s intent to circulate through a 4‑5‑1 and build via their 422 total passes. However, Liverpool controlled the space and tempo. Arne Slot’s 4‑2‑3‑1 was geared towards verticality: fewer passes (405) but more damaging progression, repeatedly accessing the box. The 3–0 half-time score underlined how Liverpool turned near-parity in possession into territorial and chance dominance. West Ham’s possession became largely sterile, with Liverpool’s structure inviting them forward, then attacking quickly once the ball was regained.
Offensive Efficiency
Liverpool’s attacking plan was based on sustained pressure around the penalty area. With 18 total shots to West Ham’s 11 and a striking 13 efforts from inside the box, they consistently reached high-value zones. Ten corner kicks further show how often they pinned West Ham back and forced last-ditch defending. Seven blocked shots indicate that the visitors frequently had to defend deep in their own area, suggesting Liverpool’s attacks were not speculative long-range efforts but repeated entries into crowded central spaces.
Interestingly, the expected goals numbers were almost level (Liverpool 1.84 xG, West Ham 1.86 xG), yet Liverpool scored five. That points to ruthless finishing and some variance, especially given both sides massively outperformed xG. West Ham’s 8 shots in the box from 11 total attempts show that when they did progress, they also created decent-quality chances, but the lower shot volume compared to Liverpool underlines a more sporadic threat. With only 4 shots on target and 5 corners, their attacks came in bursts rather than sustained waves. Liverpool, by contrast, combined volume (18 shots) with territory (13 in-box, 10 corners), translating a similar xG profile into a far heavier scoreboard impact.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
The game had a moderate but not excessive physical edge: Liverpool committed 12 fouls, West Ham 11, and both sides collected 2 yellow cards. That points to competitive duels rather than a deliberate foul-heavy disruption strategy. Defensively, Liverpool’s back line and midfield were compact when needed, getting bodies in the way to block 3 of West Ham's efforts. On the other hand, West Ham's defense was under constant siege, forced into desperate blocks to stop 7 of Liverpool's attempts.
Goalkeeping was not the decisive factor. Liverpool’s keeper made 3 saves, West Ham’s 2, and advanced metrics indicate that both keepers conceded more goals than post-shot models expected, underlining that finishing quality and defensive breakdowns, rather than heroic shot-stopping, shaped the score. Liverpool’s 81% pass accuracy versus West Ham’s 79% suggests both teams were relatively clean in buildup, but Liverpool coupled that with better protection of their box.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Liverpool’s territorial control and volume of high-quality entries into the box (18 shots, 13 inside, 10 corners) turned near-equal possession into a decisive win. West Ham’s 51% of the ball and similar xG could not offset Liverpool’s superior pressure and clinical exploitation of attacking zones.
