Liverpool vs Nottingham Forest: Who stays when Iraola sends everyone else forward?

Liverpool created 27 shots and 3.01 expected goals at Newcastle last weekend.

They still did not win.

That may be the most important fact before Andoni Iraola takes charge of his first Premier League game at Anfield.

Liverpool’s attacking problem is not currently a lack of ambition, numbers or access to the penalty area. They demonstrated all three at St James’ Park. The harder question is what remains behind those attacks when the ball changes ownership.

Iraola has already identified it.

He wants Ryan Gravenberch carrying forward. He wants Dominik Szoboszlai arriving around the box. He wants full-backs joining attacks. He does not want Liverpool’s offensive fluidity sacrificed in pursuit of defensive safety.

But someone has to stay.

Against Nottingham Forest, that decision could determine the entire afternoon.

Oliver Glasner’s side do not need to dominate Anfield. They do not even need Liverpool to play badly.

They need one Liverpool attack to become one Forest transition before the rest defence is ready.

That is why this game is less about how many players Liverpool can send forward than about the one player who recognises when not to go.

The empty side of the attack

Every aggressive attacking structure contains an invisible second structure.

The first is obvious.

Where are the wingers?

Who occupies the half-spaces?

How many players enter the box?

Which midfielder joins?

Where do the full-backs receive?

The second only becomes visible when possession is lost.

Who is underneath the ball?

Who protects the centre?

Who can stop the first forward pass?

Who is already positioned to run backwards rather than needing to turn first?

Liverpool’s draw at Newcastle exposed why that second picture matters.

They had 60.8 per cent possession, 27 attempts and more than three expected goals. Those are the numbers of a team capable of creating enough to win almost any match.

But Newcastle still produced 1.58 xG of their own.

Liverpool therefore left St James’ Park with evidence of enormous attacking potential and an equally important warning about how expensive their offensive positioning can become.

Iraola has described the issue as a failure to achieve the correct “lockdown” after certain attacking situations.

That word is revealing.

He is not asking Liverpool to attack with fewer players by default.

He wants them to recognise when the attacking phase has become dangerous enough that another runner is unnecessary.

That is an intelligence problem as much as a tactical one.

If Gravenberch carries into the final third, someone else must read what his movement has changed.

If a full-back overlaps, the opposite side cannot behave as though nothing has happened.

If Szoboszlai joins Alexander Isak around the box, Liverpool’s midfield cannot leave the next turnover undefended.

The attack has to compensate for itself.

Forest are exactly the opponent capable of testing whether that compensation exists.

Glasner does not need Forest to control possession

Nottingham Forest’s opening defeat to Leeds should not be interpreted as evidence that they arrive at Anfield without attacking threat.

Their first competitive match under Glasner was narrow rather than chaotic.

Forest remained in the contest until the closing stages and created some of their better moments through deliveries, aerial attacks and situations in which the opposition structure could be attacked quickly rather than methodically dismantled.

That distinction matters at Anfield.

Forest do not need 15-pass sequences to hurt Liverpool.

They need access.

A regain.

A first pass.

A forward who can secure it.

A runner beyond.

A wide player receiving before Liverpool’s full-back has recovered.

This is why Morgan Gibbs-White’s expected return is so important.

His influence is not dependent on high possession volume.

In this particular game, his most dangerous touch could be his first one after Liverpool lose the ball.

If Gibbs-White receives facing Liverpool’s goal rather than his own, the entire geometry of the match changes.

The defenders are no longer protecting a set attack.

They are defending open grass.

And that is precisely what Iraola is trying to prevent.

The first pass after the turnover matters more than the turnover itself

Liverpool cannot eliminate every loss of possession.

Nor should they try.

A team committed to creating chances will inevitably misplace passes, lose dribbles and deliver crosses that are cleared.

The objective is to make those losses harmless.

That requires control of the first Forest action.

If the regain is immediately forced backwards, Liverpool can reset.

If the ball goes sideways under pressure, the counter-press can surround it.

If the first forward pass is intercepted, the attack begins again.

The danger starts when Forest’s first action travels through Liverpool rather than away from them.

Gibbs-White becomes central here.

So does the striker ahead of him.

If Liverpool’s centre-backs have been left in a genuine two-versus-two or two-versus-three transition, the quality of the original attacking move no longer matters.

A possession that reached the edge of Forest’s penalty area can become a sprint towards Alisson within seconds.

This is why rest defence should not be treated as the defensive part of Iraola’s football.

It is what allows the attacking part to remain aggressive.

The better Liverpool protect the turnover, the more players they can safely commit forward.

The relationship works in both directions.

Gravenberch represents the dilemma perfectly

Iraola’s comments about Gravenberch reveal exactly what he does not want to lose.

The Dutch midfielder can turn a static possession into a dynamic one with a carry.

He can move beyond the first defender.

He can combine around the box.

He can become the extra player an opponent did not initially account for.

Telling him simply to remain behind the ball would solve one problem by creating another.

Liverpool would become safer.

They would also become easier to defend.

The solution is therefore not restriction.

It is rotation of responsibility.

When Gravenberch advances, another player must become the controller.

That could be Szoboszlai.

It could be a full-back moving narrower rather than higher.

It could be the opposite full-back holding his position.

It could be the nearest centre-back stepping aggressively enough that the first Forest receiver cannot turn.

The identity matters less than the principle.

Liverpool cannot allow everyone to interpret the same moment as permission to attack.

Someone must recognise that the team already has enough players ahead of the ball.

That may be the least glamorous decision made at Anfield on Saturday.

It could also be the most important.

Wirtz can force Forest to choose

If Liverpool solve the protection behind their attacks, the next problem becomes opening Forest’s defensive structure.

Florian Wirtz should be central to that.

Against a back three or back five, simply standing between midfield and defence is not enough.

The space may exist geometrically without existing functionally.

A Forest midfielder can screen him.

An outside centre-back can remain close enough to step forward.

The defensive line can maintain compact distances behind.

Wirtz therefore needs to move the reference rather than merely occupy the pocket.

Drop towards midfield.

Receive.

Drag a marker.

Release the ball.

Move again.

Every change of height asks Forest to decide whether responsibility travels with him.

If the midfielder follows, Liverpool can attack the space behind.

If the centre-back steps out, Isak gains a channel.

If neither goes, Wirtz can turn.

This is where Liverpool’s attacking numbers become valuable.

Not because five attackers automatically beat five defenders.

Because five different movements can force one defender to make two decisions.

Iraola wants that uncertainty.

Forest want every Liverpool player to remain within a recognisable defensive reference.

The battle is therefore not simply about finding Wirtz.

It is about using Wirtz to move somebody else.

Isak has to make Liverpool’s possession expensive to defend

Alexander Isak’s opening league performance was another example of why attacking volume alone should not satisfy Liverpool.

He was involved in a game where the team created 3.01 xG and 27 shots.

Liverpool scored twice.

The overall attacking process was strong.

The conversion of that process still left room for improvement.

Against Forest, Isak’s role extends beyond finishing.

A back three is most comfortable when all three centre-backs can remain connected.

Isak has to make that impossible.

Pin the central defender.

Move into one channel.

Then threaten the opposite one.

Force a centre-back to decide whether to follow him away from the middle.

His movements should create the gaps Wirtz, Gakpo or Szoboszlai attack.

This becomes especially important if Forest defend deeper than Newcastle did.

Liverpool may not receive the same open spaces.

They will have to manufacture them.

A striker can do that without touching the ball.

If Isak pins two defenders strongly enough that neither wants to leave him, the free player appears elsewhere.

If only one defender stays, Isak becomes available himself.

The best attacking occupation creates a dilemma before the pass is played.

Liverpool need more of those dilemmas and fewer possessions in which every Forest defender already knows his next action.

The full-backs can either stretch Forest or expose Liverpool

Liverpool’s width creates the game’s clearest risk-reward equation.

Milos Kerkez and Jeremie Frimpong are naturally aggressive profiles.

Their forward positioning can pin Forest’s wide defenders and allow Liverpool’s attackers to receive inside.

But if both are advanced when possession is lost, the route into transition becomes obvious.

The outside centre-back is pulled towards the touchline.

The central defender has more territory to protect.

The holding midfielder must choose between closing the ball and covering the central runner.

That is the picture Forest want.

This is why the positioning of the opposite full-back matters.

When the attack is developing on Liverpool’s right, Kerkez does not always need to join the last line immediately.

Sometimes his most useful attacking contribution is to remain available behind the ball.

That sounds conservative.

It can actually make Liverpool more dangerous.

If the rest defence is secure, the right side can attack with greater freedom.

Frimpong can go.

Szoboszlai can arrive.

Wirtz can move towards the overload.

The attack becomes aggressive precisely because someone else has protected it.

Iraola’s challenge is to convince players that staying is not the opposite of attacking.

Sometimes staying enables everybody else to attack better.

Forest’s front line can manipulate the protection

Glasner will understand this.

His counter-attacking structure should be designed not merely to exploit space, but to influence who Liverpool feel able to send forward.

Leave one player high and Liverpool may still commit heavily.

Leave two high and the calculation changes.

Position Gibbs-White underneath them and suddenly the home side’s deepest midfielder cannot advance with the same freedom.

Forest can therefore affect Liverpool’s attack without touching the ball.

This is an underappreciated part of transition football.

The threat of the counterattack can change the opponent’s possession structure before the counterattack occurs.

One Forest forward staying outside Liverpool’s defensive block may be enough to keep a full-back five metres deeper.

Gibbs-White drifting towards one side may prevent the nearest midfielder from joining the box.

The striker occupying the channel may stop a centre-back stepping aggressively into midfield.

Those small positional concessions accumulate.

Forest do not necessarily need to counterattack Liverpool ten times.

If Liverpool spend the game worried about being counterattacked, Forest have already gained something.

That is why the opening 20 minutes matter.

Anfield will want pressure immediately

This is Iraola’s first Premier League home game as Liverpool coach.

The emotional logic is obvious.

Anfield will want intensity.

Liverpool will want territory.

Forest, coming from an opening league defeat and another cup loss to Leeds, will expect an aggressive opening.

This can help Liverpool.

It can also distort their decision-making.

There is a difference between attacking quickly and attacking impatiently.

If Liverpool throw both full-backs, both advanced midfielders and multiple forwards into the first wave every time they reach the final third, Forest may spend the opening minutes defending desperately.

But one clean escape can completely change the emotional temperature.

Suddenly the crowd sees Liverpool sprinting backwards.

A centre-back is isolated.

Gibbs-White is carrying.

The game becomes uncertain.

That is exactly the type of match Forest need.

Liverpool should therefore use Anfield’s energy to intensify the counter-press, not merely increase the number of attacking runs.

The crowd can help the team suffocate Forest.

It should not encourage them to abandon balance.

Forest have recent evidence that Anfield does not frighten them

There is also a psychological layer Liverpool cannot dismiss.

Nottingham Forest have won their last two Premier League away games against Liverpool.

Their previous visit to Anfield ended in a 3-0 victory.

They have also scored in 10 consecutive Premier League away matches, the longest current run in the competition.

This does not predict Saturday’s result.

It does remove one convenient assumption.

Forest will not arrive believing a goal at Anfield is impossible.

Gibbs-White has directly contributed to three of Forest’s last six Premier League goals at the stadium.

That history matters because transition football requires belief.

A player has to make the first forward run before knowing the pass will arrive.

The midfielder has to release the ball early rather than secure another possession.

The wing-back has to trust that the space will open.

Forest have enough recent success in this stadium to take those risks.

Liverpool must ensure history never becomes momentum.

The best protection is the first goal

A Liverpool opener would alter almost every tactical calculation.

Forest could no longer remain as selective.

Their wing-backs would need to advance more frequently.

Gibbs-White would have to receive higher.

The back three would eventually defend more territory.

That is when Wirtz and Isak become increasingly difficult to contain.

The match would begin opening in the direction Liverpool prefer.

But the longer it remains 0-0, the more relevant the Forest plan becomes.

Every Liverpool possession carries slightly more urgency.

Every missed chance increases the temptation to send another player forward.

The distinction between patience and frustration begins shrinking.

This is why Liverpool’s 27-shot performance at Newcastle should encourage Iraola rather than panic him.

The mechanisms already created enough.

He does not need Liverpool to become more reckless in order to generate chances.

He needs them to preserve the attacking process while removing the transitions that undermined it.

That is a much smaller adjustment.

It may also be the difference between two points and three.

Liverpool’s injuries increase the cost of poor rest defence

The defensive context matters too.

Joe Gomez remains unavailable, while Giovanni Leoni is still recovering from his long-term knee injury. Conor Bradley is also out for the long term, and Federico Chiesa will miss the game with a muscle problem.

That reduces some of Iraola’s flexibility.

A young defender such as Jérémy Jacquet should not repeatedly be asked to defend 40 metres of open grass simply because the attacking structure has left him there.

This is another reason the midfield and full-back decisions matter.

Good rest defence protects defenders from the situations least suited to collective defending.

A centre-back can dominate inside a compact structure and still look vulnerable in repeated open-field transitions.

That does not necessarily reveal a weakness in the centre-back.

It may reveal a weakness in the possession structure ahead of him.

Liverpool should judge their defensive performance collectively.

If Jacquet or Virgil van Dijk are constantly sprinting backwards against Forest runners, the error probably happened before the ball reached them.

The match is a test of Iraola’s idea of freedom

This is ultimately why Liverpool–Forest is a fascinating second Premier League test for Iraola.

His attacking principles are already visible.

Liverpool want movement.

They want numbers.

They want midfielders arriving.

They want full-backs participating.

They want enough positional freedom that opponents cannot defend a fixed structure.

The question is whether that freedom has rules.

The best possession teams do not attack with fixed positions.

They attack with fixed responsibilities.

Someone provides width.

Someone occupies depth.

Someone connects.

Someone protects.

The names can change.

The jobs cannot disappear.

Against Newcastle, Liverpool occasionally allowed the freedom to outrun the responsibility.

Forest will spend Saturday waiting to discover whether that remains true.

Verdict

Liverpool should create enough to win this match.

Their opening performance produced 27 attempts and 3.01 xG away from home, while Forest begin the Glasner era still searching for their first competitive victory.

At Anfield, the territorial pressure should be greater.

Wirtz can manipulate the spaces around Forest’s midfield.

Isak can occupy the back three.

Gakpo and Liverpool’s full-backs can stretch the defensive width.

Gravenberch and Szoboszlai can give Iraola the additional runners he wants.

The danger lies in the same sentence.

Every additional runner changes the protection behind him.

Forest’s route is therefore clear.

Remain compact enough to make Liverpool commit another player.

Keep Gibbs-White available for the first pass.

Attack the space created by that commitment.

Do not try to win the possession battle.

Try to make Liverpool regret winning it.

Iraola’s task is equally clear.

He should not make Liverpool attack less.

He should make them understand when the attack already has enough.

That decision may happen 30 metres behind the ball and never appear in a highlight package.

But it is the decision that can determine whether a Liverpool attack ends with Isak shooting at one end or Forest running at Van Dijk at the other.

Anfield will watch everyone who goes.

This match may be decided by the player who stays.

Sarvuno prediction: Liverpool 3-1 Nottingham Forest.