Karl Matchett: “Decent derby win, but that’s it for the positives”

Liverpool’s tactical imbalance was once again laid bare. Everton repeatedly found joy with simple, direct play, exposing gaps in midfield and defence.

Hendrick was unequivocal in his assessment. “This is not a team that plays with confidence or purpose… there’s no real goal in what they’re doing.” That critique speaks directly to Slot’s system, which promises control but rarely delivers it.

Karl Matchett reinforced the same theme from the original source: “We are very passive… we let things happen and then react instead of dictating games.”

Liverpool’s approach often appeared reactive rather than proactive. Against Everton, that is a dangerous game to play. Derby football demands intensity, urgency and clarity. Too often, Liverpool lacked all three.

Hendrick added another layer to the criticism: “We’re trying to shove square pegs into round holes… we’re not doing anything to get the best out of these players.” It is a damning verdict on both selection and structure.

Passive mentality frustrates Liverpool identity

Perhaps most concerning for Liverpool supporters is the apparent shift in mentality. This is a side that once imposed itself relentlessly. Under Slot, that identity feels diluted.

Matchett articulated the issue clearly: “They want to play football, but they don’t want to earn the right to play football.” In a fixture as combative as Everton versus Liverpool, that reluctance becomes glaring.

Downey echoed that frustration in real time: “This feels like a team just seeing the game out at 1-1 rather than going to win it.” It is a sentiment that cuts to the heart of the problem. Liverpool were not chasing victory with conviction. They were waiting for it.

Even when chances came, they felt sporadic rather than constructed. Everton, by contrast, played with clarity and purpose, even if they ultimately fell short.

Late winner spares Liverpool but questions remain

The decisive moment arrived late, rescuing Liverpool and leaving Everton deflated. In isolation, it was a classic derby narrative. In context, it was a paper over cracks.

Matchett’s verdict from the original source was measured: “It is a decent win—and that’s really all I can offer in positives.” That balance between result and performance defines the current Liverpool reality.

Hendrick also pointed to the emotional swing that shaped the match: “That moment where Everton think they’ve scored and it gets taken away… and then we score—it’s like getting punched in the face twice in three minutes.” In derby terms, that sequence was decisive.

Yet Downey’s wider concern persists. “Go and win these games and push yourself ahead… there’s no sign of that happening.” For Liverpool, the issue is not isolated to Everton. It is systemic.

Slot remains under scrutiny. Results like this buy time, but they do not resolve deeper concerns around identity, cohesion and ambition.

Everton, meanwhile, can take encouragement despite defeat. They exposed Liverpool’s vulnerabilities and will feel unfortunate not to take more.

For Liverpool, the derby win matters. But if performances do not improve, victories like this will feel increasingly fragile rather than foundational.