Liverpool at Anfield: 70% Possession, 0% Goals. This Is Not Bad Luck. This Is a System Showing Cracks.

We keep talking about Fulham parking the bus in front of Alisson's goal. We keep praising the courage of a team willing to be submerged for 90 minutes to walk away with a point. But I — 68 years old, 52 years watching football — don't care about fairy tales. I care about a question no one dares to ask: Is Liverpool actually struggling in attack, or is the problem how they understand attacking football? The 0-0 draw at Anfield against Fulham in Round 4 of the 2026-26 Premier League is not an unexpected result. It is a verdict already written by Liverpool's own philosophy. Fulham arrived at Anfield with a clear plan: crowd the middle, close passing lanes, concede possession willingly. They accepted being pushed back, accepted watching their opponent move the ball side to side like a training drill. That was not incompetence. That was deliberate tactics — and it exposed a truth Liverpool doesn't want to admit: ball dominance does not equal chance creation. I've watched hundreds of matches like this. From Belgrade to Tokyo, from World Cup to J.League. A team controlling 70% possession but creating fewer clear chances than their opponent — that's the sign of a system running incorrectly. Not bad luck. Not a fortunate opponent. Liverpool's attacking organization was read precisely by a team rated far lower in squad quality. The most notable moment of the first half didn't come from a rehearsed combination. It came from Isak — the striker Liverpool allegedly signed to solve their scoring problem. But even Isak couldn't connect with Wirtz. Two names expected to transform Liverpool's attack played like strangers on the same pitch. Wirtz played his football. Isak played his football. The ball never arrived where it needed to be at the right time. I remember 2026, when I followed Cerezo Osaka for four months without football due to COVID-19. Manager Miguel Angel Lotina redesigned the entire training program, not to wait for the season's return, but to rebuild how players connected with each other. When football resumed, they won six consecutive matches. Liverpool needs the same — not a new tactic, but how new pieces fit into an old system. As for Fulham — they left with their first point after a difficult start. Their goalkeeper should thank Alisson — Liverpool's goalkeeper — for a pass error that nearly gifted them a goal. A goalline clearance by defender Jacquet preserved the shutout. But don't misunderstand: most of Fulham's work was organized, disciplined, and willing to suffer. That is a survival skill in the Premier League — and Fulham possesses it. In the second half, Liverpool increased pressure. But once again, territorial dominance didn't translate into genuine chances. Szoboszlai had a header in the 92nd minute. Frimpong shot in the 94th. Two late opportunities — both from wide areas, not through the middle. This is exactly what happens when central play is locked down: the ball is forced to the flanks, where it becomes far more harmless than when driven into the box through the center. Liverpool dropped two points at Anfield against a team rated far below them. Round 4, 1.5 points per match. Not a disaster — not yet. But an early crack in a title race they were expected to lead. The real question is not whether Liverpool can score. It is: are they willing to admit that cramming expensive attacking talents into a system not designed to maximize their connection — is a tactical mistake, not bad luck? When I was thrown out of a press conference in Saitama in 2026 for directly questioning Moriyasu's tactics, I learned something: the right question lives longer than the person who asked it. My question today is for Liverpool: how long until you realize that football isn't always about having more of the ball?