Jamie Carragher has never been afraid to give his opinion, and his latest criticism of Liverpool’s midfield and Andoni Iraola’s tactical approach has certainly sparked debate.
Carragher has questioned the positioning of Gravenberch and Szoboszlai, while also continuing to criticise Wirtz and suggesting that Szoboszlai should be Liverpool’s No. 10.
There are certainly valid questions to ask about Liverpool’s midfield balance. However, the argument that a midfielder must simply sit deeper to protect against a counter-attack overlooks the context of the situation.
Liverpool had possession, Frimpong was already occupying the right-back position, and the team was actively attacking. This wasn't a defensive transition where Liverpool needed to immediately protect the space behind the ball. The objective was to progress the attack and break Newcastle's defensive structure.
That's the key difference.
Football isn't played on a static tactics board. When one Liverpool player moves, the opposition reacts. When Liverpool create an overload or move the ball backwards, Newcastle's entire defensive shape shifts with it.
Carragher's experience as a player and his understanding of the game deserve consideration; however, sometimes a tactical criticism can become too focused on specific players as opposed to what the team is trying to achieve in that moment.
For Liverpool, the bigger question isn't simply: who stays back?
It's whether the players understand when to rotate, when to attack and when to protect the space behind them.
And that's where Iraola's system deserves to be judged.