Liverpool edge Wolves but Post Match RAW exposes second half concerns

Liverpool edge Wolves but familiar doubts linger at Anfield

Liverpool’s 2-1 win over Wolves at Anfield delivered three Premier League points, but Post Match RAW on Anfield Index made clear that the performance left deeper questions unanswered. Speaking to Trev Downey, Dave Hendrick and Karl Matchett dissected a match that felt split cleanly in two, dominance before the break, anxiety after it.

The official numbers told one story. Liverpool finished with 72 percent possession overall, but as Trev noted, only 56 percent of that came in the second half. For Hendrick, that drop off was telling. “It just shows you how dominant we were in that first half and how much of a falling away there was in the second,” he said, adding that Liverpool “came out in the second half with no intensity, no effort level, no control. No clue really.”

Photo: IMAGO

First half control and flashes of quality

There was genuine encouragement early on. Liverpool hit the post twice, carried a threat, and, as Hendrick put it, “for the first time in a while, we actually looked like we were carrying a bit of a threat and that we might actually open the scoring without the opposition gifting us that goal.”

The breakthrough summed up that positivity. “Frimpong takes the game to life with a brilliant bit of work, sets up Gravenberch who scores,” Hendrick said, praising how it “just sort of rattled Wolves.” The second goal followed quickly, “a really really good goal… immediately on a transition.”

Matchett agreed that the opening spell mattered. “The first half as a whole was very solid. An awful lot of players doing very well,” he said, highlighting Florian Wirtz in particular. The balance of passing, movement, and individual action felt right, at least briefly.

Passive second half invites Wolves pressure

What followed frustrated both analysts. Liverpool sat off, stopped pressing, and invited Wolves back into a game that should have been finished. Matchett was blunt. “It was so passive. It was so regressive even. It was small minded to be perfectly honest,” he said. Rather than dragging Wolves out and punishing them on the counter, “we just did the sitting off bit.”

Hendrick could not understand Wolves’ own restraint either, arguing they missed a clear route back. With two big forwards on, he questioned why they did not simply “pump it into our box over and over again,” calling it “the blueprint to beating this Liverpool team.”

The concession itself summed up Liverpool’s ongoing set piece issues. “It’s another mess from our point of view,” Hendrick said. Later he underlined the scale of the problem, noting that “no team in Europe’s top five leagues has conceded more set piece goals than Liverpool this year.”

Results versus performance debate

Both contributors pushed back against the idea that results alone were enough. Hendrick accepted that “three points is three points,” but insisted “the performance has to matter in this one because they’re that bad.” Wolves, he reminded listeners, were “the worst team ever in Premier League history through 18 games,” yet Liverpool “have clung on for a win despite having gone two up at home.”

Matchett echoed that discomfort. “It was actually boring in that second half… you’re just waiting for the other shoe to drop,” he said, adding that Liverpool looked fearful and timid. While the table shows improvement, he warned of the fragility underneath, saying he would “not be at all surprised for another bad run to come because of the lack of belief that seems to be in this team at the moment.”

Where Liverpool stand after Wolves

Post Match RAW did not deny progress, but it refused to dress this up as convincing. Hendrick summed it up starkly. “Ultimately we deserve to win today, but we were fortunate to win today.” For Matchett, this was a missed chance. “When you’re 2 to 0 up at halftime, you should have gone for the kill,” he said, arguing that confidence comes from performances as much as points.

Liverpool beat Wolves, the scoreboard says so, but as Hendrick and Matchett made clear, the uneasy feeling remains. Control without courage, leads without authority, and a sense that better sides will punish the same flaws.