The return to a 4-2-3-1 formation with its double pivot in midfield provided Liverpool with defensive stability they had desperately lacked during recent matches. The two holding midfielders offered additional protection to the back line, addressing the defensive fragility that had seen them concede three or more goals in three consecutive games for the first time in 75 years.
The double pivot system differs fundamentally from Liverpool’s traditional 4-3-3 regarding defensive responsibility distribution. With two dedicated holding players, the burden of protecting the defense is shared rather than falling primarily on a single defensive midfielder. This redundancy provides security when one player is drawn out of position or beaten.
Against West Ham, the double pivot functioned effectively, though the opposition’s limited attacking quality must be acknowledged. Liverpool’s midfield maintained better positions, provided quicker support to defensive players, and reduced the spaces that had been exploited during their poor run. The system looked more organized and difficult to play through.
However, the double pivot approach carries trade-offs. By dedicating two players to primarily defensive roles, fewer players are available for creating and scoring goals. Liverpool’s attacking output against West Ham was modest, suggesting this more cautious approach limits offensive potential. Finding the right balance between defensive security and attacking threat remains challenging.
As Liverpool continue adapting to Arne Slot’s preferred system, the double pivot will likely remain central to his tactical vision. His success at Feyenoord was built on this foundation, combining defensive stability with creative freedom for specific attacking players. Whether this approach can work in the Premier League against better opposition than West Ham will determine Liverpool’s season. For now, the defensive stability it provided represented welcome progress after their recent catastrophic defending.