Liverpool 2–1 Atlético Madrid: Full Match Statistics, xG and Detailed Analysis

Liverpool came from behind to defeat Atlético Madrid 2–1 at Anfield in their Champions League opener. Marcos Llorente put Atlético ahead in the 17th minute, but Dominik Szoboszlai equalised before half-time before Alexis Mac Allister completed Liverpool's comeback five minutes into the second half. The result was Liverpool's 2–1 victory.

The statistics show a relatively competitive match in possession and overall shot volume, but Liverpool created the more dangerous opportunities and finished with the stronger expected-goals numbers.

Liverpool 2–1 Atlético Madrid: Match Overview

Statistic	Liverpool	Atlético Madrid
Final score	2	1
Expected goals (xG)	1.69	0.80
Possession	45%	55%
Total shots	14	9
Shots on target	5	4
Big chances	4	1
Corners	7	5
Pass accuracy	84%	85%
Yellow cards	1	1

Statistics source: Flashscore.mobi.

Overall analysis

The most important statistical difference was not possession but chance quality. Atlético had 55% of the ball, yet Liverpool produced 1.69 xG compared with Atlético's 0.80.

That tells us Atlético's greater possession did not translate into better chances.

Liverpool also had more shots, more shots on target and four times as many big chances. The commentary supports this: Atlético created some dangerous moments through Julián Álvarez and Marcos Llorente, but Liverpool repeatedly threatened through Barcola, Szoboszlai, Isak and others.

Opta's independent match analysis similarly recorded Liverpool ahead in expected goals, although its figures were slightly different because statistical providers can calculate xG differently.

---

1. Expected Goals (xG)

Team	xG
Liverpool	1.69
Atlético Madrid	0.80

Liverpool's 1.69 xG compared with Atlético's 0.80 was one of the clearest indicators of which team created the better opportunities.

Liverpool generated more than twice Atlético's expected-goals value despite having less possession.

The commentary explains why. Liverpool had several dangerous opportunities, including Barcola's efforts, while Atlético's most threatening moments included Julián Álvarez's attempts and Llorente's eventual goal.

The xG also helps explain why a 2–1 Liverpool victory was consistent with the overall chance profile. Liverpool scored two goals from 1.69 xG, while Atlético scored once from 0.80 xG.

---

2. Ball Possession

Team	Possession
Liverpool	45%
Atlético Madrid	55%

Atlético controlled 55% of possession, while Liverpool had 45%.

Interestingly, the team with less possession won.

This demonstrates why possession alone cannot determine the better attacking performance. Liverpool were more efficient with their possession, particularly when they moved the ball into dangerous areas.

The commentary recorded several periods where Atlético circulated possession and attempted to construct attacks, but Liverpool's defensive organisation prevented much of that possession from becoming high-quality chances.

---

3. Total Shots

Team	Shots
Liverpool	14
Atlético Madrid	9

Liverpool attempted 14 shots, five more than Atlético's nine.

That is a significant attacking advantage.

The commentary shows Liverpool repeatedly testing Atlético's defence. Barcola shot at Oblak, Ngumoha had an effort blocked, Szoboszlai created attacking situations and Isak threatened inside the penalty area.

Atlético, meanwhile, produced nine attempts, including efforts from Álvarez, Baena and Llorente.

Liverpool's combination of higher shot volume and higher xG suggests their attempts were generally more threatening.

---

4. Shots on Target

Team	Shots on target
Liverpool	5
Atlético Madrid	4

Liverpool put five shots on target, compared with Atlético's four.

The difference is small, but it shows both teams managed to test the opposing goalkeeper.

Jan Oblak was particularly important for Atlético. He saved attempts from Barcola and others, including a major late opportunity from Victor Muñoz.

Alisson also made important saves, particularly against Julián Álvarez.

The fact that both goalkeepers made three saves in the final statistics reinforces how competitive the match was despite Liverpool's superior xG.

---

5. Shots Off Target

Team	Off-target shots
Liverpool	5
Atlético Madrid	4

Liverpool had five shots off target compared with Atlético's four.

Liverpool therefore combined greater overall shooting volume with slightly more inaccurate attempts.

The commentary includes examples of these misses, including Isak's early effort that went wide and Barcola's second-half attempt that narrowly missed.

Atlético also wasted opportunities, with Baena sending an effort wide and Hancko heading over from a corner.

---

6. Blocked Shots

Team	Blocked shots
Liverpool	4
Atlético Madrid	1

Liverpool had four attempts blocked, compared with only one for Atlético.

This is significant because blocked shots often indicate that a team is getting attempts away in crowded attacking areas.

Liverpool's greater number suggests they were frequently attacking Atlético's defensive block and forcing defenders to intervene.

The commentary provides several examples of this defensive resistance, including Atlético defenders blocking Liverpool attacks and Robin Le Normand making an important late intervention to stop an Isak attempt.

---

7. Shots Inside the Box

Team	Inside-box shots
Liverpool	12
Atlético Madrid	4

This was one of the biggest statistical advantages for Liverpool.

Liverpool recorded 12 shots from inside the penalty area, compared with only four for Atlético.

That means most of Liverpool's attempts came from dangerous central or penalty-area positions rather than speculative distance.

Atlético's four inside-box attempts show that Liverpool generally did a good job preventing the visitors from repeatedly entering dangerous shooting positions.

---

8. Shots Outside the Box

Team	Outside-box shots
Liverpool	2
Atlético Madrid	5

Atlético attempted five shots from outside the penalty area, compared with Liverpool's two.

This is an important complement to the inside-box statistics.

Liverpool's attack was more focused on getting into the box, while Atlético had to rely more heavily on attempts from distance.

The commentary illustrates this through Álvarez's long-range attempt that forced Alisson into a save and Baena's effort from the edge of the box.

---

9. Hit the Woodwork

Team	Woodwork
Liverpool	0
Atlético Madrid	0

Neither team hit the woodwork.

Therefore, neither side had a shot that struck the post or crossbar.

Liverpool's two goals came from efforts that found the net directly, while Atlético's single goal also avoided the woodwork.

---

Attacking Statistics

10. Big Chances

Team	Big chances
Liverpool	4
Atlético Madrid	1

This is arguably one of the most revealing statistics.

Liverpool created four big chances, while Atlético created only one.

That four-to-one advantage helps explain the difference in xG.

The commentary provides evidence of Liverpool's superior opportunity creation. Barcola had several opportunities, including one early in the second half when he was played through by Wirtz but sent his attempt wide.

Liverpool also created the chance that eventually resulted in Mac Allister's winning goal.

Atlético's one big chance reflects a more limited number of genuinely clear opportunities.

---

11. Corner Kicks

Team	Corners
Liverpool	7
Atlético Madrid	5

Liverpool won seven corners, compared with Atlético's five.

The corner count suggests Liverpool generated slightly more sustained pressure in the final third.

The commentary repeatedly records Liverpool winning corners following blocked shots, crosses and attacking moves.

Atlético also threatened from set pieces, with Hancko heading over from one of Grimaldo's deliveries.

---

12. Touches in the Opposition Box

Team	Touches
Liverpool	33
Atlético Madrid	18

Liverpool had 33 touches in Atlético's penalty area, almost twice Atlético's 18 in Liverpool's box.

This is another strong indication of Liverpool's attacking penetration.

Despite having less possession overall, Liverpool were more successful at turning their possession into territory close to goal.

The statistic is particularly important when combined with the 12–4 advantage in inside-box shots.

---

13. Accurate Through Passes

Team	Accurate through passes
Liverpool	1
Atlético Madrid	2

Atlético completed two accurate through passes compared with Liverpool's one.

This indicates Atlético attempted to penetrate Liverpool's defensive line with direct passes slightly more frequently.

Julián Álvarez's involvement in Atlético's attacking moves was particularly important, including the pass that released Llorente for the opening goal.

However, having more accurate through passes did not result in Atlético producing more big chances.

---

14. Offsides

Team	Offsides
Liverpool	3
Atlético Madrid	5

Atlético were caught offside five times, compared with Liverpool's three.

This suggests Atlético frequently attempted to attack behind Liverpool's defensive line.

The commentary records multiple Atlético offsides, including Giuliano Simeone and Robin Le Normand.

Liverpool also had offside issues, most notably when Jeremie Frimpong appeared to score late in the match but the goal was ruled out for offside.

---

15. Free Kicks

Team	Free kicks
Liverpool	10
Atlético Madrid	11

Atlético were awarded 11 free kicks, one more than Liverpool's 10.

The relatively close number reflects the physical nature of the match.

There were several fouls in midfield and during challenges, with both sides attempting to disrupt the opponent's attacks.

---

Passing Statistics

16. Pass Accuracy

Team	Accuracy
Liverpool	84% (355/421)
Atlético Madrid	85% (438/515)

Atlético completed 438 of 515 passes, giving them an 85% accuracy rate.

Liverpool completed 355 of 421, at 84%.

The numbers support Atlético's higher possession figure. They attempted 94 more passes and completed 83 more.

However, Liverpool were more effective at turning their comparatively smaller volume of possession into attacking penetration.

---

17. Long Pass Accuracy

Team	Long passes
Liverpool	54% (27/50)
Atlético Madrid	48% (26/54)

Liverpool were more accurate with long passes.

They completed 27 of 50, compared with Atlético's 26 of 54.

This suggests Liverpool were slightly more effective when attempting to bypass midfield or switch play over longer distances.

---

18. Passes in the Final Third

Team	Final-third passing
Liverpool	76% (103/135)
Atlético Madrid	72% (83/115)

Liverpool's 76% final-third passing accuracy was higher than Atlético's 72%.

This is important because final-third passing is closely connected to the ability to sustain attacks in dangerous areas.

Liverpool not only entered Atlético's final third frequently but also maintained better passing accuracy there.

That helped explain their advantage in touches inside the opposition box and big chances.

---

19. Crosses

Team	Cross accuracy
Liverpool	18% (3/17)
Atlético Madrid	27% (4/15)

Atlético were more accurate with their crosses.

They completed four of 15 crosses, compared with Liverpool's three of 17.

Liverpool attempted more crosses but had the lower success rate.

This shows that Liverpool's attacking success did not primarily come from crossing. Their biggest advantage came through combination play, central penetration and shots from inside the box.

---

20. Expected Assists (xA)

Team	xA
Liverpool	0.85
Atlético Madrid	0.77

Liverpool recorded 0.85 xA, slightly above Atlético's 0.77.

Expected assists measure the quality of opportunities created through passes leading toward potential shots.

The close figures suggest both teams produced comparable creative value from their passing, despite Liverpool's much stronger xG.

Liverpool's decisive attacking sequences ultimately produced two goals, including the move involving Isak before Mac Allister's strike.

---

21. Throw-ins

Team	Throw-ins
Liverpool	18
Atlético Madrid	19

Atlético had 19 throw-ins compared with Liverpool's 18.

This is almost perfectly balanced and doesn't indicate a major territorial advantage by itself.

The close number simply reflects the amount of play moving toward the touchlines and neither side having a major advantage in this phase.

---

Defensive Statistics

22. Fouls

Team	Fouls
Liverpool	11
Atlético Madrid	10

Liverpool committed 11 fouls, one more than Atlético.

The commentary shows several midfield and defensive challenges, including fouls involving Szoboszlai, Van Dijk, Mac Allister and others.

The nearly identical figures suggest both teams were similarly involved in physical challenges.

---

23. Tackles

Team	Tackles won
Liverpool	71% (10/14)
Atlético Madrid	43% (9/21)

Liverpool had a much higher tackle success rate.

They won 10 of 14 tackles, compared with Atlético's nine of 21.

That 71% success rate suggests Liverpool were generally more efficient when stepping in to challenge opponents.

Atlético attempted seven more tackles but were successful proportionally less often.

---

24. Duels Won

Team	Duels won
Liverpool	41
Atlético Madrid	46

Atlético won 46 duels, five more than Liverpool.

This is one of the areas where the visitors had the statistical advantage.

It indicates Atlético competed strongly in individual contests even though Liverpool ultimately had the superior attacking numbers.

---

25. Clearances

Team	Clearances
Liverpool	14
Atlético Madrid	21

Atlético made 21 clearances, seven more than Liverpool.

This is consistent with Liverpool's territorial pressure.

A team defending more frequently around its penalty area will often need to clear crosses, passes and loose balls.

The commentary contains several examples of Atlético defenders clearing Liverpool attacks, particularly during Liverpool's pressure around the box.

---

26. Interceptions

Team	Interceptions
Liverpool	9
Atlético Madrid	8

Liverpool made nine interceptions compared with Atlético's eight.

The close numbers indicate both defensive units were active in reading passes and disrupting attacking moves.

Liverpool's slightly higher total helped them regain possession without necessarily needing to make a tackle.

---

27. Errors Leading to a Shot

Team	Errors
Liverpool	0
Atlético Madrid	2

This is an important defensive statistic.

Liverpool made no errors leading directly to a shot, while Atlético made two.

That suggests Liverpool were more reliable in possession and defensive decision-making.

The two Atlético errors contributed to Liverpool receiving opportunities without necessarily having to construct them through a long attacking sequence.

---

28. Errors Leading to a Goal

Team	Errors
Liverpool	0
Atlético Madrid	0

Neither team recorded an error directly leading to a goal.

Therefore, all three goals were classified as coming from attacking actions rather than a statistical defensive error leading directly to the finish.

---

Goalkeeping Statistics

29. Goalkeeper Saves

Team	Saves
Liverpool	3
Atlético Madrid	3

Both Alisson and Jan Oblak made three saves.

Alisson's saves included an important stop from Julián Álvarez in the first half.

Oblak also produced several important saves, including against Barcola and Victor Muñoz.

The equal save count does not mean both goalkeepers faced identical difficulty, because the quality of shots matters as much as the number of saves.

---

30. xG on Target (xGOT)

Team	xGOT
Liverpool	1.63
Atlético Madrid	0.60

Liverpool's xGOT was 1.63, compared with Atlético's 0.60.

This is another major indication of Liverpool's superior shot quality.

While Liverpool had 14 total shots, the shots that actually tested the goalkeeper carried considerably greater expected-goal value.

Atlético's 0.60 xGOT indicates their four shots on target were collectively less threatening.

---

31. xGOT Faced

Goalkeeper	xGOT faced
Liverpool goalkeeper	0.60
Atlético goalkeeper	1.63

The Liverpool goalkeeper faced only 0.60 xGOT, while Oblak faced 1.63.

This essentially mirrors the attacking xGOT numbers.

Liverpool limited Atlético to relatively low-quality shots on target, while Atlético allowed Liverpool to produce much more dangerous efforts.

That was a major factor in Liverpool's victory.

---

32. Goals Prevented

Team	Goals prevented
Liverpool	-0.40
Atlético Madrid	-0.37

Both goalkeeping figures were negative.

These figures should not simply be interpreted as saying the goalkeepers performed badly. The statistic compares the quality of shots faced with the goals actually conceded.

Liverpool conceded one goal against 0.60 xGOT, producing approximately -0.40 goals prevented.

Atlético conceded two goals against 1.63 xGOT, producing approximately -0.37.

So, statistically, both teams conceded slightly more goals than the xGOT faced would have predicted.

---

33. Goal Kicks

Team	Goal kicks
Liverpool	6
Atlético Madrid	6

Both teams had exactly six goal kicks.

This is completely balanced and doesn't reveal a significant difference between the two sides.

---

What the Statistics Say About the Match

The overall numbers paint a very interesting picture.

Atlético Madrid won the possession battle

Atlético had 55% possession and completed 438 passes at 85% accuracy.

But Liverpool were more dangerous.

Liverpool won the chance-creation battle

Liverpool had:

• 14 shots vs 9
• 5 shots on target vs 4
• 4 big chances vs 1
• 12 inside-box shots vs 4
• 33 opposition-box touches vs 18
• 1.69 xG vs 0.80
• 1.63 xGOT vs 0.60

Those numbers collectively explain why Liverpool came away with the three points.

Atlético's possession lacked sufficient penetration

The visitors completed more passes and had more possession, but Liverpool's defensive structure restricted them to four shots inside the box.

That is a crucial distinction: having the ball is not the same as creating dangerous opportunities.

Liverpool became more dangerous after the equaliser

Liverpool's equaliser arrived through Szoboszlai in the 40th minute, restoring parity before the break. Mac Allister then scored five minutes into the second half to complete the comeback. Liverpool's official match report also highlighted the team's response after falling behind.

The commentary shows Liverpool continuing to threaten after taking the lead. Barcola went close, Isak had an effort blocked, and Liverpool continued forcing Atlético into defensive interventions.

---

Key Turning Points

Llorente puts Atlético ahead

Atlético's first major breakthrough came in the 17th minute when Julián Álvarez released Marcos Llorente, who finished to make it 1–0.

That goal demonstrated Atlético's ability to hurt Liverpool through direct attacking movements despite their lower overall xG.

Szoboszlai restores parity

Liverpool responded before half-time.

Ronald Araújo supplied the ball for Szoboszlai, who finished in the 40th minute to make it 1–1.

That goal was particularly important because Liverpool entered the interval level despite having fallen behind.

Mac Allister completes the comeback

Five minutes after half-time, Mac Allister produced the decisive moment.

The commentary records his first-time strike from outside the box going inside the left post.

That made it 2–1 and gave Liverpool the lead they eventually protected.

Atlético push for an equaliser

Atlético continued searching for a second goal, but Liverpool's defence held firm.

The visitors had several late attacking moments, while Liverpool also threatened on the counter.

Frimpong's late goal was ruled out for offside, while Victor Muñoz forced a strong save from Oblak.

Liverpool eventually held on for the 2–1 victory.

---

Final Statistical Verdict

The statistics suggest that Liverpool deserved the victory, even though Atlético Madrid had more possession.

The most important evidence is the difference in chance quality:

Liverpool: 1.69 xG, 4 big chances, 12 inside-box shots and 33 touches in the opposition box.

Atlético Madrid: 0.80 xG, 1 big chance, four inside-box shots and 18 touches in the opposition box.

Atlético were better in possession, passing volume, duels and crossing accuracy, but Liverpool were considerably more effective in the areas that directly influence goals.

The final score therefore reflected the overall attacking balance: Atlético struck first, but Liverpool created enough superior opportunities to turn the match around.

Final score: Liverpool 2–1 Atlético Madrid.

Liverpool's comeback was built on greater shot volume, better shot locations, more big chances and stronger penetration of the opposition penalty area. The result also gave Andoni Iraola a winning start to his Champions League coaching campaign.

Statistics source: Flashscore.mobi.
Additional match verification: Liverpool FC, Atlético Madrid and Opta Analyst.