Liverpool were “insipid and uninspiring” – media question Arne Slot’s long-term future

Liverpool dropped points in a dramatic 2-2 draw against Fulham at Craven Cottage, sparking widespread media criticism of Arne Slot’s tactics and raising doubts about his future at Anfield[1][2][3].

The match saw Fulham strike first through Harry Wilson, before Florian Wirtz equalized for the Reds. Liverpool appeared poised for victory when Cody Gakpo netted in the 95th minute, only for Harrison Reed to unleash a stunning rocket moments later, securing a deserved point for the hosts[1][4].

Media reactions were scathing. Pundit Steve Nicol slammed Liverpool’s “lack of positivity”, insisting they “got what they deserved” after failing to match Fulham’s intensity[3]. Fan channels echoed this: Team Kopish called the performance “poor and boring,” highlighting a lack of intensity, creativity, and control, with tactical issues and poor game management allowing Fulham back in[2]. The Anfield Wrap described Liverpool as “turgid and passive,” noting an “element of justice” in the late equalizer and expressing unease about recent form[4].

Chloe from The Redmen TV criticized the “sideways, sideways” passing, absence of players willing to beat defenders, and overall lack of tempo, intensity, and impact—labeling it “slow and boring”[5]. Post-match, Slot admitted frustration over conceding late, stressing the need to avoid relying on luck and improve defensive organization[1][3]. Marco Silva praised Fulham’s wide-area overloads and first-half execution[1].

With fans voicing growing frustration—no signings expected in January and “crap football” on display—questions mount over Slot’s long-term viability amid deeper squad and tactical concerns[2][5]. This result underscores Liverpool’s struggles to dominate mid-table sides, fueling debates on whether Slot can turn things around[1][2][3][4].

(Word count: 298)