The red card was the turning point. It was not, however, the whole story.

For 62 minutes, Liverpool competed with Manchester City in a contest that had been short on clear chances. They pressed aggressively in the opening stages, disrupted the visitors’ rhythm and emerged from half-time with renewed attacking intent. Gianluigi Donnarumma was forced into successive saves, while Alexis Mac Allister curled an effort narrowly wide.

Then Ryan Gravenberch was dismissed, Erling Haaland scored within three minutes, and the match unravelled.

Jeremy Doku doubled City’s lead with a superb curling finish before Rayan Cherki completed the scoring after a 41-pass move. The final score suggested a gulf between the teams that had not been apparent for much of the afternoon.

Andoni Iraola was emphatic in his assessment. “I think we played two different games — one until the red card and one from the red card until the end,” he said afterwards. “I think we were the better team until the red card in the first 62 minutes.”

There is a case for that argument. But the numbers offer a more complicated picture, and the performance leaves Liverpool with several questions to address.

Liverpool’s frustration with Chris Kavanagh’s decision to book Gravenberch for his earlier challenge on Elliot Anderson was understandable. The midfielder had been influential, driving forward from the centre of the pitch and forcing Donnarumma into action. The second yellow, for a foul on Doku, left Liverpool a player short with the match still goalless.

City had registered only one clear-cut opening until that point, where Haaland had missed a promising one-on-one opportunity, but the visitors had struggled to translate their possession into clear openings.

Liverpool, meanwhile, had enjoyed their best spell immediately after the restart. Koumas and Gravenberch tested Donnarumma, and Mac Allister went close. There was a sense that the home side were beginning to impose themselves.

Yet Liverpool finished with only 0.86 expected goals, including 0.38 from open play, according to Opta Analyst. That is a modest return for a team with Florian Wirtz and Bradley Barcola among its attacking options.

The distinction matters. Liverpool were competitive, and there were encouraging passages of play, but they had not consistently created high-quality chances. Their pressure was not translating into a sustained stream of opportunities.

The red card robbed them of the chance to build on their strongest spell. It should not obscure the fact that, before it, Liverpool had struggled to turn their energy into enough attacking substance.

One of City’s most important interventions came from the bench.

Doku entered the match in the 56th minute and immediately offered a different kind of threat. His pace, close control and willingness to attack defenders gave City a direct route through Liverpool’s defensive structure. He was no longer simply helping the visitors retain possession; he could force opponents to retreat, commit themselves and leave space elsewhere.

Gravenberch’s dismissal came while trying to stop Doku launching a counter-attack. That decision changed the numerical balance, but it also removed one of Liverpool’s most effective players at carrying the ball through midfield.

City exploited the advantage with ruthless speed. Doku drove into the area for the opening goal, with his attempt ricocheting into Haaland’s path. The striker finished emphatically. Three minutes later, Doku moved inside from the left and curled an outstanding shot beyond Alisson Becker.

His impact was measurable as well as visible, as the recorded five dribbles from Doku, the most of any City player, despite his introduction only just before the hour mark, while also contributing to two chances created.

Liverpool were suddenly dealing with a fresh, aggressive dribbler while playing with 10 men. The space available to City increased, and the visitors were able to attack with a confidence that had been missing earlier.

That is the tactical distinction between the two halves of the match. Before the dismissal, City had struggled to create openings against Liverpool’s organisation. Afterwards, they could stretch the pitch, isolate defenders and attack the spaces that a team with 10 players inevitably leaves behind.

The quality of City’s finishing was exceptional. So was their ability to recognise and exploit the changing conditions.

The first goal could reasonably be viewed as the consequence of playing a man down. What followed was more troubling.

Doku’s second came six minutes after Gravenberch’s dismissal. Cherki’s third, in the 78th minute, arrived at the end of a 41-pass sequence.

That final goal was particularly revealing. City were able to move Liverpool around, retain possession and find the decisive opening without being hurried into a mistake. Cherki’s finish was composed, but the build-up demonstrated the visitors’ control.

Liverpool, by contrast, struggled to regain any foothold. Their defensive shape became increasingly stretched, and City found it easier to move the ball into dangerous areas. The introduction of fresh attacking players could not restore the balance.

There are obvious mitigating circumstances. Losing Gravenberch removed a key midfielder, and defending against City with 10 players is a difficult task for any side. Liverpool were also without Dominik Szoboszlai, Alexander Isak and Cody Gakpo, limiting Iraola’s options.

But a team cannot allow a difficult spell to become a complete loss of control. Liverpool need mechanisms to slow games down, keep possession under pressure and prevent opponents from building momentum when the balance shifts against them.

That is not simply a question of character. It is a tactical and collective problem: how to protect the centre, reduce the space around the remaining midfielders and maintain enough threat to stop the opposition committing everyone forward.

Iraola was keen to defend the effort his players had produced. He also praised the Anfield crowd, arguing that the atmosphere had helped Liverpool compete with City during the first hour.

“I think the players deserve credit today because I think they’ve given everything,” he said. “I think also the supporters have been fantastic today — fantastic before, during, after.”

That is not an unreasonable assessment. Liverpool’s intensity was evident, and their second-half spell suggested the team can create momentum through aggressive pressing and forward running. The challenge is to turn those moments into a more consistent attacking threat.

The expected-goals figures are a reminder that possession, pressure and promising positions do not automatically amount to sustained control. Liverpool need to create more from open play, particularly when their expensive attacking players are available. Wirtz and Barcola must become more influential in the final third, while the centre-forward position remains an area of concern with Isak and Gakpo unavailable and Lewis Koumas leading the line.

It would be unfair to judge Liverpool’s entire attacking structure on a match in which the decisive incident came before the final half-hour. But the underlying numbers should prevent the first-hour performance from being romanticised.

Iraola’s assessment of the dismissal is clear. He believes the first yellow card was harsh and that Liverpool were the better side until Gravenberch was sent off. There is evidence to support the importance of the decision, and the scoreline would almost certainly have looked different had Liverpool remained at full strength.

The next step is to separate what the red card explains from what it does not.

Liverpool did not deserve to be judged solely on the three goals they conceded after going down to 10 men. Equally, they cannot use the dismissal to avoid examining why they created so little before it, or why they were unable to stem City’s momentum once the game turned.

The encouraging part of Sunday’s performance was that Liverpool could compete with the league leaders. The warning was how quickly that competitiveness disappeared.

For Iraola, the task is not to abandon the intensity that brought Liverpool into the contest. It is to give that intensity a stronger attacking foundation — and ensure his side can remain organised when a match stops going to plan.