Liverpool’s Champions League campaign has offered plenty of attacking entertainment, but their performances in Europe have also raised a question about why that same productivity has been harder to reproduce in the Premier League.

Andoni Iraola’s side have scored 12 goals across their opening three Champions League fixtures, compared with nine in seven league matches. The difference is significant, particularly given that Liverpool have shown they can overwhelm opponents when their attacking combinations click.

Their 6-3 victory over LASK accounts for half of their European goal return, however, and complicates any direct comparison. The more revealing evidence comes from their matches against Atlético Madrid and Villarreal, where Liverpool have also found ways to score despite facing different tactical challenges.

Iraola was asked about the discrepancy following the 4-3 victory over Villarreal. He acknowledged that Liverpool had been more productive in front of goal in Europe, but stopped short of identifying a single explanation.

“I don’t really know the reason,” he said, pointing towards the difference in opponents and the nature of individual matches. He also suggested Liverpool had defended better in some Premier League games despite scoring less frequently.

That distinction matters. Goal totals establish a pattern, but they do not explain whether the difference comes from the quality of chances created, finishing, opposition tactics or the circumstances of individual matches.

Liverpool’s nine goals in their first two Champions League fixtures against Atlético Madrid and Villarreal are a more useful starting point than their overall European total. They scored twice against Atlético before producing four goals against Villarreal, including a remarkable recovery from two goals down.

Those performances demonstrate the attacking potential within Iraola’s side. Against Villarreal, Liverpool improved after adjusting their midfield structure, found greater support for their wide attackers and created repeated opportunities through quicker movement and more purposeful passing.

Yet the comeback also illustrates why attacking output cannot be separated from the state of a match. Villarreal’s early lead forced Liverpool to take greater risks, while the visitors’ defensive organisation came under increasing pressure as the hosts chased the game.

Liverpool’s European numbers therefore need context. A team pursuing an equaliser or trying to overturn a deficit will often attack with greater urgency and commit more players forward. That can produce more chances, but it can also leave space for opponents to exploit.

The question is whether Liverpool can generate the same attacking threat when they are required to break down a settled defence, particularly in domestic matches where opponents may approach Anfield with a more conservative game plan.

The distinction between scoring fewer goals and creating fewer chances is crucial. If Liverpool are generating comparable opportunities in the Premier League but converting them less frequently, the issue may be finishing or variance. If their chance creation is lower, the problem is more likely to involve the structure of their attacking play.

That is where the next stage of the analysis needs to focus: expected goals, shots from dangerous areas, chances created from open play and the number of opportunities produced against different defensive shapes.

Liverpool’s performance against Villarreal provides a useful case study. Rio Ngumoha’s direct running created a different kind of threat, Alexis Mac Allister made important contributions from midfield, and Florian Wirtz added creativity after coming off the bench. Their combined influence helped Liverpool turn a disjointed opening into a sustained attacking spell.

But the late goal conceded to Tani Oluwaseyi was a reminder that greater attacking ambition can carry defensive risks. Liverpool’s challenge is not simply to score more frequently; it is to build a reliable attacking structure without compromising their control of matches.

Sunday’s meeting with Brighton gives Liverpool another opportunity to assess whether the improvements seen against Villarreal can be sustained in the Premier League.

Brighton are capable of building attacks through possession and creating problems between the lines, meaning Liverpool will need to balance their pressing aggression with defensive discipline. Their ability to progress the ball, support their wide attackers and create opportunities against organised opposition will be just as important as their finishing.

The European goal return is encouraging, but it is not conclusive evidence that Liverpool have solved their attacking problems. The LASK scoreline inflates the comparison, and three matches provide a limited sample from which to draw firm conclusions.

What Liverpool need now is consistency. If their chance creation remains strong against Brighton and their domestic scoring rate begins to rise, the European performances may represent a sign of progress rather than a separate trend.

For now, the numbers pose a question rather than provide an answer. Liverpool have demonstrated that they can score freely in Europe. The next task is to establish why that threat has been less consistent in the league — and what Iraola can do to change it.