Liverpool left Linz with six goals, a first Champions League hat-trick for Bradley Barcola and a valuable away victory. They also left with a problem their attacking display could not entirely disguise.

Andoni Iraola’s side had led LASK 4-0 shortly after half-time. They were 6-1 ahead with less than 25 minutes remaining. By the final whistle, the score was 6-3, a result that reflected both the scale of Liverpool’s attacking superiority and their inability to close out a match that had appeared settled.

The immediate response to Sunday’s 3-0 defeat by Manchester City was emphatic. Florian Wirtz looked more influential, Barcola found the end product that had been missing from his opening appearances, and Lewis Koumas and Rio Ngumoha offered encouraging contributions in a rotated side.

Yet the more instructive question is not whether Liverpool can score goals. It is whether they can maintain the control required to make those attacking performances count consistently.

Wednesday provided substantial evidence of their potential in possession. It also offered a reminder that controlling a game involves more than building a commanding lead.

The first half was the clearest indication of what Iraola wants his side to become. Liverpool registered 19 shots before the interval, a record for an away team in a Champions League match since records began in 2003-04, according to Opta.

The volume was significant, but so was the variety of their attacking threat.

Ronald Araujo opened the scoring in the 22nd minute, heading in Kostas Tsimikas’s corner. Two minutes later, Barcola finished after Ngumoha’s direct dribbling created an opening and Koumas supplied the final pass. Barcola’s second, seven minutes before half-time, was a different kind of goal: Wirtz found him with a precise pass, and the forward finished calmly.

Jeremie Frimpong’s header from another Tsimikas delivery made it 4-0 shortly after the restart. Barcola then completed his hat-trick, finishing from close range after Ngumoha and Frimpong combined down the left.

Those goals mattered beyond the scoreline. Liverpool were not relying on one player repeatedly producing something exceptional. Their threat came from set pieces, movement between the lines, direct running and the ability to exploit space behind the defence.

Iraola had described LASK as a compact side operating with a back five. His assessment afterwards was that Liverpool found the spaces between their opponents’ defensive lines and used their forward players effectively. The first-half performance supported that view.

Wirtz was central to the improvement. His pass for Barcola’s second goal was the most obvious example, but his influence extended beyond the assist. He helped Liverpool connect midfield with attack and find openings against a defensive structure designed to limit space centrally.

For Barcola, the performance was an important personal breakthrough. He had arrived from Paris Saint-Germain with considerable expectation but had not scored in his first five appearances for Liverpool. His hat-trick demonstrated the value of giving him situations in which he could attack defenders directly and run beyond the defensive line.

That is a more useful conclusion than suggesting one evening has resolved every question about Liverpool’s attack. The ingredients were visible; the challenge is to reproduce them against different opponents and under greater pressure.

Liverpool’s attacking display was sufficiently strong to make the second-half deterioration more striking.

Robert Ljubicic reduced the deficit in the 63rd minute. Barcola restored Liverpool’s four-goal cushion three minutes later, before Koumas scored to make it 6-1 in the 72nd minute. Florian Flecker then struck twice, in the 74th and 77th minutes.

The final score was not evidence that LASK had dominated the contest. Liverpool had created enough to win comfortably and their attacking numbers were impressive. But the hosts’ three goals, all assisted by Yvan Dibango, were a reminder that an opponent does not need to control a match for defensive lapses to become costly.

The timing matters. Liverpool were not chasing the game or attempting to recover from a difficult start. They had built a substantial lead and should have been able to manage the remaining minutes with greater composure.

There is a danger in treating the final score as proof of a deep structural flaw. A 6-3 victory remains a victory, and the circumstances of the substitutions provide important context. Nevertheless, Liverpool allowed a match that had become comfortable to turn unnecessarily open.

Game management is not simply a question of retaining possession for its own sake. It requires recognising when to reduce the tempo, how to protect the spaces around the defence and when an attacking risk is no longer worth taking. Liverpool’s final half-hour was a reminder that those decisions remain part of the performance, even when the result appears secure.

The most revealing part of the aftermath came from Iraola himself.

With Liverpool 4-0 ahead, the head coach replaced both Araujo and Jeremy Jacquet, bringing on Virgil van Dijk and Joe Gomez. His thinking was understandable: Liverpool had a demanding schedule ahead, with Brentford away on Saturday followed by Villarreal in the Champions League three days later. Araujo and Jacquet had both accumulated significant minutes for club and country.

But replacing both central defenders at once carries a risk, even when the incoming players are experienced. The new pairing must establish its distances and communication in a live match, while the wider defensive unit adjusts around them.

Iraola did not attempt to dismiss that concern. “I think there is a reason why managers would never change both centre-backs together,” he said. He acknowledged that, while he had wanted to rest his defenders, “thinking in today’s game, it’s not the right thing to do as a manager to change both centre-backs together”.

That admission matters because it identifies a specific decision rather than offering a vague explanation about concentration or complacency. Iraola was balancing the demands of one match against those of the next two and judged that the opportunity to rest key players outweighed the potential disruption.

The subsequent goals exposed the downside of that calculation. It would be too simplistic to attribute every defensive problem to the substitutions alone, but the change in personnel and the deterioration in Liverpool’s control are clearly connected to the same period of the match.

The lesson is not that Iraola should avoid rotation. Liverpool cannot sustain a demanding European and domestic schedule with the same players carrying every important minute. It is that rotation needs to preserve enough continuity in the positions responsible for organising the team.

That is particularly relevant in central defence, where understanding between the two players can be as important as individual quality. Changing one defender allows a familiar partner to help maintain the structure; changing both removes that reference point.

Iraola recognised the trade-off. The next test is how he manages it when Liverpool again have to protect a lead and preserve energy for another fixture.

There were positives beyond the senior attacking players. Koumas scored his first Champions League goal after seeing earlier efforts ruled out for offside, while Ngumoha played a key role in the build-up to Barcola’s opener and helped create the third goal.

Iraola has repeatedly emphasised that young players are in his first-team plans because he believes they can contribute, rather than simply because the schedule demands fresh legs. Their performances in Linz offered evidence that Liverpool have options capable of making an impact.

That matters in the context of the fixture list. The manager needs more than a settled starting eleven if Liverpool are to compete across the Premier League and Europe without exhausting their most influential players.

However, the need for depth does not remove the responsibility to manage games intelligently. A rotated side still needs a coherent defensive structure, particularly when changes are made late and the temptation is to treat a contest as finished.

Koumas and Ngumoha supplied energy and attacking quality. Barcola and Wirtz offered a reminder of what Liverpool can produce when their movement and technical ability complement one another. Those are meaningful gains after the disappointment against City.

The next step is to ensure that the team can retain its shape and composure when the personnel change and the rhythm of a match shifts.

Liverpool’s victory in Austria should be viewed positively. Six goals away from home in Europe, a hat-trick for Barcola and an influential performance from Wirtz were all significant developments. The young players also strengthened their case for further opportunities.

But the result should not become a convenient way of moving past the questions raised by Manchester City. Liverpool have shown that they can create chances and overwhelm an opponent; they still need to demonstrate that they can control the less spectacular phases of a match.

Iraola’s explanation for the late goals was candid, and the demands of the schedule are real. The decision to rest both starting centre-backs was understandable in isolation. The outcome showed why such decisions require careful management, especially when a game has not yet reached its final whistle.

The best teams do not merely establish commanding leads. They know how to protect them, when to slow the game down and how to prevent an opponent from sensing an opportunity to return.

Liverpool’s six goals in Linz offered a glimpse of the attacking side Iraola is building. The final three conceded showed the work that remains.

The victory provides momentum. Whether it marks progress will depend on what Liverpool do with the lessons from the final half-hour.