Got to be careful here as what I'm about to say is most certainly not intended to offend any sensibilities. It's difficult territory to venture into because it's so difficult if not impossible to convey precisely enough what it is you want to say.
Anyroad firstly PoP - a request.
I'd love to understand those diagrams. So is there any chance of a key and/or explanation as to how to interpret them for those simple souls like myself who aren't familiar with the various symbols etc. eg The long arrows thing? EDIT!! Just saw the post about the red/light blue x's but even so still not entirely sure as to which half of the pitch is us and which is them in each instance.
Secondly, I'm compelled to throw in here a snap reflection [from an arl arse who was reared on the Shankly 'football's a simple game' philosophy] which impinges on what I perceive as over-emphasis on the tactical analysis. Please don't take it the wrong way as I do fully respect the fact that seemingly to an increasing extent tactical analysis plays such a major part in the game but sometimes it does seem to us arl arses that there's a burgeoning momentum to perhaps view the game as far more complicated than what it actually is - which when it boils down to it is still what it's always been ie man against man/man against men/men against man/men against men/team against team.
Anyroad, the reflection is this - when you have a full back/wing back performing so poorly [ie what seemed like untold miscontrols, misplaced passes, failures to track his man etc etc] as Moreno performed on Sunday often at quite crucial moments of the game such as when they scored their two goals 
does it not render impotent any system no matter how sophisticated or ingenious it might appear in theory. In other words [all other things being equal] despite all the tactical stuff two decent snatches of common sense, individual conscientious tracking back defending play from soft lad Moreno and we would have won the game 1-0.
I guess in simplistic terms I'm kind of saying in the final analysis is the game not actually more about players performing as closely as possible to the respective levels required of them within some 'basic loosely co-ordinated tried and tested down the years' parameters [eg a midfield man patrolling the midfield, making tackles,, interceptions, tracking back, making passes, making frequent short off the ball runs and the occasional long driving off the ball run beyond the opposition back line, dribbling etc etc] rather than some "flip the feckin midfield triangle" elaborations that are so frequently espoused by all and sundry on the telly and these forums.
Kind regards
Timbo the dinosaur.
Bloody 'ellfire Timbo - do you need it in large print and all?
Seriously though, I thought the diagrams from Squawka had arrows on them to show the direction of play. Any road, for those ones, Liverpool are playing left to right, and United are playing right to left. So with that in mind, you could see that they worked much harder in our half of the field than we did in theirs.
As for the second one - I agree to a very large extent. To dive into a bit of theory, though. In football development (youth upwards), there are four "pillars" of the game that are generally recognised - Technical, Tactical, Physical, Mental (including lifestyle and social). When you are developing youth players, you start with the technical (they need to learn how to control and move the ball), then you add the tactical (starting with things like width and depth, movement, penetration, pressure and cover, then moving onto formations and combination play), then you add the physical (once they've hit puberty and you can start serious physical preparation, because you have to be fit to be a pro) and finally the mental/social is the last stage (preparing to be a professional player, the will to win, overcoming obstacles, preparing your body through diet and having the right social lifestyle and support). So for a young player learning the game, the importance of the pillars is in that order - Technical, Tactical, Physical, then Mental.
However, once a player becomes a professional, that order is reversed. To go out on a field against another team of professionals, you have to have a never-lose attitude, at least, and an always-win attitude at best. So the mental preparation is the most important. After that, you have to be 100% physically prepared, to the point that you are comfortable putting your body on the line for every ball. Once you are on that level, you have to know the team's tactics, your role in them, and any adaptations that might be made. Finally, once you have all three of those, you have to make sure that your already high technical level remains high.
For me, we fell at the first pillar against United. Our mentality was all wrong. We almost expected to ease into the game, like two boxers, feeling each other out for a round, getting to know the lay of the land. Instead, like Ali against Foreman, United came out and swung a big overhand right at our heads, and we were wobbled from the beginning, and it took us 30 minutes to figure it out. Think back to Wimbledon under Bassett and then Gould. This was their trademark until teams figured it out (and it took a number of seasons for them to figure it out, too). When every team came into a game against them assuming the usual 5 minutes of cautious passing and movement, Wimbledon came out like a wrecking ball from the first minute, smashing anything that moves, and putting the ball down the throat of the opposition and forcing them to cough it up. United did that to us. We weren't mentally prepared for it. It's one thing I have a criticism of Rodgers about, and that is that he seems to believe in the overall superiority of the technical game. 90% of the time, he might be right. But the vital 10% of the time that's left, you need to match the other team as a physical and mental force. I would say, for me, that's the final piece of the jigsaw for Rodgers and these players, more so than any transfer we could bring in. To consistently go into these games swinging a sledgehammer from the start, instead of picking and choosing when to go. Make the opposition worry about us, more than we worry about them.
