If teams are deliberately giving up possession then getting to 65%, especially in tied games is very easy to do. its kind of a self fulfilling statistic.

The statistic is that we tend to lose or draw most of our games when we have 65% possession or more. Conversely, we win the majority of our games when we have 55% or less possession. All it's doing is pointing out a certain phenomenon from which we might draw conclusions. From a statistics perspective, there might be a lot of gaps in the correlation, but from a pure football perspective, it points to a consistent inability to break teams down, from which we can then infer that some teams might be quite happy to let us have the ball, knowing full well we struggle against packed defenses. The footballing conclusion, then, would be to either drop off and let the other teams break out a bit (in order to unbalance them), or to keep pinging balls onto their back four from distance, and then fighting to win the second ball and counter-attack from there, where we will usually be closer to goal, and attacking some small imbalance in their defensive structure. But that's all it is - a small correlation and an inference that concerns possible tactics.

If we are in that situation and we score a goal, forcing our opponents to try to get more meaningful possession then we would see the likelihood of getting to 65% lower.

To a great degree the correlation is flawed.

I think if you go back and look at the games where we've drawn or lost with 65% or more possession, you will see that we've either scored first, and instead of sitting back and hitting on the break, we've continued to dominate possession; or, we've struggled to break a team down who then go on to score first, in which case we push forward more and expose ourselves to second and third goals on the break. The correlation may be flawed, but on the pitch there's a clear problem we have when we dominate games, not just this season, but across the length of Klopp's time with us. 65% is an arbitrary number I used simply because most games are 55-45 possession (IIRC), so 65% or more possession would indicate almost total dominance of the ball. The more balanced the game (or even imbalanced away from us), the more effective Gegenpressing is. The more imbalanced the game is in our favour, the less effective Gegenpressing is (and you can ONLY press when the other team has the ball). So given that we probably spend the vast majority of our tactical training time working on pressing, pressing triggers, and counter-attack patterns, in those games where we dominate the ball, we're mostly relying on our players being individually creative to open up the other team - and until recently, the only player we had who could really do that was Coutinho. So the further inference, then, is to either drop off more and let the other team play, so that our quick attackers have space to exploit - or recruit more playmakers and largely abandon Gegenpressing for a significant number of games per season.

But you may be right that the correlation is flawed, so perhaps you could show where the correlation is incorrect (as in, I'm a mathematics moron, so if I'm missing anything, I'm happy to be corrected on the stats

)