Before examining the dismissal, Liverpool’s selection helps explain the circumstances of the defeat. Iraola selected Lewis Koumas at the front of the attack for his first Premier League start. LFCLive’s October 11 team-news summary corroborates that milestone and the absences of Cody Gakpo and Alexander Isak.

Dominik Szoboszlai was also unavailable. Liverpool’s dedicated injury update attributes his absence to hamstring tightness after international duty and unsuccessful attempts to train through it. An October 11 GOAL report corroborates the hamstring-related absence.

Iraola also warned that getting injured players back for the upcoming Champions League action would be difficult because the turnaround was short, according to Football365. He did not offer a guaranteed return. The missed match and the recovery warning therefore answer different questions: who was absent at Anfield, and whether those absences might continue.

Koumas’ first league start gives the selection a significance beyond the result. It marks an opportunity in a match where Gakpo and Isak were unavailable, but the milestone alone does not establish how well he played. That distinction keeps the lineup story focused on the manager’s available choices, rather than assuming that an alternative selection would have prevented the defeat.

Gravenberch received his second yellow card for a challenge on Doku in the 62nd minute with the teams still level. Sky Sports reports that Haaland’s opener followed just two minutes and 36 seconds later. Liverpool had barely begun adjusting to playing with 10 when they also had to confront a deficit.

One tactical interpretation is that the first goal compounded the disruption of the dismissal. Protecting a draw with one fewer player demands different decisions from chasing an equalizer. Liverpool may have faced a choice between covering space and committing enough players forward to recover, with little time to settle on a response.

In comments reported by GOAL, Liverpool manager Andoni Iraola said pressing City was difficult with equal numbers and became a different challenge after the dismissal. He also said Liverpool conceded before they could make a substitution. His account emphasizes how little time separated the loss of a player from the need to chase the game.

Haaland opened the scoring in the 65th minute, Doku doubled City’s lead in the 68th and Cherki added the third in the 78th. City went from a goalless draw to a two-goal lead in roughly six minutes after Gravenberch’s departure.

Liverpool’s official match report describes Doku driving into the penalty area before the ball reached Haaland, who finished forcefully. Doku then moved inside again and curled a shot into the top corner beyond Alisson.

Cherki completed the scoring from close range after Josko Gvardiol supplied the assist. The three finishes gave City a margin Liverpool could not erase, but Doku’s involvement in the first two goals makes him central to understanding the attacking surge.

In assessing City’s response, the finishing deserves attention alongside the extra player. The advantage alone did not place the ball in the net. Doku’s contribution to the opener and his own finish supplied two different outcomes from carrying the ball inside, before Cherki completed the scoring.

Iraola argued that Gravenberch’s first booking was excessive, describing the incident as an ordinary foul. Football365’s October 11 reaction report records his criticism and his view that Liverpool played well for the first hour before City became the better side after the red card.

That remains the Liverpool manager’s assessment of the decision and performance. His comments suggest why he resisted judging the entire display by the final score. He also praised his players’ work rate despite leaving the match without a point.

City manager Enzo Maresca offered a different emphasis. In the same reaction report, he acknowledged that his team struggled in the first half and said second-half adjustments improved its play, including the buildup. He also stressed handling the difficult Anfield atmosphere and responding by winning.

Those atmosphere comments had an additional context. Sky Sports reports that this was City’s first game after an independent commission’s guilty verdict concerning serious breaches of Premier League financial rules. The report says City had appealed and continued to deny wrongdoing. That attributed account explains the backdrop to Maresca’s remarks without treating the match result as a resolution of the financial case.

In an October 3 appeal report, Sky Sports quoted City as saying the appeal was lodged at 7 p.m. on October 1, 2026, and recorded the Premier League’s confirmation. That earlier account and the match report describe the appeal as part of the context surrounding the game.

The managers’ accounts suggest different lessons from the same match. Iraola’s emphasis gives Liverpool reasons to retain what worked before the dismissal; Maresca’s points toward the value of adjusting during play. Neither assessment, taken alone, explains every goal or establishes how a rematch would unfold. For readers, the distinction helps separate judgments about the performance from the undeniable outcome.