Harrison Reed scored a 97th-minute equaliser as Liverpool were held to a 2-2 draw against Fulham in the Premier League.

Steve Nicol claimed that Liverpool’s defending for Fulham’s late equaliser was ‘schoolboy’.

The Reds threw away victory at Craven Cottage as they were held to a 2-2 draw. Although Harry WIlson opened the scoring for Fulham before half-time, Liverpool fought from behind in the second period, with Florian Wirtz equalising before Cody Gakpo netting in the fourth minute of stoppage--time.

However, that was not to be the end of the late drama and Liverpool failed to see the game out. On 97 minutes, with the Reds setting up for a long Fulham throw-in, the home side inside went short to Harrison Reed. The midfielder was given acres of space and picked out the top corner from more than 30 yards. It meant that the spoils were shared and Arne Slot’s faltering Premier League champions dropped points for a 10th time in their 20th fixture.

Reed’s intervention was undoubtedly a wonder strike, one that will be a goal-of-the-season contender. But former Liverpool defender Nicol believes that the Reds could have done more to stop the shot.

What’s been said

Speaking on ESPN, Nicol said: “If you look at the equaliser, it's a throw-in so everyone is back and they think it's going to be a long throw. As soon as you see it's going to go short, somebody has to be in charge. It's either of the centre-backs, your captain probably should be, or your goalkeeper to push everybody out. Instead, they all stand on the six-yard box. Including the goalie, there are nine Liverpool players in the six-yard box.

“The point is you try to cut down percentages. He deserves praise, well done Fulham but from a Liverpool point of view, the basics of defending, when the ball goes backwards, you all come out. It's schoolboy defending. Again, I'm not taking away from the strike but if there's someone closer and he's having to be hurried; someone should be sprinting out to him to put him off, but they weren't and that's why they lost two points.

“They got exactly what they deserved. They're unlucky they had to play [Dominik] Szoboszlai and Curtis [Jones] in the wide attacking areas. That's bad luck you've got that amount of injuries. But at the same time, you can't step on the field and say we're unlucky today. Now you've got to play. They didn't play. Fulham said you can have it and try to beat us. There has to be a purpose of why you pass it. You have to be positive.”

‘Why is Van Dijk not sprinting?

Meanwhile, France 1998 World Cup winner Frank Leboeuf believes that Liverpool captain Virgil van Dijk should have been the one closing down Reed. Ex-Chelsea defender Leboeuf said: “I was with Olivier Dacourt the former Everton and Leeds player, and we say: 'Why is Van Dijk not sprinting towards him? Why is he waiting because he has no-one to mark and is not doing anything. He is going a little bit forward and then puts his hand on the back and waits instead of sprinting.

“[He] is the one guilty for that. Yes, of course, maybe it wouldn't have done anything to that shot but you have to try to disturb and put pressure on Reed. That is what Van Dijk didn't do but what a crazy goal.”