I'd say very few were conceded due to atrocious defending. Good defense can be trumped by greater offense, doesn't invalidate what the defense has done.
We can walk through goal by goal to check.
Very few? Both Liverpool goals in the 2nd leg was bad defending especially the first goal. Roma's first was comical, their 4th was the ref giving them the goal because the game was over.
First match was ripe with awful defenses. Manolas better not be out of a contract because he looked about as bad as you can look as a CB. There was no marking in any of the goals. Salah literally walked past a player and passed it to another player inside the box who didn't have to make a run to be free of a marker because there was no marking.
Liverpool barely had to play yesterday because Roma were so poor in the firsr
I leg and so Liverpool showed up barely playing. They were quite bad but still scored 2 goals quite easily.
Look at the attack leading up to their 2nd goal. The Roma player is level with Robertson when the pass is made. It's like he's instructed to not track back, so little did he try. Robertson is allowed to waltz all the way to byline and managed to find the only Liverpool player in the box because yet again, no marking.
To me they were poor matches of football. First leg had some really poor passing, both sides where under 80% completion. Tbf to Liverpool they didn't really had to play much in the 2nd leg. They were 5-2 so their performance didn't matter as long as they won it. They were also comfortably the better side in the first leg but I've seen them play a lot better this season and not win so easily, remember they could have scored more.
Over the 2 legs Roma showed about 90 minutes of horrible football. Not bad football but horrible. They "only" conceded 7.
Obviously I'd be stoked as a Liverpool supporter but I'd be concerned about concededing goals so easily. They showed much better defending against Porto and City.