Arne Slot's position as Liverpool head coach was untenable. The decision-makers at Anfield took a little longer than the supporters to realise that, but in the end it became clear that they could not risk disrupting next season with an autumn sacking.
Liverpool's lowest points total for a decade did not undo the achievement of winning the Premier League title in his first season. But it did undermine the argument that he was the best man to oversee the ongoing overhaul. Fans demanded a different direction.
Turning to Andoni Iraola would be a deliberate attempt to alter the mood and approach. Liverpool's statement makes that clear. "The conclusion we have come to is built on a belief that the team's trajectory is best addressed through a change of direction."
There can be no regret over appointing Slot in the first place. That title win in 2025 is proof that he was the right man for that moment. His subtle changes maximised what Jurgen Klopp had left behind. Ironically, in hindsight, he also helped get more from Mohamed Salah.
Any fair analysis of Slot's time at Liverpool must acknowledge the hand that he was dealt too. Yes, he inherited a talented team from Klopp but the past 12 months has been fraught with challenges. The tragic loss of Diogo Jota last summer cast a long shadow.
More generally, the vast summer spending caused greater upheaval than had been anticipated. Alexander Isak never got going and Florian Wirtz did not have the expected impact, meaning Luis Diaz was sorely missed. And then there was the whole Salah saga.
While Liverpool fans will never view Salah as a problem, he undoubtedly was for Slot. The Egyptian could not continue forever. In a sense, Slot had the misfortune to be the coach in position as Salah declined - even if Salah himself feels Slot exacerbated it.
But Slot's utter inability to address any of the on-pitch issues damned him. Whether it was facing set-pieces or low blocks, he never could solve the problems - only describe them. As a result, press conferences he would call honest felt like long lists of excuses.
He suggested injuries had been the story of their season but that did not stop him also blaming referees, fixture lists and cup draws for their plight. He recalled decisions not just given against his side but for others - in games Liverpool were not even involved in.
It grated with supporters who saw standards slipping and with players who lost belief in the football they were being encouraged to play. "I want to see Liverpool go back to being the heavy metal attacking team," argued Salah in his incendiary statement.
Could Xabi Alonso have delivered that? It was an obvious option to some, although not necessarily within the club if the briefings are to be believed. It will be fascinating to see the fan reaction should the former Liverpool midfielder make a success of it at Chelsea.
Alonso, the theory goes, would have not just had the supporters' backing but been more likely to unlock the true potential of Wirtz, maybe even Jeremie Frimpong, two of his former players at Bayer Leverkusen. But would he have delivered the style they crave?
Iraola is the more obvious heir to Klopp in that respect. While Liverpool's number of direct attacks dropped to their lowest level of the last five years this past season, that is a metric that Iraola's Bournemouth topped. His is intense, quick football.
His Bournemouth team ranked second in the Premier League for sprints in his first season and first in each of the last two campaigns. Theirs is a clearly-defined approach. While Slot wanted to pass the ball in the final third, Iraola wants to win the ball there.
This thinking is in line with the old Klopp principle of pressing being more effective than any playmaker. If Iraola is able to restore that kind of game at Anfield then his football will be embraced by those who felt Liverpool had become too slow, too boring.
But it would be wrong to suggest that it is an appointment without risk. Iraola may be a known quantity in the Premier League but he is not in European competition and that represents a gamble. Managing Bournemouth is not the same as managing Liverpool.
This is not a statement about the intangible demands of running a club that size but the practical issues raised by the schedule. At Bournemouth, as at Rayo Vallecano before that, Iraola never contended with playing in Europe. It was a lighter load for his players.
Bournemouth played only 40 matches this past season. Liverpool played 57 times. Having qualified for the Champions League, Liverpool are already committed to more games next season than Iraola has ever faced as a top-flight coach in England or Spain.
How will that impact the ability to make a success of his high-tempo approach? Pep Guardiola - and to an extent Klopp himself - opted to adjust their own styles of play to reflect the fact that it required too much of their teams to maintain this over 60 matches.
Ultimately, however, it seems that just about everyone at Liverpool would prefer to try something more in line with these values than continue down the path that Slot was treading. The more that the Dutchman put his own stamp on the team, the less they liked it.
Hence the course correction, explained away by Liverpool's hierarchy as being due to the evolving demands of the job. Whether viewed as natural progression or a restoration of Liverpool's values, change always brings risk. Just not as risky as allowing Slot to continue.
