No, but they were in the better position to do so. If we opened that game up we would have got destroyed.
OMG - Here's the problem. The voice of fear and anti-football. There's a difference between neurotically and pathologically fearing an opponent and having a healthy respect. You treat it as if "parking the bus" and going completely "gun ho" are the only two options in football.
I think the appropriate tactics would have been to have conceded that they would have more possession than us and we needed shape and discipline to avoid being badly opened up (not gun ho). However , I think we should have provided much more threat on the ball and been prepared to attack occasionally when the time was right. Considered counter attacking is different from parking the bus. It means you have to be a little bit braver and not show too much respect to your opponent. It's not as if Liverpool were there for the taking but they did (and still do have) very serious defensive problems that can be exploited. We should have put more fear into them that their weaknesses could be found instead of just offering next to nothing when we had the ball.
I also think avoiding going too deep into our box would have been a better idea and contesting the ball with a bit more intensity about halfway inside our half (instead of on the edge of our area. This would have given us more of a hold into the game and provided a better base for some proper counter attacks. This would mean that Liverpool would have been a bit more cautious themselves about going at us too much. If the away team can provide a proper , tangible threat on the break then it's a great form of defence because it stops that situation where the home team just constantly picks up the ball and comes at you again and again in wave after wave of attacks (and you get trapped in your own penalty box).
It still would have been a game of chess to an extent but a much less predictable one that would have given us a chance of winning. Would we have got "destroyed"? I kind of doubt it somehow. We might have lost 2-1 ,3-2 or maybe won 2-1 , 3-2? But destroyed? Nope.
Football , like most sports , is a pay off somewhere between abject fear and gun ho recklessness. The golfer can lay up or go for the green , the batsman can go for a boundary or play a straight bat , a tennis player can go for the lines or the middle of the court , a rugby team can kick it or keep the ball passing...you get the idea. In between abject fear and gun ho recklessness is considered bravery and it's where good sport is played. Teams/players who lack the bravery to play the right shot or the right tactics will be overtaken by other teams who are prepared to at least play a bit. It's considered bravery that I wanted to see at Anfield , not pathological fear.
Jose is just not brave enough for United. It's as simple as that.