Allegri’s Milan win away at Como in Thursday night’s rescheduled fixture sharpens the philosophical divide between “result-driven” football and “play-driven” football.
Last night we witnessed a very entertaining match between Fabregas’ Como and Allegri’s Milan. In the first half, Como completely controlled proceedings, deservedly taking the lead and creating several chances to double their advantage — chances that never materialized but would have been fully justified. Maignan was outstanding, keeping Milan afloat on at least two occasions.
At the end of the first half, a controversial episode led to Milan’s equalizer from the penalty spot. There is widespread debate over the intensity of the contact inside the box, as well as a previous foul in midfield by Saelemaekers that sparked the move.
In the second half, Allegri made tactical adjustments, Milan dug in, managed the game without necessarily dominating possession, and scored twice to seal a 3–1 win for the Rossoneri.
That’s the concise match report. From the final whistle onward, the usual carousel of comments and analyses resumed — no longer focused solely on the match itself, but on the clash of footballing philosophies.
Milan and their commander-in-chief Allegri once again found themselves in the eye of the storm, almost as if Milan hadn’t actually won the match, extending a positive run of 19 (!) consecutive games unbeaten. Almost as if critics wanted to forget where this Milan started from: the ashes of last season, which ended without even qualifying for European competitions.
A real “War of the Worlds” is underway — to borrow the title of Spielberg’s 2005 film — with the two factions destined to clash endlessly: the “giochisti,” the most aggressive and militant side, and the “risultatisti.”
It is perfectly legitimate to say that we don’t like how the Rossoneri play, that their conservative, pragmatic football doesn’t appeal to refined tactical palates raised on dogmatic Guardiola-style football and loyal only to the disciples of that philosophy, from De Zerbi to Fabregas himself.
It is legitimate to express an aesthetic judgment that can — indeed must — be detached from the result. But one cannot deny that there is another side to the coin: another way of playing and understanding football, regardless of the players at your disposal, who nonetheless always make the difference.
The most recent Champions League was won by Luis Enrique’s PSG, a result that re-energized the philosophers of possession-based football — bold and tireless evangelists of a creed that pushes the narrative of a single, correct way to play the game. Because “football has evolved and you have to keep up with the times.”
A pity that just 12 months earlier, it was Ancelotti’s Real Madrid lifting the trophy — a team full of stars, but with a footballing philosophy that calling “pragmatic” would be an understatement: solid defense, low block, and counter-attacking, to simplify the concept as much as possible.
Last season’s Europa League was won by Tottenham, arguably one of the least attractive teams to watch in Europe in terms of quality and attacking principles, defeating United in the final — a side that, if not on the podium, was still comfortably among the top ten.
In 2024/25, it was Gasperini’s Atalanta who triumphed, a coach whose philosophy deserves a separate editorial altogether. He does not belong to the “giochisti” camp and employs man-to-man marking all over the pitch, as was done 50 years ago. Of course, Gasperini’s football is not just that, but as stated, the current Roma coach warrants a standalone piece.
It is also interesting to look back at 2022/23, when Roma and Sevilla faced off in the Europa League final, led by two coaches — Mendilibar and Mourinho — who, according to the dominant contemporary narrative, should be considered (and by some are considered) tactically obsolete.
José Mourinho in particular has endured the same criticism Allegri is facing now: outdated, unwilling to evolve, left behind by modern football. And yet, with a Roma side that was little more than modest, he won the Conference League in 2021/22 and would have lifted that Europa League trophy as well, were it not for one of the worst refereeing performances in the history of European finals — the farce overseen by Taylor.
Mourinho, like Allegri, is a “victim” of a distorted media narrative that seeks to convince people there is only one way to play football, and that anyone who does not conform is obsolete.
A narrative that does little harm to those directly involved — who can laugh it off and have millions of reasons (equal to the euros in their bank accounts) not to care — but that ultimately does a disservice to common sense and, above all, to the truth.
And the truth is that Italian football DNA has always been pragmatic and speculative — and historically, that is how we have won. When we nostalgically celebrate Italy’s 2006 World Cup triumph, for example, we never stop (rightly so) to analyze how that success was achieved, yet both the semifinal against Germany and the final against France were dominated by them and won by us.
The objective truth lies in results. And results — trophies — tell us that in football, even today, there are multiple ways to win, not just one.
Last season’s Napoli under Conte won in a very different way compared to Spalletti’s Napoli two years earlier. And the fans — the purest soul of this entire circus — celebrated and enjoyed it in exactly the same way.
L’articolo War of the Worlds proviene da Soccer Made In Italy.
