The fixture between Roma and Milan in the closing weeks of the 2025-26 Serie A season was one of those games that doesn’t decide the table but tells you everything about where both clubs actually are. I watched it twice, ran through the tracking data that’s been published since, and there’s enough here to write about properly rather than the usual post-match autopsy that runs in the Italian press.

The shape question

Roma started in what was nominally a 3-4-2-1 but which, watching back, functioned closer to a 3-4-3 in the build-up phases and a 5-2-3 when Milan had sustained possession in the Roma half. This isn’t novel — most of Serie A is now playing some version of a back-three system that morphs in and out of a back five depending on possession state — but the way Roma executed it deserves attention.

The wing-backs pushed high when Roma had the ball, which created the wide overloads that were the team’s most dangerous attacking pattern in the first half. The interesting tactical choice was that the right wing-back consistently inverted into midfield rather than holding width, while the left wing-back held width to provide the natural left-foot crossing option. This created an asymmetry that Milan’s pressing structure didn’t seem to have a clear answer for.

Milan, for their part, set up in their now-standard 4-2-3-1 with Pulisic drifting in from the right and Reijnders dropping deep to receive the ball from the centre-backs. The midfield configuration looked good on paper but the press intensity dropped noticeably after about the 25th minute, which is where Roma started getting their best moments.

The first goal sequence

The opening goal came from exactly the asymmetry I mentioned. The right wing-back inverted into the half-space, dragged Milan’s left-back inside with him, and the resulting space was exploited by a third-man run from one of the front three. The cross came from the opposite flank where the left wing-back had held width, finding the run perfectly.

This is a pattern Roma have been working on since pre-season and it’s been visible across the second half of the campaign. The coaching staff has clearly drilled this specific movement repeatedly. When it works it’s beautiful football. When the timing is off it leaves the team exposed in transition because the inverted wing-back isn’t in position to defend the counter.

Where Milan got back into it

Milan’s equaliser came from a transition moment that exposed exactly that vulnerability. Roma turned the ball over in their attacking third with the right wing-back high and inverted, leaving acres of space on Roma’s right flank. Theo Hernandez (yes, still terrorising opponents in 2026) hit a diagonal ball that took out three Roma players in one pass, and the chance was finished cleanly.

The tactical lesson is that the asymmetric wing-back system Roma have built is high-reward, high-risk. Against teams with quality transitional players, the gaps the system creates are dangerous. Against teams that don’t have the players to exploit it, Roma look like the best version of themselves.

This is the kind of thing that’s now being analysed with custom modelling by serious football analytics outfits — pattern detection in possession-loss sequences, expected threat in transition states. The level of public-facing tactical analysis has come a long way since the StatsBomb democratisation phase, and what’s being published in the Italian press is genuinely sophisticated now.

The midfield question

The Roma midfield in this match was the unit I had the most questions about going in and the most respect for coming out. The double pivot stayed disciplined even as Milan tried to drag them out of position with Reijnders’ deep movements. The compactness between the midfield and the back three was excellent — Roma rarely allowed Milan a clean ball into the half-space between the lines.

What was striking was how often the midfielders were the players initiating the attacking phase rather than just receiving from the centre-backs. The vertical passes from midfield into the front three were the most threatening attacking moments Roma created, and they came from the midfielders reading the press and stepping forward into the space Milan vacated.

This is partly system, partly individual quality. The signings the club made in the previous transfer window are starting to look more justified than they did in the early autumn when fans (myself included) were questioning the priorities. La Gazzetta dello Sport ran a piece last week about the gradual emergence of the midfield as a unit and it tracked with what I was seeing.

The defending in the final phase

The final fifteen minutes of the match told you what Roma’s defensive ceiling currently is. Milan threw bodies forward, the press dropped, the back three became a back five, and the wing-backs essentially became third and fourth centre-backs in a low block. Roma’s defending in this phase was disciplined but not dominant. Milan generated chances. The clean sheet (in this match, anyway) came partly from the goalkeeper and partly from luck.

Against the better attacking teams in Serie A — Inter, Napoli at their best, the recent version of Atalanta — this kind of low-block defending under sustained pressure has been the failure point this season. The system works when Roma have the ball or when the opposition doesn’t have the quality to break it down. Against the top tier, the cracks show.

What it means for the run-in

The result, set aside, the performance was the most cohesive I’ve seen from Roma in months. The structural understanding between the lines is clearly improved. The set-piece routines (which I’ll write about separately) have been overhauled and are starting to produce. The squad depth is still a problem but the starting eleven, when it’s available, is a credible Champions League-chasing side.

What worries me about the closing fixtures is the schedule density combined with the squad depth. The starting eleven can play this football. The bench can’t, quite. If injuries hit at the wrong moment, the structural sophistication unravels because the replacement players haven’t been drilled in the same patterns to the same depth.

Corriere dello Sport ran the rotation question in their match report and it’s the right framing. Roma have the system. They have the first-choice players to execute it. They don’t quite have the squad behind them to maintain it across the run-in. That’s the next problem to solve.

For now, the Milan fixture was the kind of performance that gives genuine reasons for optimism heading into 2026-27. Forza Roma.

Luca Bianchi