Allegri and Mourinho: the decline of two big names in Roma-Juve. Oliver’s analysis

Let’s hope few people abroad have seen it. Unfortunately, however, on Sunday evening the counter-scheduling of the other European championships was not exceptional and it may be that Roma-Juve attracted a fair number of foreign fans in front of the TV. In the past, on the other hand, the match between the Giallorossi and Bianconeri was a real, warm, vibrant match with good or high-level technical-tactical content. Not this time. And the deep sense of melancholy and sadness that this match leaves comes from afar because there was a time when José Mourinho and Massimiliano Allegri not only won (which they often did and probably still know how to do) but convinced.

And it’s not a philosophical note, far from it. There was a time, in fact, when Mourinho’s Inter celebrated the treble fielding a lot of offensive quality together with an exceptional defensive squaring. And there was a time when Allegri’s Juve reached the Champions League final by fielding Cuadrado, Dybala, Mandzukic and Higuain all together and placing the Pjanic-Khedira duo in midfield, conceding just as little to their opponents.

THE RESULTS

—

So what happened to these two technicians? It does not escape us that they now have less strong personnel than in the past. But it’s too easy to come up with a convincing football idea when you’re surrounded by champions. It is in difficulties (or presumed difficulties) that the qualities of the best must emerge. The palmares says that Mourinho and Allegri are among the best, but their work this season is disappointing. Of course, both try to leverage results to fend off criticism. But is their assessment correct or is it an official defense? Juve are theoretically second, as Allegri says, but the tremendous group of Champions and the heavy gap quickly remedied by Napoli soundly reject performance: the bianconeri have never been in the running for the first two goals. And before the penalty, the coach’s last alibi, the average points in the championship was not enough. Roma are currently fourth thanks to Juve -15, but more was expected and the elimination from the Italian Cup with Cremonese (which Mou incredibly justified by underlining that he has a short staff) is a very dark page that certainly cannot be ignore. The results, then, often depend on the episodes: on Sunday Mourinho won, who also took the applause, but Allegri could easily have won without the general opinion on the two performances changing. The reality is that he didn’t deserve to win anyone, because nobody really tried.

THE CHANGES OF ALLEGRI

—

And here we return to the starting problem, namely the vision of football that now characterizes these two coaches. The impression is that they are both twisted around antiquated ideas and that, even in responding to criticism, they even go so far as to exasperate them. Allegri has been preaching for some time that substitutions are crucial: a legitimate vision, especially now that there are five of them, and also quite comfortable, given that he always has a deeper squad than his opponents. Juve, however, has by now become accustomed to spending the first hour of play with the sole purpose of keeping the match open: if you score, fine; if you don’t score, you try not to concede goals or at most one. Then in the last half hour inside the various Chiesa and Pogba to really try to win. Allegri inserts strong and fresh players to resolve matches with an individual play, regardless of an organized context. It’s not the team that has to exalt the individual, but the individual that has to drag the team along with an invention. Allegri (not) prepares the matches against Roma and Atalanta in the same way, to mention two diametrically opposed teams in terms of philosophy and characteristics: Juve always has the same face, a little haggard. And the coach doesn’t worry about giving the maneuver a system that enhances the qualities of the players: is it logical to have a center forward like Vlahovic and not give him a ball? The Serbian is a stranger to the team: an out of shape and disheartened striker misses easy goals until he breaks free, but he doesn’t even have the chance to shoot. Is it normal that Locatelli, educated by De Zerbi to verticalize, should be satisfied with managing a horizontal lap? Is it right that Di Maria should not be included in a project that enhances his technique and instead be asked to invent football without a score?

MOU’S WAR

—

Mourinho, on the other hand, has been very good at giving Roma a character identity, but there are matches like the one in Cremona where the players are mentally drained and therefore they lack an idea of ​​football to try to win anyway. Roma don’t play football, they transform every match into a dirty and bad war and look for the decisive leap with set pieces and Dybala’s exploits. Joya was tender on Sunday in the vain search for a ball. The yellow and reds achieved success in an episodic way and the coach expertly passed it off as a great feat. But just think back to the black and white season to realize the reality: Juve not only lost, but were massacred by Monza and Maccabi, and other examples could also be cited. Roma, therefore, could have played in another way, involving a bewildered Dybala, not giving up a first striker and without giving space to their opponents. But obviously these are things that cannot be improvised, that are studied, tried out in training, applied with conviction. Once upon a time, the Portuguese coach knew how to balance his teams without giving up a good level offensive phase. We’re not talking about entertainment or fun, concepts that are often relative, but about a proposal that embarrasses the opponents and exalts its forwards. In his Roman experience Mourinho has the enormous merit of having compacted a depressed environment, of having constantly filled the stadium with the strength of his personality, of having convinced the players to follow him: things that are worth even more than the Conference League. But he also has the great fault of not having shown any progress on a technical level. If he left in June, his legacy would be very heavy for two reasons: no one would be able to match his character with a coach so good at avoiding criticism and booing the team even after very disappointing games, and in the same way any new coach should start from zero in the field. In short, the challenge at the Olimpico pitted against two coaches who now seem to be preparing the match regardless of the ball. A decadent, speculative football, disrespectful of talent. It was not a demonstration of solidity, but of renunciation. Of fear. You can win like this too, of course. But it’s easier than not.