It is difficult to understand, from afar, why Roma fired Daniele De Rossi. The reasons – as per the press release – are to be found exclusively in the results of this early season. Because Roma cannot fail to qualify for the Champions League. In short, a declared objective for the club this season. But deciding that this objective would already be at risk (continuing with De Rossi) is objectively a clear prediction. Absolutely legitimate, of course. But there are many questions that remain in the head.
Can it be mandatory to enter the Champions League? Roma has failed to qualify for the top European competition since the 18/19 season.
In the last Champions League match Daniele De Rossi was on the pitch and also scored the goal that would have then taken Roma to extra time (lost against Porto). From then on, no more Champions League. Not even last season when 5 qualified, Roma finished sixth.
Now the race for the top spots in the standings has also become more difficult. Inter, champion of Italy, Juventus, deeply renewed, Conte’s Napoli, Atalanta, fresh winner of the Europa League, Milan, who doesn’t want to give up that position. And of course Roma. In addition to possible outsiders like Lazio or Bologna themselves. Or maybe Fiorentina, who have put qualification for Europe there as a dream. Italy has 4 spots: having the Champions League as a minimum objective is having a high bar.
And if the 3 points (without victories) of the Giallorossi so far are not enough, we should understand if the context in which Daniele was working was up to the objective. In the meantime, it is worth asking whether De Winter’s goal in the 95th minute precipitated the situation. Would the horizon have changed with two more points? In this Serie A so far, no one is shining. Roma is behind, obviously, but without De Winter’s goal (or with Dybala’s penalty) they would be equal to Milan and one point behind Atalanta. Ifs and buts are not the only things to discuss. They need to be discussed with numbers. The numbers say that Roma is not doing well. But why? For example, the number of XGoals for the Giallorossi (i.e. expected goals) has always been higher than what Roma actually scored: it means that there were shots, chances, but not the aim. So is it a problem with the game proposal? There are other numbers, obviously, that don’t add up. Still on the subject of XGol, they have always conceded more than their opponents, in this start of the tournament. And therefore they concede many goal opportunities. And this trend had already begun last season, so much so that Roma have won only one of their last 13 games.
Without considering that before being able to amalgamate the team, some time would have been needed. De Rossi’s training system was known at Trigoria and these numbers were too. Last year there was a way to study it closely. They liked it, otherwise there would not have been a contract renewal for 3 years. So why fire him after 4 days? What was no longer liked in De Rossi’s proposal?
The market also had its difficulties. Roma was the third team in terms of spending in Italy: 92.6 million euros in player registrations (source: transfermarkt). So the 17 million of the obligation to redeem Koné were not counted. It is also the second club with the largest difference (after Napoli) between incoming and outgoing players. Roma’s transfers were mainly contract transfers or loans (apart from Aouar and Belotti) which in any case gave the Giallorossi the possibility to intervene on the market given that the wage bill had dropped significantly.
There was the Dybala affair, who chose to stay, which probably also changed Roma’s plans. Not so much and not only on an economic level, but also on a technical level. Some (key) players arrived at the end of the market, if not beyond (see the two defenders). Some – always for the market – were left out of the squad. It doesn’t seem like the finishing work of a team that has to take the final step, but the new beginning of a new course. Which was immediately interrupted. After just 4 days. And this obviously also raises questions about the solidity of the Giallorossi project. Translated: if we weren’t convinced by De Rossi’s work in the summer, it wasn’t necessary to start doing it this season too. Changing is legitimate, especially if you think you’ve taken the wrong path. What’s surprising (at least to us) is why this type of evaluation wasn’t done before.
We’ll see if it’s necessary to have a similar discussion about Milan and Fonseca. That he hasn’t taken root in the Rossoneri environment seems rather evident. That there are also problems, equally. In this case, the change of coach in the summer was made necessary by an end of course. If Milan thinks they made the wrong choice in the summer (and it would still be a serious but necessary awareness) they must change immediately. Otherwise they only risk wasting time. The names are already being made and some of these had already been explored or taken into consideration by the Rossoneri managers. Like for example Sarri, who certainly fascinates for the football he proposes but who in the summer had not been taken into consideration. Then there is Terzic, who was in the stands against Liverpool and who could possibly be interested in the Rossoneri project. And more on the sidelines there is Tuchel, also naturally free, but who could be a suitable profile for Milan. Who has the same needs as Roma: to get back into the top 4 in the standings. The difference is in the timing (beyond the game more or less): De Rossi was known to Roma as a coach and for the moment there were no environmental problems. In Milan, however, yesterday there was a loud protest to the team and Fonseca – just arrived – can (by the management) be considered a mistake to be remedied, given that there is the feeling that he has not taken root.
We’ll see in the next few days if the derby will be decisive. Surely in general the fact that two big teams have already thought (or are thinking) about changing their coach in mid-September is significant. The dismissal of a coach is always the certification of a project that is falling. The blame cannot be only on the bench: it’s just the most convenient thing to change.