Riccardo Montolivo has offered his take on the current situation at AC Milan, even comparing it to the Rossoneri team of his day, and it is not positive.
Regardless of the current position of this Milan team, there is a rebuild happening at the club. However, results should not have dwindled this much, especially when we look at the amount invested on the pitch.
Two questions arise from that then: Are the players struggling to hit the levels expected or them, or are the people recruiting the talent looking for the wrong players in the wrong places?
Ultimately, at a time when the management are heavily criticised, the fallback is on them, with many believing that the recruitment has been the big problem of this season, even in terms of the head coach.
So today, Montolivo gave a review of the situation to Sky after the defeat to Napoli, and Milan News have relayed his words.
“My Milan was not this Milan, it was under construction, it had not spent 100 million on the market, it did not have this quality. Now they are ninth, and there are many reflections to be made.
“In the second half against Napoli, almost everything came from the left flank, so with Theo and Leao. Milan have a lot of quality, but they can’t express it. If Conte were in charge at AC Milan, the Diavolo’s ranking would be different.”
If you spend 100 million to buy half a dozen of players nowadays, you are cheap and mostly buying average quality, i.e. midtable.
No. You can buy high quality players for 100 mil.
Problem is Red Bird doesn’t need quality. They want to increase squad value over time. That’s why they buy unexperienced players, youngsters, and potentials.
The problem isn’t even money spending. Teams like Ajax and Brighton spend minimal amounts compared to most. But the difference is that they actually have COMPETENT SKILLED people on their team making the transfer choices. If you have actual pros in charge, you can get away with not paying exorbitant amounts because you have a scouting team who owns what they’re doing. We don’t, we have ibra and furlani…
Majority of inter players have been bought for combined 100 million or less, not just half a dozen.
Outside of barella, Bastoni, Frattesi, Lautaro, and Pavard, the rest of your team are players that were bought for 15 or maybe even 10 mil or less, or signed for free.
It works at inter because there is a defined system and defined roles.
Player by player, Milan has the 2nd best squad in serie A. Better than Juventus, definitely better than Napoli, Atalanta, Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina, Bologna.
Milan gave Napoli a 2-0 lead, didn’t show up for 60 minutes and in the last 30 minutes destroyed Napoli, where they missed a penalty and few other chances to not only get a draw but win the game. You don’t do that with a midtable squad.
Milan has had 3 different coaches in the last 8 months playing multiple different systems and tactics. Players, especially the midfielders, are used in different positions by every coach that comes in.
Milan needs stability and defined philosophy of football.
Has nothing to do with how much a player cost.
I agree with most of this, but I would also add that “personality” or “mentality”, I’m not sure exactly what term to give this, is a category that must be more carefully analyzed when evaluating players, regardless of cost. This will help the club understand the squad they have and thus the coach needed. We have a number of individualists and/or lackadaisical players. It just doesn’t work. We can carry one, maybe two, particularly if they’re forwards and if they’re effective when they get the ball and do what they have to do, but it won’t work if there are too many. We have too many yings and not enough yangs. In short, it’s a poorly constructed squad regardless of the price paid.
I agree.
When it comes to personality and mentality, Milan supposed best players, leaders and highest paid players are the ones that have the weakest personality and the weakest mentality.
Inter spends on players salaries. Milan have salary policies.
Milan buy to increase value of team over time, Inter buy to achieve best possible results.
Inter during Chinese era invested to strongest possible squad, Milan buy cheap to sell high after a while.
That’s big difference in transfer strategies.
The Chinese also defaulted on their loans. It’s amazing how people always gloss over the realities of football finances. I’m not defending our recent transfers, I just think we could have spent the same with better results, just like Inter could have paid all the salaries that you point out, to worse players. Someone still had to decide who to give the salaries to, and they chose correctly. That’s because they have proper football people in charge and we don’t. Atalanta consistently achieves without paying the salaries or transfer fees that either Milan and Inter do. They’re just run by better people. Bologna is increasingly doing the same. The amount of money only goes so far, how you use it matters just as much.
“Inter buy to achieve best possible results.
Milan buy cheap to sell high after a while.”
Can you gives us the names of the players Milan have bought cheap and sold high, because I bet for the one and only player, Tonali, we can name 10 inter players bought for cheap and sold for high in the last 5,6 years.
Outside of handful of players like Lautaro, Hakan, Thuram, Barella, maybe Bastoni and Pavard, the rest of the inter players are not on high salaries.
Those that are on high salaries at inter actually perform up to the value of those salaries while at Milan they don’t. That’s the big difference.
The different is Inter or Napoli has Di rector that sets their teams goal and shape for the next few years. They decided what kind philosophy and style they want to build and put coach and players in accordance to that.
Milan Don’t have that, Milan full of incompetent that has no clue about football. They buy players that mostly doesn’t match their coach’s philosophy or fit the needs of the formation he want to build upon, and sometimes they do, but doesn’t build the right circumstances.
Being 9th was called different in his time – banter era.