Manchester United 4-0 Milan – an efficient and comprehensive victory for Ferguson
Another game where Sir Alex Ferguson got things spot on. To run out 7-2 winners against any side in the latter stages of the Champions League is impressive, but to do it against Milan is quite remarkable.
It was pretty easy to read as soon as the line-ups were announced. United’s use of two out-and-out wingers in addition to Park meant Ferguson’s gameplan was obvious – the wingers would occupy the Milan full-backs, whilst Park would do what he did in the first leg, pressing Andrea Pirlo and his two midfield colleagues. Paul Scholes sat deep in the holding role that he is increasingly becoming familiar with – Ferguson likes using him there for his passing ability, in a similar role to Pirlo himself. Against Arsenal Ferguson felt the need to take Scholes out of that position because he was becoming overwhelmed by Cesc Fabregas’ runs, but here against Milan he had no such problems, and had time and space to keep possession for tonight.
In a sense that was Milan’s problem. At the weekend, ZM put forward the view that Milan’s midfield was too functional and not dynamic enough, and that was in evidence again tonight. There was a little more action – outside-right Klaas-Jan Huntelaar often took up a more central position, and Flamini exploited the space created by Patrice Evra moving inside, but that was the only movement. Milan’s full-backs struggled to get forward (Ignazio Abate had slightly more joy, since Nani is a poorer player defensively than Antonio Valencia) but it was all too static from Milan – they played in front of United, and didn’t look to play triangles to bypass the midfield. United’s biggest threats were longish balls from deep in the first half, and David Beckham’s crosses in the second.
Also at the weekend, ZM noted United’s tendency to attack down the right-hand side, and sure enough, the goal came from a right-wing Gary Neville cross. Ronaldinho’s lack of interest in tracking back meant that Neville had time and space to get in numerous crosses (and a left-footed shot), and his ball was perfectly angled for Wayne Rooney to claim yet another headed goal.
That was that until half-time, when Leonardo introduced Clarence Seedorf, who (as in the first leg) at least offered some drive in the Milan midfield, and looked to link up with the front three more directly. But by the time he attempted to show this, Rooney had scored a second and the game was over as a contest.
Whilst Ferguson effectively got things 100% correct tonight, it wasn’t even really a ‘tactical masterclass’, he just did exactly what was expected for United to stifle Milan and manage to trouble their back four.
Leonardo has made a promising start to his managerial career and this shape has generally worked well, but perhaps tonight was an example of when Milan needed to vary things in terms of formation – this 4-3-3 seemed blunt, static and was easy for Ferguson to read. It has been said of Milan for many years that their squad is too old – and they have generally defied those critics and reached the final four of this competition, but never have they looked quite so overwhelmed by the energy of another side, with Darren Fletcher and Park Ji-Sung in particular getting through an enormous workload compared to Milan’s central midfielders.
The tie was very similar to Liverpool’s 5-0 defeat of Real Madrid last year – a narrow away win followed by a thrashing back in England – Milan might need a Real-style overhaul of the side in the summer to compete in the Champions League next season. Their style is well-suited to Serie A where they remain in the title race, but this game was embarrassing for the club.
Manchester United 4-0 Milan – an efficient and comprehensive victory for Ferguson
I’ve thought for a while that it would be an interesting tactic to deploy your most destructive central midfielder at the tip, rather than the base, of your midfield. When you’re playing against someone like Pirlo you need to close him down as quickly as possible, but the area of the pitch in which he operates means the closest opposition players to him are usually the attacking midfielders and playmakers. Park, however, plays the attack dog role perfectly and with the added bonus of his ability to make astute runs and passes in the final third. Will be interesting to see if any other sides adopt a similar tactic when confronted by a deep-lying regista like Pirlo.
Indeed. It’s kinda what Real did in the second half of the game earlier in the season, come to think of it: http://www.zonalmarking.net/2009/11/03/milan-1-1-real-madrid-two-similar-shapes-cancel-each-other-out/
Park’s such a great player for United, and perfect to play that role.
During the few games that Hargreaves was fit, he’d often play further up the pitch than Carrick or Scholes, thus forcing the ball wide higher up the pitch. Ferguson’s used Anderson in the same position fairly often, not quite as far forward as he did park today, but that was with Ronaldo providing more attack through the middle than Valencia does.
The other intriguing aspect of Park playing this position is that his incredible work rate and stamina lets him fill the space between either winger and Rooney in the center. This gives United a extra man on that side of the pitch, forcing a central defender to slide over and often leaving Rooney in the center with only one defender to beat to the ball. Add a full back to the attack and either the opposition’s wingers have to track back or one of the central midfielders has to float wide, leaving space for United’s central midfielders to dictate the tempo or make surging runs forward.
On seeing the lineups, Park’s role was the only element of surprise or interest and I think it is perhaps a pivotal development in the way United plays. Having both Park and Fletcher (thank goodness Fergie ended that brief experiment with him nominally on the left) in the middle effectively buys protection for the holding midfielder AND the wingers and as a United fan I am very hopeful it will help in the big games.
p.s- thank goodness Neville tried a left footed shot last night, the use of the left foot anywhere near goal is becoming a rarity at united games.
Did anyone mentioned tactically the use of Man United’s full-backs? Or width even.
With the lazy Ronaldinho and Huntelaar who is essentially a full-blown striker, Milan had almost zero width.
The direct result of this was Milans (very) few wide players – the full-backs, being tied up by Nani and Valencia, meanwhile Evra and most crucially Gary Neville were left almost as spare players. The opening goal is a case in point, where Neville could basically look up, sit down, have a cup of tea, get back up, have another look, then whip in the cross. The thing with Neville is his crossing has ALWAYS been underrated compared to David Beckham (of course it was!) but I think he actually is a very very good crosser of the ball.
Leaving him the space (on numerous occaisions) to pick out a cross was ludicrous. Could this be why Ferguson opted for Neville? Furthermore the improvements Rooney has made on his aerial work suggests this method of play is just one of the tactics developed for a given situation by the wily old Ferguson.
While it’s obvious Milan were outclassed tonight, it’s also important to remember that losing a league match or group stage match 4-0 means more than losing a 2nd leg 4-0. If this were a league/group stage match, it’s very doubtful Milan would’ve poured forward en mass like they did(leaving themselves so open at the back). Milan’s 2nd half super-offensive tactics made it easier for a side of United’s quality to capitalize. Leonardo’s tactics essentially forcing United to park the bus in front of their goal, making it more difficult for Milan to score, while at the same time making it easier for United to counter-attack and likely to score. Perhaps a little inexperience on Leonardo’s part. Maybe more patience was needed to pull United out of their shell.
Initially I was tempted to praise Milan for atleast having the will to be so adventurous and throw so many players forward. But in the end it never works against quality sides. When big clubs like Milan, Porto, and Real Madrid(last year) throw players forward, when they are forced to chase the game, against a quality club they’ll make you pay for it. They have a philosophy of “invincibility”. Smaller clubs tend to be more patient, fully aware of their opponents ability to just run up the score. So while this was a tactical victory for Manchester. The combination of tactics, the situation, and team philosophy allow for the score to get out of hand. You notice Porto, Milan, and Real Madrid are all attack-minded clubs getting pounded with lop-sided scores in the last 2 years. While you see smaller clubs outclassed, you rarely see them give up more than 3 goals because they know their limits.
Fergie got the tactics right, but some of the difference was just a gulf in talent, like you mentioned in the Arsenal-Porto article.
Rooney’s first goal found him with two markers, yet Bonera couldn’t beat him to the header. Had Nesta been playing, I don’t believe that would be a goal.
Age was definitely an issue as well. Milan get away with it in Italy because the pace of the game is much slower, but it usually show up against top clubs like Man U and Inter. They need to get more work out of their midfield, some push from the full-backs and a better pace from their forwards. It’s visible throughout the squad and they won’t return to greatness unless they address it.
At this level I don´t think any team can get away with playing 3 flat strikers the way Milan did. United´s fullbacks were free to bomb forward whenever they wanted, creating a 3v6 advantage in midfield. It was United´s free players (the fullbacks and Paul Scholes) who created all the goals.
Milan are no longer good enough to impose their style on teams so they have to do SOMETHING to try and stop the other team. They seem to just be hoping for a piece of magic from someone.
The biggest difference between these two teams is in terms of squad depth. Zambrotta, Nesta, Seedorf (who would have started both games had he been fit), Pato (Mancini) – Milan don’t have the depth to cover those sorts of gaps in the way United do, but get the two first elevens out on the pitch and you’d see Milan can go toe-to-toe with United (as in the first half of the first tie). The side Leonardo put out was a stop-gap one, about which he didn’t have much control. The biggest difference between Serie A and the Premiership at the moment is that the extra money in England has allowed the building of squads rather than teams that are a cut above. And that, at this stage of the season, is always likely to be decisive – as injuries and suspensions take their toll. With Seedorf and Pato in the side you will struggle to get the ball off Milan, however high and hard you press them; without those two, they’re a workmanlike side without enough workmen.
I think this is fair comment. In their first season without their captain of 15 years, their manager of eight years and their main playmaker of six years, it’s not hard to understand why they might suffer a result like this when they come up against a top European side.
I think Leonardo has shown himself to be a good manager, but one that is still learning. He’s been outclassed by both Mourinho and Ferguson in their encounters this season, but I hope Milan stick by him for a couple of seasons, as I think he can produce success at the club.
I’m not too sure if it’s correct so say that Sir Alex got his tactics spot on since there were only minor fine tunings as oppose to an overhaul of tactical changes. But, it is safe to say that Leonardo showed his naivety in again playing Huntelaar on the right after a toothless experiment against Roma. Huntelaar seemed very out of depth playing there because he doesn’t exactly posses the qualities needed to play outside of the penalty area like Pato. Leonardo could have perhaps made it work had he stationed Borriello instead to come in from the right and play a Messi/Robben-esque role since he is left footed, mobile, and will bring the fight to Evra. But, most importantly this game seemed perfect for Beckham to play many more minutes of. With smart thinking to instruct Flamini to help attack down Evra’s side, wouldn’t that have given Beckham time to do what he does best instead of having two out-and-out strikers hanging around the box with no quality crosses coming in?
“I’m not too sure if it’s correct so say that Sir Alex got his tactics spot on since there were only minor fine tunings as oppose to an overhaul of tactical changes.”
Is that not almost exactly what “Whilst Ferguson effectively got things 100% correct tonight, it wasn’t even really a ‘tactical masterclass’, he just did exactly what was expected for United to stifle Milan and manage to trouble their back four” says?!
Of course my comment and the earlier notes were identical but the difference is that I addressed Milan’s shortcomings. I haven’t yet seen that perspective addressed from reading all of the comments before posting. (There wasn’t a need for the exclamation mark from the professionals you know.)
I don’t really know what you mean there, I was just questioning your opening line, because Ferguson did get his tactics spot on.
Just because it wasn’t a dramatic, ’surprise’ move, it doesn’t mean his tactics weren’t 100% correct, as was addressed initially.
And I’m not really sure how that particular was relevant to your analysis of the Milan side, but I agree with your points there.
I think Park and Fletcher alone would outrun the whole Milan team.
I think the Man Utd midfield is too functional. They lack a creative presence say like Fabregas in the middle and rely on wingers to provide the dimension. This may be a problem in the long run.
dynamism and not *dimension in the second last line!!
They may not have a player who is as creative with the ball at his feet but they can get very far with the quality of passing Scholes and Carrick can provide. Plus I think Arsenal get undone by the fact that they rely a great deal on their players being able to carry the ball forward as it exposes them positionally.
Not to wrest any credit from United, and not wishing to appear enlightened by hindsight…..
The moment I saw the Milan team sheet last night I just knew they were screwed.
United needn’t have bothered breaking a sweat and they still would have defeated Leonardo’s starting eleven.
Going into the match, I thought Milan could genuinely make a contest of it if they prioritsed the following:
a) keep possession in midfield for extended periods and thereby avoid chasing after the ball
b) present some mobility, flexibility of movement in attack.
But we all saw what materialised in the end:
a) Midfield Possession: Leonardo played with two destroyers in Ambrosini and Flamini in the hope of liberating his attacking-full backs! A tactic straight out of the pages of Brazilian club football and one which is totally inadequate for the demands of European football. When the hell are Flamini (especially Flamini) and Ambrosini ever going to dictate possession in a meaningful football match? The result was that Pirlo had to appear everywhere around the midfield offering himself as a creative outlet. It was painful to watch the guy attempting to run and dribble (which he still did quite nicely) when he has spent the last 10 years trotting around the pitch, pinging passes around.
b) Mobility in Attack Why is this desireable to begin with? Beyond the obvious, mobility in attack enables your midfielders to run less and create more; their passing can ask more movement of the strikers. Last night Milan started with Borriello AND Huntelaar….and Huntelaar was the one who was attacking from the wing! Zero mobility. At least Borriello has a decent touch and can link up play, but Huntelaar? Dear, oh dear! Florentino Perez must be icredulous at how he was able to offload him and keep Madrid’s creditors at bay (creating a litttle dent in the outlay on Cristiano Ronaldo) in what was effectively a fire sale at the Bernabeu! How could Galliani fork out so much money for this guy?
No doubt that Huntelaar did himself no favors in this match but maybe the criticism went a little overboard in questioning the price Milan forked out for him. He is no doubt one of the deadliest finishers across Europe with the goals and records to prove so. His form may have been woeful but not being played where he’s best suited isn’t his fault.
(edit) I realise my post should’ve actually went here.
Did anyone mentioned tactically the use of Man United’s full-backs? Or width even.
With the lazy Ronaldinho and Huntelaar who is essentially a full-blown striker, Milan had almost zero width.
The direct result of this was Milans (very) few wide players – the full-backs, being tied up by Nani and Valencia, meanwhile Evra and most crucially Gary Neville were left almost as spare players. The opening goal is a case in point, where Neville could basically look up, sit down, have a cup of tea, get back up, have another look, then whip in the cross. The thing with Neville is his crossing has ALWAYS been underrated compared to David Beckham (of course it was!) but I think he actually is a very very good crosser of the ball.
Leaving him the space (on numerous occaisions) to pick out a cross was ludicrous. Could this be why Ferguson opted for Neville? Furthermore the improvements Rooney has made on his aerial work suggests this method of play is just one of the tactics developed for a given situation by the wily old Ferguson.
Yeah, I think this is spot on. I thought it was a surprise that Neville was in ahead of Rafael, as I thought Rafael largely did well in the first game, but going forward Neville has always been an excellent crosser of the ball – and this worked brilliantly for the first goal, which pretty much won the tie.
I think that part of the Neville start was the away goals rule. When you score 3 goals away and win you know that Milan needs to win by two. This sets you up to play a defensive formation as a 2-1 or 1-0 loss is sufficient (Neville being more defensive than Rafael).
P.S. – I’m looking forward to a Real vs. Lyon write-up as I think that better tactical side, but worse technical side won on aggregate.
Losing Nesta, Antonini and Pato was too much for this squad, but the three-man midfield was the true cause of the rout in my opinion. Too much space for Ambrosini to cover on the left, leaving criminal amounts of time for the delivery of the cross for the first goal, and it never really improved. Seedorf’s introduction helped because at last there was somebody who could forge a link to the forwards through the by-now massed ranks of the United defensive formation.
A tactical disaster from Leonardo.
I’m not sure Leonardo has been ‘outclassed by both Mourinho and Ferguson in their encounters this season’ nor that this was a ‘tactical disaster from Leonardo’. I admire the interest you guys have in seeing things in tactical terms and I’m also not much of a fan of Leonardo myself. However, I think you’re overplaying it a little here. Milan were outclassed by Inter – twice – and by Man United last night. This was rather more a reflection of the players available for the various coaches than a ‘tactical thing’. What could Leonardo have done differently last night? Playing Beckham rather than Flamini would have added a little bit more technical quality to the midfield, but not enough. Starting Seedorf evidently wasn’t an option because of his injury concerns. Playing Beckham instead of Huntelaar might have looked sensible on paper, but it’s been well-known for years that Beckham’s in trouble against left backs who are much quicker than him (I’m sure this was one of the reasons Fergie was prepared to let him go when he did – because whenever Beckham came up against Cole or Roberto Carlos (ManU’s greatest rivals at that stage, I think), he could be nullified by being pushed right back. The fullbacks didn’t mind getting caught the wrong side of Beckham because they knew they’d always be able to get back in time whereas Beckham couldn’t afford to get caught too high and have the fullbacks run in behind him. Against Evra, that would have been a classic mismatch of that kind – Beckham would have ended up hemmed right back and Evra would have been able to play comfortably up and down the left wing. The only other option, then, would have been to play something other than the 4-3-3, but that’s not something this Milan side have the ability to do (they’ve only just started to settle into this formation). Changing the formation might have worked on Championship Manager, but given where Milan are at at the moment, it would almost certainly have been a disaster at Old Trafford.
Without Zambrotta, Nesta, Seedorf, and Pato, then, there weren’t really any tactical solutions for Leonardo. This wasn’t a tactical defeat, then, but the defeat of an overpowered and outmanned squad.
It depends what stance you take; Leonardo was tactically outmanouvered nevertheless – his signings or not. The signings have been poor by previous coaches, failing to ever bring in players to challenge the the core players – even the substitutes like Serginho were getting too comfortable.
But he should have played the Christmas Tree formation seeing as they don’t have any wide players and looked to maximise the creativity of Ronaldinho and Seedorf and hence displacing the pressure off Pirlo to make chances. Flamini and Ambrosini could have been the stick fetchers and Huntellaar the pivot to play around. What good might that have done you ask? United clearly have problems with movement up the pitch but Milan couldn’t back that up as they were too functional.
I don’t think Milan have ever played the Christmas Tree under Leonardo. And Seedorf has been injured and so giving him any playing time at all was a bit of a desperation measure. Suggesting he play that formation is a bit like suggesting his tactical failing last night was not picking Kaka’.
I know they haven’t played it but it is the best fit of what players they have and is only a slight tweak. Sure Seerdorf is just coming back but if Leonardo wanted to win the game, the Dutchman is key especially as they ahd to score two or more goals.
Plus, suggesting he play the formation is not like playing Kaka as he always has the option of playing Christmas tree, never Kaka so your (mindless) put down is very uncalled for. Because PC below has jus created his own formation below which Leonardo has never tried.
I think another part of Leonardo’s tactical failings is that he has no variation. It seems to be 4-3-3 or nothing as far as I can tell (and I admit I haven’t watched them as much as in previous years, so by all means correct me if I’m wrong).
Ancelotti, albeit with a far better squad at his disposal, played at various times a diamond midfield behind 2 strikers, the Xmas tree and a 4-4-1-1 with Kaka playing behind the striker or occasionally dragged out wide right.
You would have thought for example that a Xmas tree is a simple variation with Ronaldinho and Seedorf behind a lone striker, if only to give some limited support to the midfield, but I don’t think it’s ever been tried.
Also very true. This isn’t a Milan-calibre side we’re used to. Milan sides in previous seasons had top-class replacements and flexibilty throughout. While I do support Milan, I have to admit that Zambrotta isn’t near the player he was. Abate, although a wonderful workrate, isn’t a world-class player. Jankulovski has never impressed me, and routinely has poor games against better sides. Bonera is a fine defender, but he’s no Nesta. Huntelaar seems like the next Gilardino. A great striker for good clubs, but a poor striker for great clubs. The occassional moment of brilliance, but far too many misses from just yards away. And finally, Antonini has impressed me alot more than I expected him to, but I still have doubts he is the type of player to stand out in his position.
Milan will be Milan, and therefore will always have worldclass players. But in those times of transitioning from era to era, like now, their squad cannot keep up the quality that is expected of them. All of the top clubs go through this. Milan need to look forward (which is why I was confused when they backed out of the Cissohko deal and sold Gourcuff).
If anything the more recent defeat by Mourinho was more of a tactical defeat than this. Milan played for over an hour with a one-man advantage, and in that hour the ’score’ was 1-0 to Inter, 2-0 overall:
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/24/inter-2-0-milan-leonardo-fails-to-exploit-milans-numberical-advantage/
Yes, Milan have quite a weak squad, and without three or four key players, a side will always struggle. But in terms of pure ability of the players, they weren’t up against an incredible United side. Nani and Valencia are good players but no more, Park and Fletcher are hard-working but are more based around physical than technical attributes, Scholes was playing in a role where you can exploit him, and Ferdinand and Vidic have both faced problems this season. Oh and Neville is past it. But Ferguson has these players playing in a system which works brilliantly.
I would have favoured Milan going with a 4-4-1-1 approach. Ronaldinho behind the frontman, Beckham wide-right, Pirlo and Flamini in the centre, and Ambrosini tucked in on the left (with him being central without the ball, and Ronaldinho provided left-sided width).
I don’t know if he was fit enough, but I would have also favoured Inzaghi upfront. Borriello’s threat is mainly physical – Ferdinand and Vidic are fine with that. Both struggle against movement, and strikers looking to get in behind the defence, and they had a tougher job up against Inzaghi when he came on.
Hey, this approach might have failed too, but the problem was not necessarily the shape itself, just that it was so predictable from Milan. It was so easy to read, and so easy to nullify.
But you can’t expect a side like Milan to lose 7-2 and not have questions asked about the tactics.
Surely Milan failed to exploit that one man advantage because of a lack of quality? Mourinho’s comments afterwards were hardly gracious, but it was difficult to disagree with him – even down to 8 men, Inter would still have won. Milan, without Pato and Seedorf, are short on quality. Inter dominated that game even with 10 men because of their physical power.
The essential problem is that playing with Ronaldinho limits your tactical alternatives. Perhaps Leonardo should have been playing the 4-4-1-1 before now, but he hasn’t been. It was predictable for Milan because, realistically, they didn’t have any alternatives. Playing Bonera up front and Ronaldinho at sweeper wouldn’t have been predictable, but that’s because it would have been nonsensical.
I personally didn’t interpret those comments from Mourinho as being about a lack of quality, more that Milan’s shape simply struggled to find any way through. You shouldn’t be beaten when you play with ten men for an hour, that just shouldn’t happen.
I’m not advocating Bonera upfront, but every side needs to have a Plan B, or the ability to change their system slightly. Milan’s 4-3-3 works very well sometimes, but not so well other times. What is Milan’s alternative shape? Do they have one? Basically, they needed a change of system last night, and it didn’t come. Even with the most basic players, that should be a feature of any team. And these aren’t basic players, they’re top-class players.
Totally agree that it was as much a personnel matter as much as a tactical one, but…. when you have a superior opposition in front of you, I believe you have to set your team out to nullify the threats they pose. Leonardo singularly failed to do this last night, by allowing 3 forwards the luxury of not helping the midfield defend. He set up for a shootout, and he got shot.
I think he should have played:
———–Borriello
-Ronaldinho
Ambrosini-Pirlo-Gattuso-Flamini
Jankulovski-Silva-Bonera-Abate
——–Abbiati
I admit that is a midfield seriously lacking creativity. However in a tie like this, the first priority had to be avoid conceding early. After an hour, with the scores hopefully still close, he could have introduced Seedorf and Inzaghi for a more attacking attitude and THEN gambled with the 3-man midfield.
The above formation is nothing new to Milan, it’s not far off the Xmas tree they played at OT when they lost 3-2 in 2007, with Kaka and Seedorf supporting Gilardino, in front of Ambrosini/Pirlo/Gattuso.
The fact that the base of the Milan midfield could easily have been exactly the same as in the 2007 semi-final does suggest the problem is as much the players as the formation though.
Yeah, I basically agree that this system would have been better. Hell, it couldn’t have been any worse…
That was essentially the comment I made to my brother at the end of the game. It is generally understood that the 4-4-1-1 (4-5-1 perhaps) is the formation to use to keep things tight, away from home, against a superior side. Surely a narrow 4-3-3 with 3 bona fide forwards is defensively suicide, especially against a side like Man United who will use speed and power to counter down the flanks.
I really think from the outset the 4-3-3 looked outrageously over-powered in midfield, and while the wrong tactics can be patched over by superior or more physical personel, Milan were neither. Basically outclassed tactically, physically and technically in that order.
there was hardly anything that leonardo could’ve done differently from the personnel available that would have made the match winnable for milan.
even with pato available, leonardo would have played him out wide on the right, and faced against a fast fullback like evra, pato would struggle anyway (as he did in the first leg, and against every fast fullback he has faced this season). probably the key player for milan in this game would’ve been seedorf, who could play between the lines and hold the ball long enough for the fullbacks to get into threatening positions out wide; but with abate and jankulovski playing mediocre at best, there is only finite amoutn of juice to squeeze from that fruit.
the milan team is really struggling in terms of coming to age with modern football, there needs to be a balance between the technical players and the hustlers, with a few players that can do both. milan’s players are too polarized, either great technique with little movement, a la ronaldinho, pirlo and seedorf, or plenty of hustle with little technique a la flamini, ambrosini and the fullbacks.
milan were out-hustled and out-’techniqued’; this result was inevitable. milan’s management needs to realize this sooner or later and fill the squad with the right players with the right amount of balance.
you cannot fault leonardo, he did what he could with what was available.
There was once a Milan… cosi va il calcio.