The right-back puzzle: AC Milan's search for a tactical identity

At Via del Mare, the final whistle had barely faded when a broader debate about AC Milan erupted on television screens. The win over Di Francesco's Lecce secured three valuable points during a demanding stretch of the season, but it also served as the catalyst for a deeper tactical discussion. Marchegiani, Sky's long-serving pundit, was the one to ignite it. Rather than settling for a shallow "a win is a win" reaction, he chose to ask a structural question: which system truly fits the men wearing the red-and-black stripes? His answer, delivered calmly with phrases such as "it is normal" and "little by little they choose the best players," cut straight to the team's most glaring weakness: the right flank. A seemingly straightforward victory turned out to be a mirror reflecting all the missing pieces of this squad. The context of this debate matters more than it appears. Marchegiani touched on a subtle detail: several players had just returned from the World Cup, a tournament that leaves its mark on fitness and biological rhythm. This, he suggested, explains why the team lacked stability early on — a diplomatic way of stating an obvious truth: Milan have been drifting between tactical shapes. According to the pundit, the only anchor the coaching staff now cling to is the concept of a back four. Whether 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1, deploying four defenders has become a clear convergence point in their personnel decisions. "They choose the best players," he said, implying that earlier experiments with three centre-backs failed to match the squad's actual quality. Beneath the surface of that "convergence," however, lies a troubling paradox. Milan are operating a four-man defence without a natural right-back. Marchegiani did not hesitate to point this out: the team "does not have a right-back" and has been forced to shift Gila — a centre-back by trade — into that role. His description was polite but revealing: Gila is "not really in his best situation." This is the courteous language of an expert describing a harsh reality: the right-back position is a structural hole, a recruitment deficiency that tactics alone cannot patch. What makes Marchegiani's analysis compelling is that he did not stop at diagnosing the problem; he proposed a concrete operational solution. It is a classic tactical pattern with high adaptive value: an inverted right winger, naturally left-footed, cutting inside to open the touchline for the overlapping full-back. This setup allows Milan to turn a weakness into a tempo-control advantage, because when the winger tucks in, the full-back inherits a wide-open lane to attack. Moreira, meanwhile, was assigned a distinctly different role: a "high wide player," positioned high and holding the flank — a far cry from the wing-back archetype who must cover every metre of the touchline. The distinction is crucial. A wing-back must appear at both ends of the pitch continuously, demanding extraordinary fitness and deep-defensive discipline. A high wide player, by contrast, simply holds a defined zone, receives the ball in advantageous positions, and poses a constant threat toward the opponent's goal. In essence, this is the coaching staff optimizing Moreira's attacking output without overburdening his defensive duties. The technical rationale behind every adjustment can be distilled into one phrase Marchegiani repeated: "put the players in more comfortable conditions." The concept sounds simple, but it embodies a coaching philosophy that prioritizes personnel fit over tactical dogma. A team that forces players to adapt to a formation will always be weaker than a team that builds its formation around individual strengths. Yet the reliability of this thesis remains an open question. Marchegiani honestly conceded that the system worked smoothly against Lecce — a side that, in his words, "allows the opponent space and breaks with less quality." Simply put, Lecce are the ideal opponent for a big club to showcase its best face. The real test lies ahead: will this system hold up against high-pressing sides that strangle the space in Milan's own half? One more detail stood out: Gonçalo Ramos. The striker is enduring a goal drought, and the media have begun questioning his form. Marchegiani, however, chose a different path than joining the chorus of criticism: he praised Ramos's attitude against Lecce, noting that the forward was not "jealous" of his teammates scoring. The evidence: an emotional celebration and a warm embrace with Moreira after the goal. For a veteran analyst of Marchegiani's caliber, reading body language is not sentimentality; it is a behavioural indicator — a signal that a striker under pressure still maintains his connection to the collective. Here, a contrarian lens is needed. Marchegiani is attempting something difficult: defending both a system and an individual in a climate where public opinion convicts quickly. But his defense, however well intentioned, risks generalizing from a dangerously small sample. The Lecce victory is being used as proof that the team is "heading in the right direction"; Italian football is littered with examples of sides that beat weak opponents with a stylish setup, only to collapse against teams capable of pressing them from the first minute. The issue is not whether a back four is the right choice for Milan — it may well be — but that Milan have never truly stress-tested this system against a side of equal calibre. One win, no matter how convincing, remains one win. The future of this setup will be written in the big matches ahead. The debate over AC Milan's formation will now be resolved not by pundits on television, but by the personnel decisions made in the coming fixtures. Will Gila continue to be "sacrificed" on the right? Will Moreira retain his role as a high wide player? And above all, will the first goal from Ramos — or the weight of his drought — ease the mounting pressure? The pitch never lies, but it also takes time to speak.