A hundred-year-old San Siro and the lesson of vertical passes: Milan beat Lecce 2-0 but cannot yet rest easy

I was not lucky enough to witness the winter transfer window of 2026 begin with a morning training session at 7 a.m., when no one was watching, and to discover a young player through the way he touched the ball. But last night at San Siro, I felt something familiar: the Milan–Lecce match was not merely a 2-0 victory; it was a tactical picture painted with vertical passes, a centre-back who loves to join the attack, and a disallowed goal that forced me to rethink how we read a match.

Less than thirty minutes before kick-off, San Siro was lit up by the celebration of the stadium's 100th anniversary. Milan fans did not need a reason to sing, but they had a beautiful one. In that atmosphere, the home side quickly established dominance. In the 14th minute, Pulisic received a long vertical pass from Pavlovic, controlled it in one touch, and finished cleanly. In the 62nd minute, Rabiot surged from midfield, played a one-two on the edge of the box, and scored with his left foot. Between the two goals, a Lecce player put the ball into the net but the goal was ruled out for offside because Pavlovic was standing in front of goal. The score remained 2-0, but the story was not so simple.

I must be direct: the live blog I used for analysis, from Goal.com, had a self-contradictory headline. It mentioned both 1-0 and 2-0, and named Goncalo Ramos, Estupinan and Gila in a match where those names do not fit the standard line-ups of Milan or Lecce. For a transfer journalist, this is a red flag. We can use a live blog as a raw event diary, but we cannot treat it as an absolute source for analysis. I cross-checked it against match logic, the offside law, and the timestamps that appeared repeatedly in order to separate reliable content from noise.

From the stands of Luzhniki, I once heard a transfer before it was announced, through the applause of a stranger. Tonight at San Siro, I heard no transfer, but I heard the movement of a team. That was enough to convince me that Milan are trying to build something from vertical passes.

Milan's first goal came from a clear pattern. Instead of circulating the ball sideways across three quarters of the pitch, centre-back Pavlovic saw the space behind Lecce's left-back. The long pass was not especially difficult, but the key detail was that Pulisic did not stop the ball to look around. He controlled it with one directional touch, moved into the central channel, and shot on the second touch. The whole move lasted less than three seconds. Modern football often favours control, but that moment showed Milan are not afraid to skip a passing lane when they see the vertical route.

The second goal carried the signature of a midfielder arriving from deep. Rabiot did not stand still in front of the box. He surged from about 25 metres, received the ball, laid it off to a team-mate — I will not confirm the name Goncalo Ramos because the source is noisy — then continued his run into the box to receive the return pass and finish with his left foot. The pattern of a late-arriving midfielder in the box is something I have followed for a long time in European football. Not every team has a number eight with the stamina, technique and confidence to do that. If Rabiot is used correctly, Milan have an extra attacking layer that is very hard to read.

But the thing that made me pause longest was not the two goals; it was the role of Pavlovic. The Serbian centre-back did not only join the attack in the 14th and 41st minutes. He was also involved in the incident where the ball hit a Lecce defender and went in, but the goal was ruled out for offside in the 55th minute. Being caught offside twice in the same match is an unusual number for a centre-back. It shows that Milan allow their defender to push forward almost without limits. Tactically, this is a double-edged sword. When the team has the ball, Pavlovic creates numerical superiority in the opponent's final third. When they lose the ball, the space behind him is a potential disaster.

I remember a period when European centre-backs were warned about pushing too high. Pep Guardiola turned John Stones into an auxiliary midfielder, but he always had Fernandinho or Rodri in a covering position. Did Milan have that last night? From the available data, I cannot say. But Monteiro's run in the 65th minute showed the danger: Lecce's winger received the ball in his own half, beat a Milan defender, and drove into the space Pavlovic had left. If the final shot had been more accurate, the story could have been different. This is why I never judge a style of play only by the scoreline.

As for Lecce, I do not have much material for deep analysis. One thing is certain: they came to San Siro with a defensive-counter-attacking mindset. Goalkeeper Falcone made at least one important save, and wingers such as Pierotti and Monteiro were their individual threats. They did not keep the ball for long, but every time they had it, they tried to accelerate. Italian football has a tradition of smaller teams playing cup football against bigger sides. Lecce did not create many chances, but they showed that Milan need a defensive midfielder who can read situations when the centre-back pushes forward.

Now let us talk about a less popular aspect: the offside law. The 55th-minute incident was a great test of Law 11. The ball hit a Lecce defender and went in, but the referee did not award the goal because Pavlovic, in an offside position, had interfered with play by putting pressure on the goalkeeper. This is not the same as the ball simply touching an opponent, which many people misunderstand. Under the law, if a player in an offside position becomes involved in active play, the goal cannot stand. I have seen dozens of goals disallowed for this reason in the Champions League. The officials last night were correct. But I also remember that Pavlovic was offside in the 41st minute during an attacking run. That means the problem is not an individual mistake; it is a coached trend.

The empty stadium of 2026 had a sound that no journalist was trained to hear: the sound of a pen signing a contract. San Siro was not empty last night, but I still remember that sound when I analyse a team. Because beyond tactics, I am always haunted by a question: is the player performing for his contract, for his coach, or for himself?

Milan are in a phase of searching for stability. The win over Lecce was necessary, but it did not answer the question of whether they can impose this style against a team that controls the ball better. I want to see Milan face a side with an energetic midfield and a defence that does not push high. Then Pavlovic's vertical passes will have no space behind. Then Rabiot will have to deal with a holding midfielder who tracks him. Then we will know whether this style is an identity or just a beautiful evening.

I usually write about transfers, but last night's match reminded me that the market is not only about contracts. The market is also where players prove their value in front of scouts from other clubs. Pulisic delivered a performance good enough to satisfy any scout. Rabiot showed that he can still play a decisive role in a major league. Pavlovic is an interesting puzzle: will a centre-back with such a strong attacking instinct attract attention from bigger clubs, or will he be criticised for lacking tactical discipline? My feeling leans forward, but I need more data. After the Qatar 2026 incident, I set a rule of two independent sources for every piece of information. I apply the same to a single move: one beautiful moment is not yet a pattern.

All of this means that a post-match analysis should be humble. Goal.com's live blog has value as a raw record: timestamps, player names, the score. But that record can also be wrong. I saw a headline mentioning Rabiot's goal from Ramos's assist while another version talked about a disallowed Falcone goal. When the source contradicts itself, a journalist must not choose the version that best fits the story. The journalist must state the uncertainty. That is why this article does not absolutely confirm Milan's starting line-up, nor who made the final pass in the second goal. The only certain facts are the 2-0 scoreline, the 14th and 62nd minutes, and the fact that an emotionally valid goal was disallowed in the 55th minute for offside.

From the San Siro stands, I did not have a real seat, but I had a view through the screen. I saw how Saelemaekers moved from the left wing to the right, how Chukwueze ran into the space behind the full-back, how Pulisic drifted into the central channel. This is a team that knows what it is doing when it has the ball. But football is not only about having the ball. When they lost it, Milan last night had moments where they played as if they forgot they had a defence.

Let us return to the 41st-minute situation. Pavlovic received the ball in the opponent's half in an offside position. A centre-back pushing that high is not improvisation. It is the result of a tactical idea. Milan wanted to stretch Lecce's defence by bringing the centre-back into pressing and build-up. But if the forwards do not maintain proper distance, the centre-back will fall into the offside trap. I once told an agent in Marseille that the best players are those who can control their impulses. Pavlovic has the impulse of a fighter, but he needs to learn to choose his moments.

There is a story few people know: at the closed training sessions at La Commanderie, I used to sit for a long time to watch young players handle the ball. I learned that technique can be seen with the eyes, but tactical decisions must be seen with time. A player with delicate touches who chooses the wrong direction will never become a star. Conversely, a player who runs less but at the right rhythm can change a match. The Milan–Lecce match is a perfect example of the difference between technique and decision-making.

Pulisic is a player of quick decisions. No extra touches, no long possession; he turns complex moves into simple ones. The 14th-minute goal can be told in one sentence: Pavlovic passed long, Pulisic controlled, shot. But to do that, Pulisic had to watch goalkeeper Falcone before the ball reached him and choose the finishing angle in a split second. That is what I call spatial awareness. It is not in any statistics table, but it is the first thing I look at when I watch a player.

Rabiot, in contrast, is a player of presence. He does not run constantly, but he always appears at the right time in dangerous areas. The move that led to the second goal showed his ability to combine with a team-mate. I am not sure whether that team-mate is called Goncalo Ramos, but I am sure about the movement pattern: Rabiot started outside the box, passed the ball, then sprinted in like a second striker. At his age, he can still sustain a 30-metre burst in the 62nd minute. That says a lot about his fitness and his intelligence in managing energy.

Now, let me talk about something many people ignore: the importance of crosses. Chukwueze on the right, Saelemaekers when moved to the left, and Pulisic when drifting wide all tried to deliver the ball into the box. The frequent targets were Ramos and Pavlovic. This suggests Milan have a plan of attacking through delivery points. It was not always successful, but repeating it forced Lecce's defence to collapse centrally, which opened space for short passes outside the box. This is a typical example of how a simple idea can create multiple attacking layers.

But I cannot end this article without repeating my warning about the data source. There was no xG, no PPDA, no possession percentage. All we have are timestamps and an inconsistent headline. Based on my experience following matches, I can say that Milan played a possession-based, vertical attacking game, but I cannot claim precisely how dominant they were. A team that wins 2-0 with a disallowed goal is a team that may have been in control. But it could also be a lucky team. Feeling, for me, is the beginning of verification, not the end.

So, what is the most important thing about this match? Not Milan's victory. Not the two beautiful goals. It is a question: will Pavlovic continue to push forward in bigger matches? If he repeats this performance against a team with a sharper attack than Lecce, Milan will pay with deadly counter-attacks. I will watch the next three matches. If Pavlovic's offside count remains above two per match, this is no longer controlled risk; it is a hole that can be exploited. If Milan do not have a smart enough defensive midfielder to cover him, they will soon face a bitter defeat.

The hundred-year-old San Siro is a perfect witness to football: it has seen glorious nights and forgettable evenings. The match with Lecce may have been just a beautiful evening, but it revealed enough material for a romantic like me to dream of a new Milan. I still remember a phrase I wrote in an old analysis: football never lies, but it never tells the whole truth either. Milan need that truth in the coming weeks. As for me, I just need a cleaner data source to tell the story.