Why Max Allegri, Football’s Modern-Day Misnomer, Remains Unemployed

Perhaps we ought to cut José Mourinho some slack for his constant style of play on the pitch, if not his constant style of management off it. For all the barrage the Portuguese manager gets for how his teams operate on the pitch these days, he probably should get sympathy for the age we’re in. In football, we’re definitely in an era of the managers as much as the players. Gaffers are now expected to have a unique footballing identity and a signature blueprint for playing.

Which is why Manchester City spent so much cultivating a setup for Pep Guardiola, and why there was excitement over his arrival in the Premier League. It wasn’t just about the Spaniard winning, it was about the Spaniard winning his way. The same is expected of Julian Nagelsmann when he takes the reins at Bayern Munich in the summer, not to mention when Chelsea opted for Maurizio Sarri. Managers are expected to have a unique identity now, hence terms like Sarriball, or Bielsa-ball, or Cholismo. And if you’re not quite that, you’re likely to be on the outside looking in, a position which Massimo Allegri finds himself.

Perhaps it’s best to draw some sort of comparison with Mourinho. Since the start of Allegri’s final season with Juventus (in 2018/19), Mourinho has been sacked from two different jobs, had punditry stints, and will now take charge of Roma next season. Success hasn’t exactly come by for Mourinho of late, but his signature identity remains. And for a relatively small (compared to other Italian clubs) and unsuccessful side like Roma, the hope is that the unique identity transforms the club. His personality still holds.

For Max Allegri, there’s no unique sense of personality. There’s no signature identity you link back to him. In many cases, he’s an adapter, who tailors his side in accordance to what he has to work with. Over his time at Juventus, he’s had significant spells using a 4-4-2 diamond formation, as he has with using a 4-3-3. He’s also prominently deployed a 4-2-3-1 with a wide target man, as well as using a back three. These weren’t styles necessarily altered to go up against an opposition, but rather one constantly touched on to fit with the tools he has.