Genoa CFC hosted AS Roma in Gameweek 28 of Serie A 2025/2026.
The hosts came out on top with a 2-1 win, the winner coming in the 80th minute.
Although Roma had the majority of possession (64%), Genoa had more big chances (3-0) and a higher expected goals difference (2.75-0.35).
With a higher possession percentage, Roma had slightly more final-third entries (62-59) and more passes played in the final third (93-54).
However, Genoa had more total shots (11-8), shots on target (5-1), tackles (14-7), and clearances (32-28).
This suggests that the hosts were more efficient with less possession and successful in keeping the danger away from their goal.
Through this tactical analysis, we aim to highlight the positive actions from Genoa, the issues with Roma, and offer solutions for the latter.
Genoa Vs AS Roma Lineups & Formations
Let us look at how Daniele De Rossi and Gian Piero Gasperini fielded their squads.
The hosts, Genoa, played in a 5-4-1 formation.
Justin Bijlow started in goal.
The back five were Mikael Ellortsson (right wing-back), Alessandro Marcandalli (right centre-back), Leo Østigård (centre centre-back), skipper Johan Vásquez (left centre-back), and Stefano Sabelli (left wing-back).
The former was replaced by Aarón Martín (79’).
Morten Frendrup and Patrizio Masini played as the centre-midfielders.
Junior Messias (right) and Caleb Ekuban (left) operated as the two wingers.
They were replaced by Ruslan Malinovskyi (64’) and Vitinha (75’), respectively.
Jeff Ekhator played as the striker and was substituted by Lorenzo Colombo at the 64th minute.
The visitors, Roma, played in a 3-4-2-1 formation.
Mile Svilar started between the sticks.
Gianluca Mancini (right centre-back), Evan Ndicka (centre centre-back), and Zeki Çelik (left centre-back) were the back three.
Mancini and Çelik were substituted by Jan Ziółkowski (84’) and Robinio Vaz (84’), respectively.
Niccolò Pisilli and Manu Koné played as the two centre-midfielders.
Devyne Rensch (right) and Konstantinos Tsimikas (left) played as the wing-backs; the former made way for Daniele Ghilardi at the 70th minute.
Skipper Lorenzo Pellegrini and Lorenzo Venturino operated as the attacking midfielders.
They were replaced by Neil El Aynoui (56’) and Bryan Cristante (46’), respectively.
Donyell Malen played as the lone striker.
Genoa Positive Impact
Genoa Attacking Tactics
I Rossoblù took minimal risk in possession.
During static build-up moments, they preferred to go long, attempting to win the second ball.
The centre-back plays the goal-kick short to the goalkeeper, who hits it long.
With the ball staying in the mid-third or the attacking third, it was relatively safer for De Rossi’s side.
The moments when they had enough space to build up short, they made sure that the ball moved quickly.
Whenever the opponents closed in from multiple angles, they moved the ball out of the tight space by taking a more direct approach.
Genoa attempts a short build-up, continuing with short passes until there is high pressure.
There is less pressure in the wide area; however, once the inside pass is played, the midfielder is under pressure.
A deep run from the near-side winger and a long pass in-behind help Genoa attack the depth.
Since they were not fully reliant on either short or long passes, Genoa’s attacking players were switched on and a step ahead in terms of occupying space to get on the end of passes.
The opponents leave space between the lines, which Genoa’s right-winger exploits.
He makes a double movement to lose his marker and gain an extra second to receive the ball from the wing-back.
With the tendency to mix it up between running in behind and receiving to feet, Genoa kept the opposition guessing.
Whenever they either regained the ball or received in a tight area, their propensity to find exit passes was effective.
The striker peels wide to get on the end of a spilt-over second ball.
With pressure on his back and two other opponents arriving from either side, he manages to find the exit pass to his midfielder.
Genoa ends up recycling possession.
Genoa regains possession in the wide area; with immediate counter-press from the opponent, they form a situational triangle and play one-touch passes to alleviate pressure.
In this situation, they find a vertical pass down the same wide channel.
Although the opponents defended with a back five, Genoa still managed to find space in behind on occasion.
This was usually in the wide channel.
The striker, who peeled wide, plays on the shoulder of the opposition wing-back.
He makes a timely run to receive a through pass in behind.
This move results in a cross that is met by a teammate inside the penalty area.
A positional interchange in this situation yields a goalscoring opportunity.
Players showcasing mobility and interchanges helped Genoa score the winner.
The move starts from a throw-in, which grants entry into the attacking third.
An attacker drops to set the ball for a teammate facing the goal.
He moves to a different angle after setting the ball.
Along with him, the goalscorer also moves inside the box.
These collective movements drag two defenders from the path of the wide passing lane.
The widest player gets onto the through pass played from the half-space and squares it across the face of the goal, which Vitinha meets for a tap-in.
Genoa Defending Tactics
De Rossi’s side defended in a 5-4-1 shape.
They carried out their defensive tasks with energy, whether in a mid-block or a high press.
Although they exhibited high-intensity actions, gaps between lines were sometimes evident.
However, they were fortunate that the opponents struggled to exploit this.
When the ball went to the wide area, the wing-backs stepped up, with occasional cover from the near-side centre-back.
They intended to squeeze the opponents in the wide channel.
However, Roma sporadically found some degree of penetration.
That is where the recovery is significant.
All the near-side short options are cut off.
Yet, Roma finds an exit pass.
However, the pass meant for the attacker is cut off by the near-side centre-back stepping up.
There were situations where the striker could not be the one putting pressure on the ball.
In these situations, the nearest player from the next line of pressure stepped up.
Their principle of maintaining pressure by marking all options in the vicinity forced Roma to play long in these scenarios.
The striker’s position is inconvenient for maintaining pressure on the ball.
Therefore, a midfielder steps up to apply pressure.
With all the other nearby options marked, the centre-back steps to cover the blind side of the pressing midfielder.
With this collective adjustment, the opposition is forced to play long.
One major reason the hosts broke down so many attacks from their opposition is their tenacity and proactivity in making the recovery movements after being bypassed the first time.
Genoa’s winger makes the pressing run; however, he gets beaten in his first attempt.
The opponent moves to receive a one-two in the space behind.
However, the Genoa player is quick to make a second pressing action to put the tackle in.
This attitude from the hosts made a much greater difference than ball possession and final-third entries.
AS Roma Problems
The visitors attempted to build up with short passes.
However, they were ineffective against their opponents’ aggressive pressure.
The opponents started the press by forcing Roma to play one side, which helped with the flow of the press.
Once Roma moved the ball from one side to the other, they had no option to play short; this forced them to play long and lose possession.
The issue was their midfielders being static and not offering inside options.
It was straightforward for Genoa to mark their midfielders due to their limited mobility.
Even in situations where they bypassed the initial wave of pressure and reached the progression phase, they lacked support inside the opponent structure.
Even when Genoa left space between the lines, Roma did not utilise it.
This also affected their ability to shift play under pressure.
Since there were limited options inside the structure, there was less scope to play angular passes to shift play.
They had to resort to flat passes, which put them under greater pressure in the mid-third.
Whenever they played flat passes, they were at risk of losing the ball.
This situation is an apt example.
The player receiving the flat pass completely faces the side from which the ball came.
This gave the pressing player enough space and time to put blind-side pressure and make a tackle.
There were a few occasions when the striker dropped to offer support.
These situations were favourable in terms of shifting play.
Since angular passes are much harder to defend, Roma could shift play.
There were situations in attack when the opponents doubled up and neutralised the threat.
This was because of the lack of support to make combination play happen.
The wide player is isolated in a 1v2 underload with no teammates in the vicinity to help him out.
Roma end up getting dispossessed, and Genoa starts an attack from this situation.
The build-up to the penalty was a reflection of how the game was going for Roma.
Genoa went short from a corner-kick; the Roma defenders quickly attempted to close down the ball-carrier.
One of them left the space behind unattended.
The ball-carrier took a touch against his momentum to beat him.
As the Roma defender approached straight on, he was completely beaten and ended up fouling in a desperate attempt to halt the attack.
AS Roma Solutions
When struggling in possession in the defensive third, Roma simply required more angles of support to play short passes to escape pressure.
It starts with proactive mobility.
In this situation, the centre-back plays to the wing-back, who gets stuck.
To solve this, the midfielder should move towards the ball into the half-space.
This creates a triangle for a third-man pass back to the centre-back, as the opponent is blocking the lane from the wing-back to the centre-back.
Once this combination is complete, the ball can be, via the goalkeeper, moved to the other side.
Another issue Roma faced was their crosses being ineffective, especially the early crosses.
Instead, they could attract the opponents to find combinations to exploit the space in-behind.
This would give them a better area to whip crosses in from.
The winger can play a one-two with the attacking midfielder arriving in the half-space.
In this particular situation, the opposition left wing-back and left centre-back have already stepped up, which opens up space to exploit in-behind.
This moment came after Genoa scored the winner; the cutback to the penalty spot was not met by anyone from the attacking side.
There was enough space for the striker to make a double movement to receive the cutback.
There was also enough space for the far-side winger to arrive centrally.
Another chance in the dying stages of the game; a Roma player forces a shot from zone-14.
Two Genoa players step up and comfortably make the block.
As a result of his position, him attracting two opponents left space for his teammate on the right.
Laying it off to him at the right time would likely result in an unopposed shot.
Conclusion
Genoa approached the game with low-risk actions in possession, recognition of spaces, and quick execution.
They showcased greater mobility than their opponents, which also led to higher-quality chances and more shots on target.
Their tenacity and aggression in defensive moments helped them win possession and slow the game down.
Although they were not always vertically compact, the opponents did not exploit it to the full extent.
Roma attempted a short build-up, but were bullied off the ball on many occasions.
Their lack of mobility in midfield resulted in them playing forced long balls.
They struggled to make good decisions on the ball, which could have led to high-quality chances throughout the game.
Defensively, they were complacent at times; one of those moments came when they conceded the penalty.
