Three Set-Piece Goals: Is Milan's Problem Rabiot, or the System?

Six matches, three set-piece goals. Torino, Juventus, Sassuolo—three different opponent tiers, the same pattern of surrender. That pattern is the story. Set-piece goals typically account for roughly a quarter to a third of all goals in elite European football. Three in six matches means one every two games. That rate is unsustainable for a side with title or European ambitions. But the spread matters more than the raw number. Against Torino on Matchday 1, against Juventus on Matchday 3, away to Sassuolo on Matchday 6. Three opponents, three distinct profiles: a mid-table side, an elite rival, a lower-half team. That variety dismantles the 'we were simply out-muscled by one specific team' defence. The problem is internal. Based on my years of watching matches, I can say this: repeated set-piece concessions are almost never a story of individual aerial weakness. They are a story of zonal versus man-marking assignment, blocking screens, the space carved out in front of the goalkeeper—a problem of fine structure. Conceding the same type of goal against one opponent is misfortune. Conceding against three different opponents is design. The post-match comments reveal another layer. The coach said that after taking the lead, his side could not control the match or the play. They lost the ball quickly when they had it. 'We kept pushing and that is why they had two chances.' This is a game-management failure—the inability to slow the tempo and kill a match after scoring. And that failure feeds the set-piece vulnerability. Lose control, pressure arrives. Pressure brings corners. Corners bring goals. The coach called the corner goal something that 'cannot happen.' That language matters. He is not treating it as an acceptable risk but as a drill-based, coachable error. Set-piece defending is a separate coaching discipline—there is room to work here. But there is an informational complication that cannot be skipped. The headline credits the explanation to Rabiot, while the actual quotes come from the coach. Rabiot is a player, not a coach. Both claims cannot be true. Either the headline is wrong or the attribution is wrong. This inconsistency is not mere editorial sloppiness—it misdirects the accountability discussion. In football, set-piece narratives fade quickly if the leak is plugged, and escalate sharply if it is not. The next three to five matches are the real test. If a set-piece goal costs points, the word 'crisis' will no longer be premature. The first six matches of this season suggest the problem is not individual but structural. The question now: who changes the design, and how fast?