
Pessimists circle as Roma draw in Istanbul—but the early form tells a different story
Roma drew their first match of the season, a result that has handed fuel to the club's most vocal critics. A goal by Brown was enough to stir the naysayers from silence after Roma's bright start to the campaign. The criticism ranges widely: that Roma have faced no genuine test in the league; that Malen has misfired; that Mora is merely a former Porto substitute out of his depth; that Gasperini has grown quiet where he once railed against "Ricky"; that Mancini is finished; that Wesley's focus lies elsewhere; that Koné avoids celebrating goals with teammates for unexplained reasons; that Gasperini's substitutions were wrong; that when he withdrew Malen he brought on De Roon out of friendship rather than judgment, a claim absurd coming from those who called Castro an inexplicable signing in the first place; and that Rensch played only as a favour, a serious tactical error. The draw in Istanbul itself has become a flashpoint for those determined to cast shadows over both Roma and their manager. Critics claim it proves Roma have not faced quality opposition in domestic play. The broader narrative from the pessimists is one of decline and poor judgment—both in the squad assembled and in how it is being used. Yet the tone of the piece suggests the critics are opportunistic, seizing on a single result to resurrect doubts that the strong start had quieted. The article offers no quarter to this chorus of doom, treating their complaints with contempt as a predictable cycle: the naysayers announced player exits before 30 June; they questioned the signings of Castro and Balerdi; and now, having seen their early predictions of collapse proven wrong by the opening fixtures, they are back in full voice. The sense is one of inevitable, tiresome repetition—the "Brancaleone Army" undeterred and unrelenting in its determination to find failure.





