Drunk on 9-1, Facing the Truth of 1.5: Como's 'Fabregas Revolution' Is a Four-Match Story, Not a Four-Year One

I went back to the 90 minutes I spent at the Stade Bollaert-Delelis last year. The scoreboard read 9-1 and my notebook had one question—was this football or an exhibition? Nineteen goals in four matches, a record-equalling win, and Cesc Fabregas's Como. The hashtag 'new Barcelona' was trending, and I'll admit I watched that clip three times too. But when I reopened the scoresheet—nine goals against Lens, yet a 2-3 defeat to Feyenoord—my hot-take brain paused. Both results belong to the same team, the same coach, within four weeks.

Let me be clear: I am not saying Como's rise is fake. I am saying the 'revolution' we are discussing has a sample of four matches, and one of them is so improbable it distorts all the arithmetic around the other three. A 4.75 goals-per-game average in the UEFA Champions League league phase has never held in football history. That number tells us something exceptional happened. It does not tell us it can be repeated.

Context: When a club from a 'closed-shop' system reaches Europe's biggest stage

To understand Como's story you need a basic reality of Serie A. This is a club that until a few years ago was battling in Serie B and Serie C, changed ownership, earned promotion to Serie A, and is now playing in the Champions League league phase. Fabregas—former Arsenal, Barcelona and Chelsea midfielder—is building his reputation as a young coach.

This is where my imported-template approach helps. In France I have seen that when a club suddenly reaches European competition, its first season is often an 'energy season'—the team is fresh, opponents don't take it seriously, and every match is a festival. The second season comes when opponents start taping you. Como is in phase one. Three wins and one loss in four matches looks spectacular, but break it down match by match and the picture shifts.

The 4-1 win over Leipzig was a high-quality win—Leipzig are among Europe's top tier. The 4-1 over Manchester United is big on paper, but given that United's structural problems, it says more about United's weakness than Como's greatness. The 2-3 loss to Feyenoord is the match nobody watched. And the 9-1 against Lens is the match everyone watched.

The question is: if Como are as good as 9-1 suggests, how did they lose to Feyenoord?

Core: The art of distributing goals—Fabregas's real strength and its hidden risk

Here I want to take you to something that matters more than the scoreline. Who scored the nine against Lens? Douvikas with a hat-trick, Nico Paz, Lucas Da Cunha, Kempf—a centre-back—Liberali, Baturina, and an 18-year-old debutant, Papaccioli. That list is a story in itself.

When a centre-back and an 18-year-old debutant both score in the same match, it means the attack does not depend on a single star. That is Fabregas's biggest achievement—he has built a system where everyone has a licence to score. For my kinesiology brain, this is not just strategy but a pattern of player movement. When full-backs push up, when midfielders enter the box, the opposition defensive line faces multiple different threats.

But here is the number nobody gave you: six goals conceded in four matches. That is 1.5 per game. A team scoring 4.75 is also conceding 1.5. That is not 'balance,' it is an open door.

Against Feyenoord that door swung wide open. In the 2-3 defeat Como conceded three—the same team that put nine past Lens. For me this match matters more than the 9-1 because it shows how fragile the defence is when an opponent neutralises the attack.

Now to Fabregas's quote. After the defeat he said, "We did not change anything." That can be read two ways. First—proof of a strong, unbending identity. The team stayed true to its method after a loss and won 4-1 and 9-1 in the next two. Second—a warning bell. In European football, when opponents start taping you, 'changing nothing' can become a weakness.

I watched France-Argentina at a Pune cafe in 2026. That night Mbappe's two goals exposed Argentina's 38-metre back line. I wrote a thread within 20 minutes—'pace didn't kill them, transitions did.' It is somewhat similar with Como. The 9-1 drew all the attention, but the real story is hidden in the Feyenoord defeat—that loss shows there is a door in Como's structure that any organised team can knock on.

This is my core insight: Como's real strength is not its goals but its capacity to distribute them. And its real weakness is the 1.5 conceded per game. A system that scores 4.75 and concedes 1.5 sits at one end of a spectrum—it can delight you with a 9-1, and break you with a 2-3.

Now look at that 9-1 through an analytical lens. It equalled the biggest margin in Champions League history and was the biggest away win. But it came against Lens—the weakest name of the four. In the 90th minute, when the score was 7-1 and Fabregas brought on 18-year-old Papaccioli, that was not 'tactical genius' but 'rest in a decided match.' A tired opponent, fresh legs, and a young player wanting his first European goal. It is a nice story, but it is less proof of Como's depth than people think.

Contrarian: The 9-1 that disproves 4.75—and how I could be wrong

Now I give you the angle I fear myself.

Suppose Como's form is real. Suppose Fabregas really has built a system that can beat Europe's top teams 4-1. But here is a number that stops me: 19 goals in four matches. Nine of them came in one match. That leaves 10 in the other three—3.33 per game. Still excellent, but not 4.75. And if you remove the Lens match, the average falls to 2.5 per game, the number of a very good but ordinary European team.

So is Como 'exceptional' or 'very good'? My notebook says—very good. And 'very good' teams appear in Europe every year. They are not called revolutions.

I could also be wrong, and here I honestly show the path by which I could be proven wrong. If in the next four matches Como's goal average stays above three, if opponents plan counters and still cannot stop them, if players like Douvikas and Nico Paz return from injury and keep the same rhythm—then my 'small sample' argument weakens.

But there is another thing nobody noticed. The Feyenoord defeat was away. The Lens win was also away. So Como played two of four away from home, and their performance sat at opposite ends—nine goals in one, a defeat in the other. That is away-form fluctuation, normal for a young team. If that fluctuation shows at home too, it signals not just a 'young team' but an 'unstable team.'

Another weakness I want to include in my argument: the 4-1 over Manchester United. In that match's photo, Kempf stood directly against Bruno Fernandes. United's structural problems at the time were public. Did Como win, or did United lose? The truth is probably in between, but when you talk about a 9-1, you don't mention that one of your biggest scalps was a sick lion.

My contrarian point is this: Como's story does not begin with the 9-1, it begins with the Feyenoord defeat. A team that scores 4.75 and concedes 1.5 will face its real test when it meets a side that sits deep and counters. And if Fabregas says 'we will change nothing' in that match too, it will tell us he is a theorist—which is good, but does not win titles.

Takeaway: The next match matters more than the 9-1

Now I give you a testable prediction. In Como's next three Champions League matches, I expect their goal average to fall below 4.75—and that fall will not be a crisis. It will simply be the numbers coming home. If their average stays between 2.5 and 3 and they keep collecting points, then Fabregas has really built something. But if in trying to repeat the 9-1 they also repeat a 2-3 defeat, it will prove this team is currently more 'impulsive' than 'disciplined.'

In my notebook I write a line after every big result: "The scoreboard does not lie, but it does not tell the whole truth either." Como's 9-1 is true. Their 1.5 conceded per game is also true. The question is which truth will be bigger over the next six months—the one in the headlines, or the one hidden in the second column of the scoresheet?

I think the answer lies with Feyenoord, not Lens.