Simeone, His Son, and Eight Goals Conceded: Where Is Atletico Actually Leaking?

In the 90th minute at San Mamés, the scoreboard read 3-0 in favor of Athletic Club. Not a narrow defeat, not a stoppage-time accident. It was an evening in which Atletico Madrid's defense was peeled apart layer by layer until the Basque stands could only applaud the opponent. I watched the replay three times in two days, and what bothered me was not the scoreline. What bothered me was the familiarity. An Atletico without a defensive spine is an Atletico I thought I would never have to watch again.

People call me reckless, but the data has never lied. Eight goals conceded in the first five competitive fixtures is a red sign, and the irony is that nobody in the press room bothered to read that sign. Instead, all of Spain is dedicating its hottest debate to a different topic: whether Giuliano Simeone deserves to start, or whether he is only benefiting from carrying his father's surname.

I will say this plainly from the outset, because this entire article will break that assumption with data. Atletico Madrid's problem this season does not rest on the name printed on the back of the number 22 shirt. The problem rests in the space in front of the defense, in the square meters of grass nobody wants to defend, and in a defensive structure that has lost the rhythm that made it famous for a decade.

This is the story I want to tell today. Not to defend Diego Simeone. Not to attack his son. But to point out that when a team concedes eight goals in five matches, the pointing finger usually aims the wrong way.

---

Context: A father, a club, and a city whispering

Diego Simeone is no longer simply a manager at Atletico Madrid. He is an icon, a legend built on two La Liga titles, two Champions League finals, and a decade that turned a mid-tier club into a genuine European force. When you tie yourself to a club for that long, you do not just sign a contract. You sign onto a part of the memory of millions.

But this season, his seat is beginning to warm in the way every long-serving manager fears: not because of one defeat, but because of a losing run accompanied by a personal story. And that personal story is named Giuliano.

Diego Simeone's second son, a wide player, has featured in every Atletico match this season, with three La Liga starts. He is not a world-class star. He is not a useless figure promoted through connections, either. He is a 22-year-old trying to make his mark at a club where every minute on the pitch is examined under a microscope.

The problem is that at Atletico, nobody is scrutinized like the manager's son.

Madrid media has built a perfect narrative for audiences. The team loses. The team concedes. And in the squad there is a name sharing the surname of the man on the bench. Put those three pieces together and you already have a headline. "Nepotism" becomes the keyword. "The manager's son" becomes a bucket of cold water poured over every tactical debate.

Diego Simeone responded the way a father forced to choose between defending his child and defending his professional credibility would. In the press conference before facing Real Sociedad, he said briefly that Giuliano's work speaks for itself, that the boy works hard and that this is visible. He refused to add fuel to the fire. He did not apologize for playing his son. He did not promise to change.

That is the response of a man who has spent 49 years observing the sports industry, and I acknowledge that calmness. But I am not writing this article to praise calmness. I am writing to test whether the data supports the hypothesis everyone is silently accepting.

That hypothesis says: Atletico is losing because it picked the wrong man. I will show that this hypothesis fails at its most important point.

---

Three data points nobody bothers to connect

Before going deeper, I want to place three numbers on the table. Not to show I can read statistics, but to build a frame that any counter-argument must first accept.

First data point: eight goals conceded in five competitive fixtures. This is the most serious defensive signal for Atletico in several recent seasons. Roughly speaking, a rate of 1.6 goals conceded per match is a number a title-chasing club cannot accept in the first month. I stress "first month", because a five-match sample is a small sample, and small samples always need careful reading. But it is still a red number.

Second data point: two consecutive defeats, including a 3-0 loss to Athletic Club. The defeat at San Mamés is not the kind of loss you can blame on one individual error. It is the result of being overwhelmed across the pitch in the second half, of failing to hold shape, and of a midfield torn apart right in front of the back four.

Third data point: Giuliano has no standout goal or assist on record, but he ran more than anyone else on the pitch in the last two matches. And this is the point I want you to keep in mind for the rest of this article.

These three numbers, combined, tell a very different story from the one Madrid media is selling.

A player who runs the most cannot be the cause of conceding eight goals. If he runs the most, he is trying to patch a hole. If he has to run the most, the hole exists, and it exists somewhere that is not his right wing.

Let me translate this into an image. When a defensive midfielder is dragged out of position to cover an unbalanced full-back, space opens in midfield. When that space opens, one of the two central midfielders must drop deeper to cover. When a central midfielder drops deeper, the attack is isolated. And when the attack is isolated, a wide forward like Giuliano is forced to drop to receive the ball, to run more, and to lose his natural position.

That is a domino. And when dominoes fall, people tend to point at the first piece that fell, not at the hand that pushed it.

---

What do the goals conceded actually tell us?

I do not have full xG and xGA in front of me at the time of writing, and I will admit that rather than fabricate numbers I cannot verify. But I have eyes, and I have footage. Eight goals conceded in five matches can be classified by nature, and that classification is the key.

First group: goals from transition situations. I counted at least three of the eight early-season goals coming from quick counter-attacks against a defense that had not yet recovered. This is a sign of an unbalanced shape when losing the ball. Not an individual error. A structural one.

Second group: goals from second balls after set pieces. At least two goals came from Atletico failing to win the second ball in the box. Again, this is an organizational failure, not a man-marking failure.

Third group: goals from opponents combining directly through the middle. This is the group that worries me most, because it cuts straight into Atletico's identity. A team built on a compact defensive block is not permitted to allow opponents to play through its center. Two, perhaps three, goals belong to this group.

Notice what I just did. I did not ask "who played badly". I asked "where on the pitch did the goals come from". The second question gives an answer the first conceals.

And the answer lies in midfield.

---

The Barrios void: the absent man matters more than the present one

Pablo Barrios has a muscle injury. That is short information, handled like a footnote in a sports bulletin. But to me, it is the most important fact of the week.

Barrios is a central midfielder who can read situations, recover the ball in the space in front of the defense, and circulate under pressure. When he is absent, Atletico loses the thin but vital film between the two lines. That film is so thin that when it disappears, defenders no longer have time to react before opponents reach the box.

I have seen this across decades of football. Whenever a good defensive team suddenly leaks goals, people scrutinize the defense. But in nine out of ten cases at professional level, the cause lies in midfield. Defenders only react to the chaos created in front of them. If midfielders do not press, defenders are forced to step out, and when defenders step out, the back line is exposed.

Barrios is out. And the door through the middle is wide open.

This is why I say the hypothesis "Atletico loses because of Giuliano" does not hold. He does not play central midfield. He is not the one covering the space in front of the defense. He is a wide forward, whose job depends on whether the team can keep the ball in the opponent's half. When the team cannot hold the ball, a wide forward becomes invisible, and when invisible, he is graded by goals.

That is an evaluation trap. And you know what I think of evaluation traps?

It is the enemy of analysis.

---

Sorloth and the forgotten striker problem

Alexander Sorloth remains absent. This information is mentioned as a subordinate clause. But think about what it means.

A team has a tall center-forward who can hold up play, stretch opposing defenses, and keep the ball at the highest point. When that striker is out, the team loses its anchor. The ball is not held long enough in the opponent's half. And when the ball is not held long enough, the defense is constantly under pressure, constantly dropping, constantly facing attacks it should not face.

Now combine Barrios and Sorloth.

A screening midfielder in the middle. An anchoring striker at the top. Two anchors. One in the center, one up front. Now imagine a ship losing both anchors.

That is Atletico Madrid right now.

And on a ship that lost two anchors, you do not blame a winger by asking why he did not pull the ship to shore alone.

I saw something in them before the world turned its head. And what I see in Atletico now is a team that lost structure, not a team that lost personnel. Its personnel is still enough to play in La Liga. Its structure is not.

---

So what does Giuliano actually bring?

This is where I must be careful. I do not want to repeat an old mistake by fabricating data I cannot verify. Instead, I will use what can be observed.

First, Giuliano runs the flank at high intensity. He forces the opposing full-back deep. This, inside a defensive block system, is worth no less than a goal. Because a full-back pushed deep becomes part of the defense, stops attacking, and the opponent loses a drill.

Second, he participates in high pressing. In a team whose midfield is thin, pressing from the top is a form of proactive defending. He may not be the ball-winner, but he is the one forcing opponents to pass hastily, to lose time, to make poor decisions.

Third, he is the type of player suited to his father's philosophy. Diego Simeone never built his teams on artists who need space. He built them on warriors willing to spend energy. If Giuliano is chosen, it is because he participates in that energy machine, not because he is his son.

And here is the point media ignores. If Diego Simeone wanted to blindly favor his son, he would have done so years ago, when the boy was in the youth team. He did not. Giuliano had to climb every rung, go out on loan, prove himself piece by piece. His presence now is the result of a process, not a privilege.

I am not saying he is a star. He is not yet. He may never be a star of that level. But the right question is not "does he deserve to start". The right question is "is he the problem of this team".

And the answer, according to the data I can observe, is no.

---

The match in San Sebastián: a gamble on the edge

Real Sociedad is not a comfortable opponent for a team in crisis. The trip to Reale Arena, in San Sebastián, is one of the most uncomfortable places in Spanish football. A small stadium, stands close to the pitch, humid northern climate, and an opponent that always knows how to strangle teams trying to play football.

This is the kind of match Atletico must survive first, then think about winning. If they open the casino from the first minute, they will be punished. If they play solid, they can leave with a point, and a point in San Sebastián in this state is a decent result.

But I will say something bolder. I think Atletico will win this match.

Not because they are playing well. They are playing poorly. But because this is the kind of match a team pushed into a corner often springs out of. A team in crisis often plays with unusual focus in a match where they feel defeat will open a week of hell. And Real Sociedad, though strong at home, is not an opponent Atletico cannot handle with structure.

I was once wrong about the 2026 World Cup. And that is the most expensive lesson I have. I mispronounced Ivan Rakitić's name three times in a row during the Croatia-Denmark round of 16, and that mistake taught me that every judgment must be built on verifiable data. Since then, I have set a rule for myself: no data, no writing.

So let me turn my prediction into something verifiable.

I predict Atletico will not lose in San Sebastián. I predict they will concede no more than one goal. I predict their midfield, despite missing Barrios, will play with a deeper dropping player to patch the hole, and that is the key.

If I am wrong, I will be the first to write it back.

But I have a reason to believe I am right, and that reason does not lie in what happened this week. It lies in something I learned after nearly half a century of watching football: big teams do not win by attacking in moments of crisis. They win by stopping the bleeding first.

Atletico needs a win to stop the bleeding. And San Sebastián, a place where you must fight for points, is a fitting venue for that kind of surgery.

---

The contrarian angle: where could I be wrong?

I would be a liar if I presented my argument as an irrefutable truth. So let me dismantle my own argument a bit, because that is the only way to analyze honestly.

I could be wrong because a five-match sample is too small. Eight goals conceded in five games could simply be a run of bad luck, where the goalkeeper is poor and opponents score at exactly the decisive moments. If so, my "structure" story is just a beautifully told version of what is merely statistical noise. Football has a lot of noise. And I have been wrong in similar situations before.

I could be wrong because Giuliano might genuinely be favored. I do not have inside information from the dressing room. I do not know if another player feels wronged. I only know that, from what can be observed externally, he is not the cause of the conceded goals. But if a teammate is playing better and is being left out, the dynamics problem exists, and it could explain part of the decline. I cannot rule that out.

I could be wrong because the feeling from the stands is never honest data. When a player is hated by the crowd, every touch is perceived as worse than reality. When a player is loved, every touch is perceived as better. I am watching football through my own eyes, and those eyes are not immune to bias. I know that.

The home advantage is dead. Home is no longer a fortress. The pandemic proved that. This means results at a ground like Reale Arena no longer depend on the crowd as much as before. If so, the argument "this is a difficult ground" that I used to justify Atletico winning also wobbles.

But I keep my prediction. Because the data I have, however thin, points in one direction. And football waits for no one. It only waits for those who dare to ask questions.

---

A mistake I made and why it matters here

I do not want to finish without talking about one of my mistakes. Because in the story of Giuliano Simeone, there is a lesson I paid for.

For years, I had a habit of judging a young player by goals and assists. That is the easy way. It gave me numbers to write and made my articles look scientific. But it also made me misjudge many players who contributed through things that never appear in the box score.

A player who runs off the ball. A player who drags defenders so teammates have space. A player who forces opponents to pass backward instead of forward. These contributions never show up in ratings. But they exist. And when you only read ratings, you miss them.

When I wrote my 2026 prediction that Liverpool's attacking trio would score at least 84 goals in all competitions, I had to learn to look at structure, not at individuals. By the end of the 2026-18 season, the trio of Mohamed Salah, Roberto Firmino and Sadio Mané scored 91 goals, exceeding my prediction. But the important thing is not that the number 91 hit its target. The important thing is that I learned an attacking system is shaped by the team's structure, and that structure feeds every individual inside it.

Number 91 is not a lucky number; it is the destination of a plan. And that holds in both directions. A defensive system that collapses will collapse every individual inside it, no matter how fast that individual runs.

That is why I look at Atletico now and see a systemic problem, not a personnel problem. And in a systemic problem, removing one name solves nothing. It only shifts attention to another name.

---

Re-reading the debate: what is truly at stake

Let me widen the frame a bit.

The debate over Giuliano Simeone is not just a debate over a player. It is a debate over how we judge talent, how we treat the children of famous figures, and how we consume football as an emotional story.

When a young player does not stand out statistically, we tend to assume he does not deserve a chance. When he carries the manager's surname, we tend to assume that chance came from family, not from effort. These two tendencies combine into an easy verdict: if he does not score and is the manager's son, something must be opaque.

This is where data must intervene. Not to declare Giuliano a great talent. But to test whether the accusation holds.

And when I test it, the accusation does not hold mathematically. Because the eight goals did not come from his position. Because the two lost anchors are Barrios and Sorloth, not Giuliano. Because the problem lies in structure, not on one wing.

That is the kind of conclusion data can give us, if we bother to read it before reading the headline.

Data does not kill emotion. It gives emotion a frame. And in football, emotion without a frame becomes a mob. A mob always finds someone to blame easily, and that someone is usually not the one truly responsible.

---

On a father and a manager

I will close this analytical section with a personal thought, because I do not want to pretend I am an emotionless analytical machine.

Diego Simeone at this stage of his career is in a position very few managers ever experience. He is a club legend, and simultaneously a father watching his son be scrutinized by the public. Those two roles conflict in ways that cannot be perfectly resolved.

If he defends his son too strongly, he is seen as putting family above club. If he drops his son to avoid criticism, he is seen as capitulating to public opinion and betraying his own child. There is no clean choice. Only less damaging ones.

And his response this week, refusing to engage in the debate and letting the work speak, is one of the least damaging responses. It keeps the story on the pitch, where it belongs. It gives media no excuse to turn family drama into daily headlines.

I have spent nearly half a century watching how managers face pressure. And I learned that disciplined silence is one of the strongest weapons. It does not knock down the opponent. It simply leaves the opponent nothing to grip. And in football, when the opponent has nothing to grip, they grip their own assumptions. Those assumptions are usually wrong.

---

What if Atletico loses in San Sebastián?

Let me paint the worst-case scenario, because honest analysis must include scenarios we do not want.

If Atletico loses at Reale Arena, a three-match losing streak will turn a small crisis into a real one. Pressure on Diego Simeone will spike, and the Giuliano story will become the center of every headline for weeks. The board will begin meetings it does not want to publicize. And the transfer market will be mentioned as a solution, even though January is far away.

But I want to say this seriously. Even in that scenario, dropping Giuliano is not the solution. Because who replaces him? Who runs that flank, presses that way, participates in that energy machine? If Atletico had a better name, they would already use it.

Atletico's problem is not one player. Their problem is a defensive structure that lost its rhythm, and a midfield missing its most important piece. Fixing structure takes weeks. Fixing personnel takes an afternoon. And precisely because fixing personnel is easier, people demand it more. That is the laziness of popular analysis, not the wisdom of football.

---

The most striking thing this week

Over the past week, reading news about Atletico, I noticed something. The Giuliano debate has drowned out the defensive debate. An emotional story has overwhelmed a tactical one. And this happens to most big clubs, not just Atletico.

This is why I believe the job of an analyst is not to chase the most attractive story. The job of an analyst is to return to what happens on the grass, to count every goal conceded, to classify every type of error, and to find where responsibility truly lies.

And when I do that with Atletico this season, I see a much clearer picture than the headline suggests.

I see a team missing two anchors at two levels of the lineup. I see a defense exposed by a gap not filled. I see goals conceded from transitions, second balls, and the middle. And I see a 22-year-old wide forward, carrying the surname of the man on the bench, placed in a position where he can be neither the cause nor the solution.

That is not the story the public wants to hear. But it is the story the data is telling.

---

Takeaway: a verifiable prediction

I will close with specific judgments, because analysis without prediction is only an essay.

Atletico Madrid will not lose at Reale Arena. They will play a more cautious match than in the past two weeks, with a deep-dropping midfielder to fill the gap Barrios left. They will concede no more than one goal. And if they win, the Giuliano story will quiet down for a while, only to return the first time they lose the next match.

In the long run, I believe Atletico's problem will not be solved by any change on the wing. It will be solved by restoring structure as a compact block, by returning Barrios to his position, and by finding a center-forward who can hold the ball at the top again.

And about Giuliano, I will say this. If he keeps playing, keeps running, keeps being criticized, and still gets no recognition, it will be one of the saddest images of the season. A young player judged by his father's surname, not by the square meters of grass he gives away.

I once judged a player by his surname, and I was wrong. I do not want an entire football culture to repeat that mistake.

That is why I wrote this article. Not to defend Diego Simeone. But to defend an honest way of reading.

And if the match in San Sebastián proves me wrong, I will be the first to sit down, reopen the footage, and write a rebuttal to myself. I have done it once already. I am not afraid to do it again.