In this article
Vanoli should be allowed to finish the repair job. But Fiorentina must define what a successful repair actually looks like. Beating Sassuolo would buy time. It would not, by itself, fix a team that still struggles to survive the consequences of its own good attacking spells.
In Florence, the fixture list once again seems to revolve around the coach. Survive this match, win the next one, and everything will supposedly fall into place. Yet another “last chance” means little when nobody can explain what football the club is trying to build beyond it.
Before Sassuolo, the serious question is therefore not simply whether Vanoli will keep his job. Does Fiorentina still believe in his work, or has it merely failed to prepare an alternative? Those are very different reasons for being patient.
The pressure is real. An ultimatum is not established
There is no verified basis for calling the game on 2 November an official club ultimatum. LaViola reported on 1 November that confidence in Vanoli remained, while stressing the importance of Sassuolo and Juventus. That describes the present situation; it guarantees nothing about the coming months.
Reggio Emilia can nevertheless test whether this patience has substance. Against Atalanta, Fiorentina showed it could respond. Now it must show it can learn. Recovering after conceding offers hope. Having to repeat the recovery every week tells a less reassuring story.
First, allocate responsibility honestly
Five points from nine games indict the overall season. They cannot all be attributed to Vanoli. Grosso oversaw the first three matches: no points, one goal scored, nine conceded. Vanoli returned on 7 September and began his league run with victory at Venezia.
| Period | Games | Points | Points/game | Goals for:against |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grosso, start of 2026/27 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 | 1:9 |
| Vanoli, return through Atalanta | 6 | 5 | 0.83 | 10:12 |
| Fiorentina, entire 2025/26 — all coaches | 38 | 42 | 1.11 | 41:50 |
| Vanoli after Pioli, 2025/26 | 28 | 38 | 1.36 | — |
Vanoli's current league sequence, from Fiorentina's perspective: Venezia 4–2, Napoli 1–1, Genoa 1–2, Como 1–3, Inter 1–2, Atalanta 2–2. Last season's full record is context, not Vanoli's personal record. Six games are too small a sample for a reliable final-position forecast.
The direct comparison is sharper still. Last season Vanoli took over after ten games and four points; Fiorentina finished with 42. That means 38 points over the remaining 28 matches, or 1.36 per game. The current figure is 0.83. Conditions differ and the samples are unequal, but that is precisely why rescuing the previous season cannot substitute for assessing this one.
His team is scoring 1.67 goals a game and conceding exactly two. It has not kept a clean sheet. Compared with Grosso's opening three fixtures, it has recovered the ability to score and collect points. It has not recovered control of risk. That is the fairest short diagnosis of the coach's work.
After Pioli: a rescue built on restoring order
Pioli departed in autumn 2025 after ten winless league games and four points. Vanoli inherited the bottom club. He was entitled to narrow the brief: reduce distances, clarify roles and identify players who could accept responsibility under pressure. In that situation, a coach can reasonably say that the team must stop falling apart before discussing its style.
Fiorentina eventually survived and finished fifteenth. We should not rewrite that as the birth of a great side. It was a necessary job completed after a dreadful start, rather than success on the scale Florence expects. Its value was in escaping a situation that could have become disastrous.
Vanoli's willingness to abandon a back three also mattered. The 4–1–4–1 base described when he returned in September had foundations in the previous campaign. The significant point is not the formation label. He had shown an ability to change his tools rather than defend an original idea indefinitely.
After Grosso: familiar surroundings, a different squad
This return brings different responsibilities. Vanoli knows the club and some players, but a substantial part of the squad changed over the summer. He should be treated neither as a coach who has worked continuously with this group nor as a complete newcomer entitled to every allowance.
The club dismissed the man who had secured survival, entrusted the team to Grosso, then recalled Vanoli after three defeats. That sequence should temper enthusiasm for another revolution. If every appointment launches a project, the project becomes merely the interval between two crises.
The footballing starting point has changed too. Vanoli now has to combine organisation with greater initiative more quickly. A back-four structure can move between 4–1–4–1, 4–3–3 and 4–2–3–1 as the midfielders change height. These are not necessarily three separate philosophies. The decisive questions are who remains behind the ball and who closes the centre when an attack breaks down.
Atalanta exposed both the possibility and the limit
For the equaliser, Njie attacked the far post to meet Jimenez's cross. It was a tangible argument for width and for a winger entering the box rather than waiting on the touchline. João Mário's goal demonstrated another route: the full-back moving inside. Fiorentina could turn the score around.
It could not protect the lead. A 2–2 score alone does not prove that poor attacking cover caused every problem; that judgement requires studying the individual sequences. It does establish something simpler: taking the lead once again failed to bring control of the match.
This is where Vanoli must improve the team. When a full-back advances, the nearest midfielder needs to know whether to join the move or protect that channel. If both full-backs are ahead of the ball, the centre-backs need an appropriate supporting structure. One holding midfielder cannot simultaneously direct possession, collect second balls and defend the entire space in front of the back line.
Fiorentina does not need to stop attacking. It needs to decide who protects its attacks.
That is a proposed direction for improvement, not a claim that every conceded goal has the same cause. Judging a coach by his formation is easy. Judging him by the organisation behind the ball is harder and much more useful.
What another change might solve — and what it would cost
A replacement could help if he identifies the problem and offers a solution suited to these players. He might simplify tasks, protect the centre, alter the hierarchy and restore clarity to decisions. If a coach can no longer enforce principles, continuity ceases to be an advantage.
There is not enough evidence, however, to declare that this dressing room has rejected Vanoli. The Atalanta draw does not support that conclusion either. Dismissing him purely for a reaction risks another adaptation period: different distances between units, new ways out of pressure and revised selection criteria. For an already unstable side, that is a real cost.
Before changing coach, the club should answer three questions. What exactly would the successor do differently? Which players would benefit? How long would implementation take? If the only answer is that the team needs a shock, it is not a sporting plan. It is the hope that another name will absorb the weight of the current disorder.
What to demand at Sassuolo
A good first half or an appeal to bad luck will not be enough. I want to see three things above all: a collective reaction after losing possession, cover for advancing full-backs and calmer decisions after taking the lead. Without those, even victory could remain an isolated event rather than the beginning of improvement.
Handling difficult spells matters too. Can the team reduce risk for a few minutes, escape pressure and move play away from its own penalty area? After the first press is beaten, does midfield recover in a compact structure, or are defenders left facing opponents across huge spaces? These questions reveal more about coaching than touchline gestures.
None of this makes the result optional. With five points, the margin is small. But the club must distinguish an unfortunate defeat with visible progress from an accidental win in which the goalkeeper again conceals structural weaknesses.
My verdict: keep him, but stop pretending that waiting is enough
I would retain Vanoli today. That is not an unlimited vote of confidence. It is a short, clearly assessed period of work on the problems actually costing Fiorentina. Sassuolo and the following match should provide evidence, rather than another ritual in which victory absolves everything and defeat condemns everything.
The coach must show that he can stop recurring mistakes. The club must show it can assess more than the latest score. If the team continues surrendering control after its own attacks and its organisation does not improve, defending him will cease to be justified. A change would then follow a diagnosis rather than another attempt to calm the evening's frustration.
Vanoli after Pioli deserved recognition for rescuing the season. Vanoli after Grosso must prove he can do more than rescue it again. Fiorentina cannot rebuild every few months and then wonder why it is still living on a construction site.
Sources and scope
As of 1 November 2026, before Sassuolo–Fiorentina. Current coaching totals cover only Vanoli’s six league matches. Averages are editorial calculations. Tactical assessments and the recommendation are editorial opinion, not a report of club decisions.