Olympiacos Response To UCL Loss Is Midfield Rebuild, Not Repair

For most of the summer, the discussion around Olympiacos’ midfield revolved around one missing player. A top central midfielder. Someone capable of changing the technical level of the team.

The picture now appears broader.

Dimitris Tomaras reports that Olympiacos will add at least one technically gifted No.8 but that the possibility of signing two midfielders remains open, with further changes in personnel expected around the existing group.

That would amount to something more significant than filling a vacancy.

It would be restructuring.

NEC exposed why one midfielder may not solve everything

The two matches against Nijmegen offered a useful stress test. Olympiacos had issues with several different midfield demands:

progressing the ball;

covering transitions;

sustaining pressure;

creating between the lines;

and protecting space behind attacking full-backs.

One player can improve some of those areas. Few players solve all of them. That may explain why the club could ultimately recruit two midfielders with complementary characteristics rather than attempting to find one mythical complete player.

Gustavo Sá does not eliminate the need

Sá was one of the clear positives in the second leg. Gazzetta highlights his ability to create, dribble and contribute tactically, particularly in the sequence that produced El Kaabi’s goal. But Sá is fundamentally an attacking midfielder. His emergence gives Mendilibar another option around No.10. It does not necessarily solve the deeper midfield structure.

Olympiacos can therefore be encouraged by Sá while simultaneously deciding that the No.8 positions require reinforcement.

Those are not contradictory conclusions.

The most logical scenario is complementary recruitment

Consider the existing reported targets.

Cristian Cásseres offers mobility, defensive activity and multi-role midfield capacity.

Noah Cadiou brings size, athleticism and box-to-box qualities.

Gustavo Puerta offers another type of progressive midfield profile.

Olympiacos would not necessarily sign two players who perform identical jobs.

If the club genuinely proceeds with two midfielders, the intelligent version of that strategy would be:

one player to raise ball progression and creativity;

another to raise physical coverage and defensive transition quality.

That would give Mendilibar significantly more flexibility.

Existing players inevitably come into the conversation

If two midfielders arrive, somebody’s role changes. That is simple squad mathematics.

Hezze remains fundamental.

Mouzakitis is one of Olympiacos’ most important young assets.

Scipioni is still developing.

Dani García provides experience.

Chiquinho can operate centrally.

Sá adds another attacking-midfield possibility.

Two additions create competition, but they may also create departures or more specialized roles.

Gazzetta explicitly says further changes in personnel should be expected around the midfield.

That does not identify who could leave. It simply reinforces that recruitment and departures may be connected.

The Champions League elimination makes valuation discipline more important, not less

Olympiacos still have significant sporting objectives. But Champions League revenue is no longer available.

That makes the decision to potentially sign two midfielders fascinating. It suggests the club does not view reinforcement as contingent entirely on Champions League qualification. At the same time, it strengthens the argument against overpaying.

Two well-priced midfielders may ultimately provide greater squad value than one player acquired at a desperation premium. That is precisely where Moncada’s recruitment network should matter.

The next development should tell us whether this is strategy or contingency

There are two ways to interpret the report. The first is that Olympiacos actively intend to buy two midfielders.

The second is that they will definitely sign one and have created room for a second if the right opportunity appears.

The wording currently supports the second interpretation more strongly. One midfielder is described as necessary. The second is an open possibility. Olympiacos should not buy a second player merely because Nijmegen ended badly, but if two targets fit the sporting and financial plan, the defeat has provided plenty of evidence that additional midfield depth would not be excessive.