He fucked up in the beginning walking in Mourinio’s path –which resulted to a couple of humiliating defeats, his name being No1 candidate for getting the sack by the bookies (some argue that he actually played his head in the Hull match). Radically changed direction in the process, has managed to cement an effective structure, currently in a winning strike, 7 points ahead of City (6 ahead of Liverpool if they win tonight).
I’m familiar with his work in Italy (Juventus, national team), he is indeed a very capable man. Hardly the same case though. It’s not that his job is much more easier objectively speaking, in terms of squad quality and depth, lack of European football etc. In Conte’s case you have a tactical arrangement suiting available personnel (I would say also suiting the identity of the club) and securing results (so far) –which (results) is the core idea in the Italian / Argentinian approach. Cementing defensive stability is key (and highly significant for his players’ psychology), before exploiting the skills of an extremely competent attacking force. Taking zero risks, killing matches to 0,5-0 if necessary. While people like Guardiola are visionary, introducing new ideas, enhancing the creative aspect of the game etc (Ronald Koeman sums this concept perfectly in his pre-match conference by the way, after the match stating Guardiola’s City was the best team he ever faced as a coach).
Which is a constant battle in the history of football, let’s say effectiveness – results vs innovative ideas – creativity, cautious – defensive minded vs attractive – attacking minded approaches etc. You can find numerous historical analogies. Helenio Herrera has achieved results so his name will always appear in history books. But if you actually try to put his career into a perspective, you’ll probably identify a lot of controvertial stuff (if not a clearly negative influence). On the other hand, a man like Gusztav Sebes failed to win the WC1954, however the team he introduced (national side of Hungary 1950-56) represents a milestone in the progress of the sport. You do a public survey and ask the name of West Germany’s manager in the WC1974, how many will answer? We are talking about a successful manager, a guy who kept that post from 1964 to 1978, in a 14-year tenure! One thing is certain though, you’ll find many many more familiar with Rinus Michels. Who lost that title, sure, still his teams (Ajax, national side of Holland) embody the revolutionary ideas of “total football”. Tele Santana introduced one of the most creative teams in football history in WC1982 (much more creative than the one that won the title in WC1970, as far as I am concerned) and will always be remembered, even though Brazil failed to reach the semi-finals. And so on, and so on, and so on.
What I’m trying to say is that History values ideas that influence the progress of the sport (perhaps even more than results?). In this perspective, Antonio Conte is indeed a man with a strong personality, a strong will. An intelligent man, a good tactician. A worthy opponent. On the other hand, you can argue that Guardiola could perhaps be more flexible in his tactical approach (and if he did, some of City’s results would have been different). But there’s no doubt he has chosen a much more difficult path (exactly as Koeman describes it). His task is way much more complicated. Still, it’s the ideas of people like him that “push” football forward. Introducing new concepts. Exploring new roads. Expanding the limits of football practice in every possible aspect. What inspires Guardiola is the very method to reach an objective. Which is highly important (if not an obsession) in his thinking process. For Guardiola, the way to achieve results matters.
Last edited: