Antonio Conte’s system isn’t a 4-2-4, but it still provides excitement
The starting line-up in the 2-2 draw with Genoa
The 4-2-4 is a mythical formation, immediately bringing to mind the Brazil side of 1970, maybe the greatest international side in history.
It is seldom used in modern football at the top level, and therefore the arrival of Antonio Conte at Juventus this summer excited many – he was set to play the system, and perhaps bring all-out-attack football to Turin.
It’s surprising that so many thought this would bring about a revolution (in pure formation terms), for if there was any other manager in Europe that could vaguely be described as using a 4-2-4, it would be Juve’s manager from last year, Gigi Del Neri. He made his name with a similar system at Chievo, then re-established himself with the formation at Sampdoria, and last year tried to make it work with Juve.
Therefore, it’s hardly been complete departure from the way Juventus played last year. And, in reality, Conte doesn’t use a 4-2-4, as he freely admits.
“There’s been too much talk on this particular way of playing. In actuality it’s a 4-4-2. I know of course novelty makes sometimes a great topic of discussion. If instead of saying ‘4-2-4′ I had said ‘4-4-2′ from the very beginning, we wouldn’t be discussing this ‘innovation’. Maybe all it is is just a normal idea of play. It is a normal 4-4-2. I think in England most teams that are winning are applying this type of module, which enables you to cover the playing field in the best possible way I think.”
(via Juventiknows)
His comments about ‘covering the playing field’ are interesting, reminiscent of Arsene Wenger’s comments (albeit now five years ago):
“I think it’s simply the most rational formation in most cases. In fact, it’s the essence of reason. With a 4-4-2, 60% of your players are occupying 60% of the pitch. No other formation is as efficient at covering space.”
4-4-2 / 4-2-4
As a side note, Conte’s comments on the definition of the formation are very interesting. It has been termed as a 4-2-4 for reasons of pure ‘branding’, rather than because of the actual positioning of the side. OK, the wingers play high up the pitch, but they drop back level with the midfielders when out of possession. It isn’t too much more of a 4-2-4 than Manchester United’s shape at the start of the season with Nani and Ashley Young playing high up – although they tended to come inside slightly more, making 4-2-2-2 more appropriate.
It’s funny that there can be so little difference between 4-2-4, perhaps the most exciting realistic formation imaginable, and the bog standard 4-4-2, arguably the least interesting shape.
In fact, it’s probably less of a 4-2-4 than the system Pep Guardiola briefly used at the start of 2010. That shape was very similar to the Brazilian shape of 1970, in that it had the left-winger (Andres Iniesta) deeper like Rivelinho, and one striker (Thierry Henry) starting highest up but then moving towards the ball, like Tostao. However, if we’re accepting that in all these formations the wide players are level with the midfielders when out of possession and closer to a line with the forwards when the side has the ball, Barcelona’s unprecedented dominance of possession means that they’ll naturally look more like a 4-2-4 than any other the other sides.
Central midfield zone
It’s also interesting that Conte wants to ‘cover the space’ with his formation. The battle of formations in recent years has generally revolved upon ball retention rather than spatial distribution of players (more on this in a couple of weeks) – Jose Mourinho famously outlined why his 4-3-3 always beat a natural 4-4-2 because of the spare man in midfield to keep possession. Playing only two central midfielders rather than three, with two natural wingers and two strikers, indicates a more direct style of football. So, even if it’s not a 4-2-4, the reasons for Conte playing the system are intriguing.
The game against Genoa last night – which Juventus dominated but twice lost the lead – showed off their system well. The most interesting feature – far more so than the formation – is the use of his two midfielders in deep positions. Andrea Pirlo was superb against Genoa, and whilst Claudio Marchisio was more quiet, he was the hero in Juve’s previous home game, a 2-0 win over Milan.
The use of two ball players in a two-man central midfield zone is rare. Pirlo made his name at Milan when his role was possible because he had hard-working runners around him – most obviously Rino Gattuso, but also Massimo Ambrosini and (to a certain extent) Clarence Seedorf. Marchisio is more of a battler, a hard working tenacious player, but he used to be a trequartista in Juve’s youth sides before being converted to a midfielder, and he is far from a holding player.
A Pirlo-Marchisio central midfield is very positive. If there are two basic functions of being a central midfielder – keeping the ball and winning the ball – a manager has to make a decision about the style of players he wants in a two-man central midfield rather than a three. A negative manager would think immediately about his side being overrun in the 4-4-2 shape and therefore field two defensive-minded scrappers. Conte is much more positive, and instead addresses the lack of a midfield triangle to play around the opposition by turning to two players comfortable in possession.
Juve will, at times, need a third player in there. Against Milan and Chievo the energetic Arturo Vidal was added to make a 4-1-4-1ish shape, whilst late in the Genoa game Michele Pazienza came on for Marcelo Estigarribia, with Mirko Vucinic dropping to the left.
Other individuals
There remain question marks about the suitability of other players for the system. Vucinic was playing a relatively static role upfront alongside Alessandro Matri (who was excellent). It made Juve one-dimensional with the ball, and didn’t suit Vucinic’s quality – which is picking up the ball before running at speed.
It has been rumoured that Vucinic could play as the left-winger, in place of Estigarribia, but it might be wiser to use him to the left of the forward duo and let him drift wide from there. Estigarribia has to do a lot to cement his place in the side – this was his first league start, but he was peripheral and there remains a feeling that his impressive displays at the Copa America, themselves brief moments of skill, flatter a player who struggled at Le Mans in France.
Left-back is another area of weakness. Paolo De Ceglie, Fabio Grosso and now Giorgio Chiellini have all been used. Chiellini was terrible against Genoa – ponderous on the ball, beaten in the air for both goals and guilty of wasting good chances at the other end.
Cohesion
These issues can be solved through selection, but Conte remains keen to focus upon the unit. “As far as we’re concerned, we are fortunate enough to have players in the team that may permit us to change and use something different. The idea how we should play remains essentially the same, though.”
The key is cohesion, and this appears to be lacking down the flanks. With the wingers immediately moving forward when Juventus win the ball, it is difficult for the full-backs to make contact with them, even more difficult to overlap. Gael Clichy admits he struggled when Arsenal started playing their wingers higher up, for example.
But the cohesion was most obviously lacking for the first goal Juve conceded. Simone Pepe pressed, but Stephane Lichsteiner didn’t – Genoa had a large gap to play in down the left, and a clever pass resulted in Bosko Jankovic and Alexander Merkel combining, with the German crossing for Marco Rossi at the far post.
For a manager so keen to play a specific system because it ‘covers the space well’, errors like that are a big problem, but Conte’s project remains one of the more compelling experiments in Serie A this season.
Antonio Conte’s system isn’t a 4-2-4, but it still provides excitement
The midfield is too lightweight
Last year PSG often played a 424.
sometimes it was a 4321 with bodmer as the number 10 and jallet on the right of midfield but they played a lot of games with nene and giuly staying up on the flanks, because giuly was old and nene PSG’s number one threat, but also because they scared the oppositions so the facing fullbacks never dared risk to make the defend.
with those 2 one the sides they had 2 of hoarau/erding/bodmer upfront, bodmer playing as a second striker and not as a number 10.
it’s too bad (and sometimes very understandable) you don’t watch more ligue 1 games…
Problem is, it’s not on TV here and I don’t really like watching streams. That said, will try and watch tonight’s Lyon v Lille game in midweek
Cool !
I’ll tell you if even I want you to avoid it, we never know… but it should be a nice game
Bodmer’s just so versatile, eh? I saw him play well as a CB and a defensive midfielder for Lyon, and now you’re saying he’s been a #10 for PSG
The problem with 4-4-2 aswell is the fact that even an industius second striker will still be left in no mans land defensively for alot of the game. Take Wayne Rooney of all the man united players so far this season only lindegard, de gea and owen have averaged less tackles per game (and its not like Rooney is someone who is brough on or brought off commonly which could obviously distort per game stats).
Also on most teams the players who see most of the ball are obviously your centre midfielders and full backs and when playing against 4-3-3. The wide forwards tend to mark the full backs more than wingers would and also tend to draw them in thus lessening the full backs impact. The centre midfield will also surely win the battle because of the spare man.
Their are also benifits to 4-4-2 aswell though e.g forming two banks of four infront of your goals but personally (and im not the only one) I think the world is moving away from 4-4-2
and know i’m thinking about it this year lyon played a lot of games in a 424 too
they had gomis lisandro upfront and bastos briand on the flanks
bastos and briand defend a lot more than nene and giuly used too, still the idea is to get the ball back with gonalons and kallstrom quickly in central midfield so the wingers don’t have to run all the time and can stay up
but now lisandro is injured it’s grenier, and surely gourcuff/ederson tonight, it’s still a 442/424 but with number 10s as second strikers so less direct play than with lisandro i would say
So with lyon the wingers defend and the idea also is to play quick on counter especially against good teams but still if you want to check it yourself this evening against lille you can
There is a dearth of quality fullbacks. Chielini was awful and Lichsteiner isn’t that great with the ball either.
I don’t think the issue is if Pirlo and Marchisio can manage, but how much running Pirlo can manage each game. Fewer players in the midfield has shown how Pirlo’s range of passing can break pressure quickly, but the fullbacks could do better to maintain possession while Conte only trusts Pepe. No midweek games, but Juve will struggle past 60 minutes to win back possession with that midfield and Italy’s narrow formations.
i think with this side you would want to gain advantage quickly, before the 60th minute because if you don’t you will often get punished during a 8 month long competition:
play at a very high intensity and rythm during 60 minutes to break the opposition and then play it a lot safer even if this means less offensive players and being ok with a draw.
the other way is possible too: play it solid for 60 minutes with vidal on and then sub him for pirlo/marchisio etc to make a big 30 minutes assault
I think this could be a good team. The Central midfield of Pirlo and marchiso works well, and they have a good partnership. Pepe looks good on the right, able to go down the line of cut in, and matri looks a good striker, dropping deep to help build up play, excellent movement, and good in the air.
But there are problems. Chiellini should be played at CB, he looks much more natural there, and would shore up the Central defense, which looks a bit shaky at times. Then play Paolo De Ceglie at LB and have him overlap to give width up the pitch. I also think ZM hit the nail on the head with vucinic not looking comfortable in his position. While Estigarribia looks like a one trick pony, with little build up play skills.
One possible solution as mention in the article could be to play vucinic high up on the left cutting in, with matri using his movement to make space for vucinic. Then get Ciglie playing high up the pitch and making overlapping runs to provide width on the left. Then have chiellini at CB covering the left back zone (with the rest of defense shifting across) when Ceglie is high up the pitch. Then play a 3rd CM, inbetween the lines, playing Vidal if the opposition is tough (better defensively) and Fabio Quagliarella when the opposition is a weaker team.
Juventus have good options in attack as well, with krasic able to come in for pepe, Elia able to come in for vucinic, maybe even amauri in for matri, if he is still at the club.
Juventus are a big contender for the league this season, and i think it will either them or Roma. Inter would need a big turn around i think, but maybe could do it. While Milan look a weaker outfit than last season, and are too cautious, i expected them to evolve like most teams do, but they have tried to replicate last season, and standing still is a step backwards (just look at Man U, always adapting there team a little bit). Napoli will be like spurs last season, the champions league will wipe them out.
Interesting ideas about the left, that’s a very good idea.
the problem is that Vucinic might be taking up one of our winger’s space and force our winger on that side to come inside instead of staying wide.
Thanks for covering my beloved Juve ZM with some fascinating ideas!! All of us Juventini are hoping for the best this season!
i should have made it clear,there wouldnt be a left winger,vucinic wouldplay there instead
Definitely agree that we gotta give De Ceglie more time and put Chiellini back in CB, but Barzagli has been our best defender so far this season so Bonucci would have to be dropped (further stunting hiss progression/growth as a CB)…
Your idea that you describe above is interesting, it sounds a lot like Lazio’s incredibly lopsided 4-2-3-1 (or 4-3-1-2) http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/10/16/lazio-2-1-roma-rome-derby-tactics/
The problem here now is the left back area.
Paolo De Ceglie is currently injured.
I can’t believe how they let Reto Ziegle to be loaned out.
He is gonna be a key man to solve the left back area when Juve signed him this summer.
So it should be like
—————-Matri—————
Vucinic——(Quagliarella)—-Pepe/Kransic
——Machisio——-(Vidal)———-
—————–Prilo—————–
De Cegile/Zigle–Chiel–Barzagli—-Lichtsteiner
You gotta choose one in the (*)
i want to know how to add a picture on the right space like what ZM have
I two would like to see Juve get Vidal and Qags into the game, they are great players.
A three man defense would be interesting.
I agree with you, I think Ciellini is much better at CB , especially when you look at who is in his place, Bonucci an inexperienced player. It is a waste to play somebody like Chiellini at Left-back.
And the players Juventus have suits a 4-3-3 better than a 4-4-2. But What Conte is trying to do is build the foundation first. He will probably use a 4-3-3 at times, and would be wise to, Jose Mourinho learnt early on in his managerial career that both formations should be used depending on the circumstances of the game, and the opposition you are playing against.
Juve can challenge the top – four for sure, they have as much strengths as lazio and roma, they are probably behind Inter and Milan still in terms of quality of player.
Great to see pirlo back playing with a smile on his face, great player, a legend
Why didn’t you do Barca vs Sevilla instead of this shit?
As a Barca, but first of all, a football fan, it’s surely more interesting to analyse an unorthodox system from the land of tactics than a single match if it’s not a cup final.
And Michael (ZM), it will be interesting to see if Boateng and Aquilani on for Ambrosini and Robinho at the half-time break for Milan against Lecce earlier today is a sign of a more creative rossoneri to come(especially replacing Amrosini with Aquilani); or was it just a save the match type of change (that is, if Allergeri insist on playing the diamond system, which even theoretically doesn’t make sense to begin with, because you make the pitch small by not having width, which makes retaining the ball and pressing the opposing fullbacks difficult).
trololol.
And that means…?
This means that he, ian, is trolling. Don’t take his comment seriously.
It means I consider ian a troll for referring to an analysis of Juve’s formation as “shit”, and hinting that the Barca-Sevilla game was an obviously better choice for this article. And yes, as HerbChambers wrote, you really shouldn’t bother responding to commenters like ian who don’t care about tactical analysis; instead only wanting to read of his favorite team.
Great article. A very good analysis of Conte’s Juve.
http://opitacoboleiristico.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/historico/
Citizens’ win after defeating United shows a new era in Premier League.
It is in portuguese, but it’s a great post. Read it.
I was hoping in a post on Conte’s Juve. Well done ZM!
BTW, Juve-Genoa was the least convincig Juventus performance at home this season. Before that they dominated vs. Parma (4-1), Milan (2-0) and Bologna (1-1, with ten men for the entire second half and quite a bad luck).
Conte is trying to create a team with initiative, intensity and quality. It takes time, of course, but if he manages I’d suggest anyone to follow la Vecchia Signora, especially when against not very defensive-minded sides, because they’re already playing unusually well and matches are really fun to watch. Juve-Milan 2-0 was brilliant.
Thanks for the good news…
Nice to see a reference to the great Brazil side of 1970. A myth seems to have grown, though, about the system they used. I always see it referred to as either 4-2-4 or 4-3-3. It was neither.
At the time a jounalist in World Soccer magazine, Eric Batty, pointed out that Pele was not playing up front but rather playing in a deeper role. He effectively described it in 1970 as 4-3-1-2. With Tostao playing as what we might call today a false 9. Zagallo himself as has said the system was a 4-5-1…with Jairzinho, a centre forward for his club, being the “1″ in attack in an asymetrical formation.
Thank God you did and wrote this. Since the beginning I found Conte’s formation was a 4-4-2. In addition, not much more different to United’s 4-4-2 with Young and Nani, for instance, exactly what you wrote here.
I guess we’re all a bit disappointed after what he said in pre-season, but it’s still comforting he’s trying to change Juventus negative approach so much.
Agreed, even if the formation isn’t massively different, Juve are as a club. Nice to see variety in the title challengers
Watching Juventus this season has been a breath of fresh air. Okay, they’re not playing 4-2-4, but they have been marvelously entertaining.
It’s good to have a competent Juve back in the Italian game.
Great Job! Remarkable post with great and admirable content. I will look forward to your future update.
This is not so much about Juventus but the system in question.
I’m very interested in the 4-2-4 as a shape and have been since seeing Reading’s march to promotion under Steve Coppell. I remember seeing them in the flesh a few times and noting how they played at times with a front 4. Looking back it was a pretty decent outfit. The back four was primarily solid in its function – Murty and Shorey did occasionally overlap but more frequently they’d support from the half-way line or just inside the opposition half, acting as deep, wide-ish playmakers at times.
The wingers were key; Little or Oster on the right, and Convey or Long on the left. The way they pushed back full-backs and attacked with vigour meant that they were often level with or ahead of the strike partnership (two of Doyle, Lita and Kitson). They were fucking rampant in attack, scoring buckets of goals and I’m fairly sure they got a record points total that season, and it’s one of the rare occasions that a manager has created a team very much in his own image (given his successes as a winger for Man Utd, England etc).
The main issue of a 4-2-4 as you point out is the dearth of personnel in central midfield, and the Pirlo/Marchisio fulcrum is only able to cope with this (in my opinion) because Pirlo really is absolute exceptional, a player of a generation. Reading dealt with it by employing two midfielders who were pure all-rounders. Sidwell and Harper were both box-to-box but could tackle, pass, shoot and arrive late in the box – a key attribute when employing such effective widemen.
If you base the formation on the fact that 4-5 men will always be available for defensive phases (the back 4 plus one of the midfield duo that elects to stay while the other marauds forward), it can deal with most counter-attacking threats with ease, whilst leaving plenty for attack, and spreading the pitch really wide by using authentic wingers.
Anyway, enough rambling, but in an age of more tactical nuance, I think that it’s unlikely to ever see a 4-2-4 in it’s purest sense, again. There is, however, little difference between the 4-2-4 and the formation used by Man Utd or Crystal Palace ie a 4-4-2 with pressing that can also appear to be a 4-2-2-2 or if one of the forwards is prone to dropping deep, then a 4-2-3-1.
I don’t see why this is so new
4 at the back, 2 strikers and 2 withdrawn wingers?
Ron Greenwood, Ron Atkinson, Bobby Robson all used it
It’s as English as Steak and Kidney pud
Please point where anyone said it was ‘new’