Nachrichten

Roko Škrabić, a.k.a. “TheMightyGorgon”, is the Chief Editor of Chelsea Croatia, home of the official Chelsea FC supporters group for Croatia, where a version of this article originally appeared. He’s been kind enough to translate and expand on it for us. Be sure to give them a follow on Twitter.

*All images were created with buildlineup.com

---

Ever since Enzo Maresca has become official, in the vastness of internet across its multiple platforms we’ve been able to read (and watch) dozens, if not hundreds of keen tactical analyses with predictions of how the Chelsea team will set up under him. That is usual in the string of events following an arrival of a new coach to a big club such as ours, a string littered with usual mistakes and popular misconceptions. Even if we disregard perhaps the biggest issue, the fact Maresca has only got a solitary season of football as a head coach of a senior team, making the sample rather small and subsequent predictions likely imprecise – the gravest mistake in my opinion is the following, and it is something we see with every new coach anywhere. Spoiler alert, it included phrases such as ‘Ndidi role’ and ‘Pereira role’.

Do you remember last year when Pochettino was arriving and people were trying to find players in our team who would fit into the ‘Eriksen role’ and the ‘Dier role’? If you’re unfamiliar, Poch spent a big part of his Spurs tenure playing something like this:

So to achieve the (nowadays and those days’) standard 5-5 split with a 3-2 defence, while empowering his marauding full backs to push high up (which Poch has always been a fan of and was fashionable at the time), he’d drop Dier from defensive midfield in between the center backs, while Eriksen dropped from the nominal right wing deeper into the midfield serving as sort of a deep lying playmaker (DLP). This time last year there were numerous predictions of our team that meant to replicate this, I’ve even seen one which shoehorned Ziyech and Chalobah into the first team to play the ‘Eriksen and Dier roles’.

A similar scenario followed in 2016. when Conte arrived. Virtually everyone was convinced the ‘Pirlo role’ was to be played by Fàbregas. Because, if Conte (successfully) used Pirlo as the DLP in a 3-5-2 in both of his previous jobs (Juventus and Italy), then he was surely gonna play the same at Chelsea, right?

Of course, neither Pochettino nor Conte ever played anything like that at Chelsea. Poch usually achieved the 3-2 defence by sending a full back forward to join the attacking 5, while keeping the other one behind*, which is one of the reasons why Colwill played a large chunk of the season as a nominal left back. Conte, on the other hand, completely discarded the DLP role, played (the legendary) 3-4-3 and only used Fàbregas as a sub – and not even then as the DLP.

*Only at the very end he ‘remembered’ to invert Cucurella

In short, it is a frequent misconception that if a coach has once (successfully) played in one particular way, he will try to copy it ‘word by word’ in his next club. This ignores an important notion that great coaches do not go to absolute extremes to fit the team into their alleged systems, but tweak and adapt the system according to the squads at their disposal. Of course, the style of football and the basics of their philosophies will remain unchanged, but those ‘basics’ do not include specific roles of specific players. Rarely do coaches copy every single tactical detail from their previous team.

Even the most stubborn football minds such as our own(?) Maurizio Sarri have, with time, changed and tweaked their systems. The great conductor of modern football, the likewise notoriously stubborn Pep Guardiola, has evolved the way he sets up his teams multiple times across the last decade and a half, even though his underlying playstyle has remained practically the same. His student, and our new coach, Enzo Maresca is considered a proper ‘nerd’ for football, reportedly having a folder on his laptop containing interesting coaches, teams and tactical trends that ought to be studied and perhaps one day used... Doesn’t sound like a guy who won’t ever change anything, right?

... Well, unfortunately, because of multiple situations in his season with Leicester which we don’t have time to recount, he’s already considered one of the most headstrong coaches of today. Hopefully that is due to said ‘small sample’ and will prove otherwise at Stamford Bridge... Or maybe he is indeed married to the set up he used at Leicester and will aim to fully replicate it at Cobham? THAT is the topic of this article – will Maresca continue with his notoriously unchangeable Plan A, or will he adapt the set up to something very similar (Plan B), but probably more suitable to his Chelsea squad?

Some of the basics of his philosophy that we can be certain he won’t change is the formation in possession - We will play the 3-2-2-3/3-2-4-1/3-box-3. This is the most prevalent set up in modern football and also how City and Arsenal play, the two dominant teams in the Premier League, which also play the same style of football as Maresca, due to obvious reasons. The question is – how will we get to that from the starting 4-2-3-1/4-3-3* formation without the ball?

*We can also be pretty certain we won’t play 5 at the back, if anyone’s wondering.

***

Plan A – inverted full back

This was the main tactical idea behind Maresca’s Leicester, and this is where we arrive at the Eriksens and Diers of this summer – in this case Ndidi, Winks and Pereira. So, what’s the deal? – Foxes started in a 4-3-3 without the ball, while in possession the RB Pereira inverted into the middle, forming a double pivot with the DLP Winks. That allowed both 8s (actually 10s) to push up into the half spaces, including the left sided Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall who we’ve just brought in, and the right sided Ndidi. The latter part was quite unorthodox since Ndidi had so far in his career been your typical defensive midfielder.

If anything about a lightweight playmaker at CDM and a destructive midfielder playing ahead of him at 8 sounds eerily familiar... that’s because it should. That is how the aforementioned coaches used to play. It must be an Italian thing! Conte, as already mentioned, didn’t replicate this at Chelsea, but Sarri did – in his team Jorginho was always the CDM/DLP, while Kante, to many people’s beffudelment, was always an 8. Maresca, it should be noted, does it a little different with a modern twist – by inverting a full back he provides his ‘light’ DLP with some very welcome aid.

This exact move would look something like this at Chelsea:

Out of possession (could be a 4-3-3 too, but that is unimportant)

*Notes about the players shown in these graphics – I will be 1) putting Guiu at the back up striker until/unless we buy another one; 2) Ignoring Gallagher and Chalobah since they’re still likely to leave; 3) Not putting Disasi since I think he fits Maresca the least of our right sided CBs; 4) And I will be rather optimistic about Fofana and his fitness, projecting him as the first choice.

*Of course, there are further options to invert the LB + send Caicedo forward instead of Enzo and vice versa, but there’s no point in showing all 4. Note this for all further images!

Due to already described tendencies upon the arrival of a new coach, the internet is currently convinced Enzo will play the ‘Winks role’, Caicedo the ‘Ndidi role’ and James (or Cucurella) the ‘Pereira role’. Indeed, in our team those 3(4) would be the most fitting players for those exact roles. Perhaps they actually will play in those roles, if Maresca does replicate everything like Sarri did. But... Should he? Is it necessary for players such as James, Enzo and Caicedo to try and replicate what some lesser players did in a lesser team and a lesser league, with all due respect to the Foxes? Perhaps they fit those roles, but do those roles fit them? Those are just some of the question the coach needs to find the answer to, and it all boils down to – Is it better for the team that they play in those roles, or not?

Therefore, let’s try to analyze the pros and cons of such a system (and every other later discussed in this piece) in regards to our team, to help us answer those questions for Maresca.

PROS

• Wide positions are held by true wingers. That is the difference compared to, for example, Tuchel’s or Conte’s 3-4-3 where the teams had the equal 3-2-4-1 structure in possession, but the width was held by full backs. Compare that to, for example, recent set ups by Pep or Arteta whose teams have had wide positions held by the likes of Doku and Silva or Martinelli and Saka, true dribbling wingers. As good as fit Chilwell and James were in those roles, they do not have the 1v1 skills, simply because they’re not wingers. Without players of such characteristics out wide, it is no wonder Tuchel’s Chelsea became ever so stale, while on the other hand City and Arsenal remained/became attacking machines. Simply, in this day and age, wide wingers are the meta, and our coach certainly intends to follow it.
• Midfield control and/or isolated wingers. So, not only are the wingers exactly where they want to be, but in this system they’re also oftentimes isolated 1v1 out wide vs the opposition full back – which is the dream for any dribbler (Madueke could truly blossom in this system, and it’s far from bad for Mudrik and Sterling either). That is achieved by congesting the middle with as many players as possible (usually 4, sometimes 5 when both full backs invert) in order to control it with numbers and therefore possession. At the same time it means that our full backs, which are supposed to be marked by the opponent wingers, are positioned quite far away from our wingers, leaving the opponent with a tough dilemma; either let us outnumber them in the middle and control the game, or instruct the wingers to follow our full backs inside to fight for possession, leaving their full backs isolated out wide against our wingers. A very effective strategy!
• Attacking role for the midfielders. The striker and the wingers are joined up by both 8s in the attacking five. The 8s position themselves in the left and right half spaces (LHS/RHS), also known as the most dangerous positions outside of the box. This explains how and why Pep has been able to play players such as De Bruyne, Alvarez, (Bernardo or David) Silva etc. as nominal CMs/8s – Because they actually play like two 10s! That would very much suit many of our players; Nkunku, Palmer, Chukwuemeka, Santos, Gallagher (if he stays), Dewsbury-Hall...
• The inverted FB role fits at least some of our full backs. Concretely, Cucurella could (and should?) continue playing in the position he was arguably made for*. The newly bought Renato Veiga is originally a defensive midfielder who has, in his short career, been ‘outverted’ (ha-ha) to LB and even LCB. In other words, he has clearly been bought exactly for this, which is a big clue that Maresca at the very least wants an option to invert from the left side, and it might easily be the only side he wants to invert from. Apart from them, James would also be an excellent inverted FB, but he might prefer some other roles... More on that in ‘cons’.

*If he’s starting, and it looks like he will be, I’d definitely prefer him as the inverted FB than the one who stays behind as a part of the back 3.

CONS

• Our 220 million pound pivot partnership gets broken up. Brought in as the ideal long term tandem, in this system one of Enzo and Caicedo will have to abandon the tandem and become an attacking midfielder. Most believe it will be Caicedo (as the Ndidi counterpart), with Enzo remaining as the DLP (like Winks). In all of that, the only good thing I see is Enzo as the DLP since I’ve always thought that is his best position/role. However, his goal threat is highly underrated (a reputation aided by Enzo himself with his bad shooting form of last season) and I do think he should sometimes be allowed to make those late runs by which he’s been scoring a fair amount of goals in his career (mostly in other shirts).
• With Caicedo as the attacking midfielder, however, I see nothing positive. Unlike Ndidi, he’s very press resistent and has on the ball quality worthy of a DLP, so there’s no upside in removing him from there. After all, along with his destructive capabilities (and particularly the rare combination of talents), those qualities are the reason he cost an arm and a leg. Furthermore, removing said destructive abilities away from the defensive five (and instead leaving Enzo of all people there!) is another huge no-no in my mind.
• All in all, if one of them needs to be pushed forward, I’d definitely it rather be Enzo, but with a caveat that he drops deep to help with the build up and only pushes up in the later stages of the attack, instructed to make those late runs in the box... But that still doesn’t sound ideal.
• James and Gusto (and Chilwell) waste their offensive capabilities. I repeat, James would be an excellent inverted full back. Truly, an ideal player for that role. However, he’s got some other outstanding qualities he simply wouldn’t use if he’s inverted. Firstly, 1v1 vs opposition wingers he’s a cheatcode. Luckily, in this system he could use that, but only if the opposite full back is inverted (Cucurella). Secondly, he’s extremely dangerous in attack, while in this system (whether inverted or not) he will rarely have the opportunity to get high enough to overlap and cross or shoot that trademark shot of his diagonally from the edge of the box...
  It’s a similar story for Gusto, while for him we don’t even know if he would fit into the inverted FB role, even though we suspect he would owing to his very good on the ball qualities. Those qualities, however, are something our vice-captain Ben Chilwell lacks, which is the reason many have already written him off with Maresca’s arrival. When fit (which is a huge ‘if’, to be fair), he is (or was?) an excellent attacking full back, but there’s no such thing in this ‘Plan A’ of Maresca.
  All in all, what’s the point in having this type of full backs and never playing to their strengths? Hopefully the non-inverted full back will at least get the occasional opportunity to push up and overlap when we decide to attack with 6 players in a 4-6 split... (If they do, that will be a further reason why I strongly think we should rather invert the left side!)
• Our dream box can’t happen. Imagine a double pivot of Enzo-Caicedo with Nkunku and Palmer in front of them in the LHS and RHS respectively... Mouthwatering! Those are the exact ideal positions for all 4, and it should be noted, those 4 are easily our best players (I’d say TOP 5 along with James). In this system, at least one of Nkunku/Palmer will have to play elsewhere (up front in Nkunku’s case and out wide in Palmer’s), while one of Enzo/Caicedo, as previously established, will play in the wrong place in the ‘box’...
• Our wingers are not our strongest assets. Truthfully, neither of Sterling, Mudrik or Madueke are among our best players, and this system is suited primarily to them. Perhaps if we get a new left winger as is reportedly our plan*, and perhaps if we wait a few years until Estevao Willian arrives and matures into a great PL player, then maybe it would make sense to build our team around the wingers, but currently that is not the case... Which cannot be said about the aforementioned ‘dream box’!

*For a moment let’s discuss the potential knock on effects of actually acquiring a good left winger. Unless Mudryk is loaned out, which is unlikely, Sterling would be moved to the right side, moving Palmer to his ideal no. 10 spot (and RHS in possession) and consqeuently moving Nkunku up forward to compete with Jackson as a potential false 9** (would be easier than compete with Palmer at 10). Meaning, unless we have unexpected departures (Sterling, Mudryk or maybe Madueke?), we don’t really need another LW and another ST, but rather ‘either/or’. In this image I put Nico Williams as the dream LW target, even though the chances of us getting him are slim to none now...

**It’s possible that (Palmer 10, Nkunku 9) is the plan regardless of future incomings, but we have a lack of wingers to pull it off so I suspect Palmer is currently projected as the RW, sliding Nkunku into his preferred no. 10 position. Obviously, if Olise was signed, that would not be the case.

***

Plan B – non-inverted full back

It’s fascinating how one simple change can overrule almost all the discussed cons of the new coach’s system. Just don’t invert a full back! Rather push one forward into the attacking five (like Poch did*), move that side’s winger into the half space and keep our midfield pivot intact, with the other FB staying behind in a back 3.

*I can imagine your surprise at me praising a tactical move by Poch, haha!

Here are the main options:

*Madueke doesn’t really have place in this set up.

Pros are pretty much the opposite of the Plan A cons. We maintain the Enzo-Caicedo pivot. We achieve the dream box and build the team around it. We play only one true winger* since that’s not our strongest area anyway. We use the attacking prowess of James and Gusto, or alternatively, Chilwell.

*Maresca will consider that a con... and he might be in the right there.

The latter solution (with Chilwell pushed high) is interesting. On one hand it results with James/Gusto staying behind, which is not great, but on the other hand it allows us to play Nkunku at the (nominal) LW* out of possession, meaning not only he still gets to play in his favored position in possession, LHS (left sided 10), but this would also rid us of perhaps our weakest position, LW (Mudryk would compete with Nkunku for LHS, while Sterling would be moved to RW).

*Nkunku is NOT a wide winger. His position in Maresca’s system will either be the left 10 or false 9.

Apart from pushing the wrong side forward (*sad James/Gusto noises*), the biggest cons would be reliance on Chilwell’s fitness and return to form, his back up Cucurella’s inability to perform such an advanced role (that Euros final assist would disagree, eh?) and also the arrival of Veiga who’s not that kind of a player either.

Verdict: We’re probably not doing this, folks*.

*Get me an Alphonso Davies and we’d be talking. (Not happening, obviously.)

If we’re pushing the other side forward, I’d mostly be worried about Cucurella being a part of a back 3 in possession*. Also, Madueke would completely lose his place in the team and we’d be stuck playing with the worse side of wingers (on the right we can at least use Palmer).

Verdict: This one is more likely.

*Get me a Calafiori and we’d be talking. (Also not happening, unfortunately.)

***

Even though it fixes a lot of problems and is probably the better fit for our team, Plan B is unlikely to be used by Maresca. The guy literally said he doesn’t like regular full backs...

... So what do we do? We have a Plan A that doesn’t really suit our team and a Plan B that doesn’t suit our coach. Is there a way we could meet him in the middle? Is there a Plan C? Plan D? Plan E?

Let’s try and create some in between solutions, aiming to satisfy the core determinants of Maresca’s philosophy, while also adapting to our squad’s needs. Spoiler - It’s not easy, and no solution is perfect.

***

Plan C - The Tinkerman Solution

One might ask, why wouldn’t we simply use both of those set ups? One game we could play with an inverted LB and Caicedo advancing into the attacking five. The next game we could invert the RB and push Enzo up. Some other time we could push a FB forward without inverting him. The world’s our playground! The chosen set up would depend on the opposition, availability of the players and their form. Sounds reasonable enough, even smart.

However, apart from the fact Maresca is reportedly not the type to ever tinker to this extreme*, there are other problems. Firstly, it would greatly prolong the adaptation period to the new style of play, not having a set strategy, but needing to also learn and gel in all the possible combinations mentioned. Furthermore, in game rotations would be rather difficult, considering not many of our players are ‘swiss army knives’ and are unable to switch into a completely different role if the change happens.

*Many Leicester fans are on the record stating Maresca never ever changes his chosen set up.

Verdict – Sounds cool, but we can probably cross it off.

***

Plan D - The Semi-Postecoglou Solution

In the world of tactical trends*, what is a postecoglou? You might not know, but I can assure you Maresca’s folder does. Since there’s no way I’m drawing another Spurs line up, try and use your visualization skills on this one. Anyway, what Postecoglou’s Spurs do is invert (both) full backs, but not into defensive midfield, but attacking. His trio of midfielders drop deep to form a 2-3 with the CBs, while his FBs (usually Udogie and Porro) push high up and inside into the half spaces, leaving wingers out wide (as positional coaches nowadays tend to do).

*Hardly a trend, though, since I haven’t yet heard about anyone anywhere copying it!

So, what would be a „semi-postecoglou“ (I’m definitely taking credit for this if it catches on*)? - Inverting ONE full back into the half space and leaving the other one behind to form a 3. Let’s see how that would look:

*It won’t, I know.

What we would gain by this is the ‘survival’ of the Enzo-Caicedo pivot, while the wingers remain wide where Maresca wants them. If we compare this to his original Plan A, I’d rather have James/Gusto in RHS than Caicedo, especially since that means Caicedo remains behind in the pivot where he belongs and where his qualities shine. I actually think both James and Gusto would relish this role, thanks to their technical ability. Might be less ideal for them than playing wide, but with Maresca that ship has probably sailed anyway, while playing in the RHS they will at least be closer to the RW for potential in play rotation and/or overlap, than they’d be in any version of Plan A.

The cons are obvious, but not grave: If we’re pushing the RB* forward... we’d rather just push him wide, right? Also, we’d not have James up against opposition wingers, and Cucurella would be a part of the back 3**.

*None of our LBs can do the ‘postecoglou inversion’ so there’s no point in discussing it.

**Let me explain this before any of you grill me. Our boy Cucu is in a great run of form for club and country, bless him, but as a full back he is dangerously prone to rushing out into nothing, not getting the ball and leaving acres of space behind him for opponents. He does it on average 2 times per match, resulting in an unacceptable number of opportunities (and goals) conceded through his side. If he’s inverted into midfield, at least there’s someone to cover him behind when he does this, making him protected and thus enabled to do what he likes, while he’s also a useful cog in a midfield pivot.

Verdict – We might be onto something here. One thing I know is, if we have to invert a full back, I’d much prefer we do so in front of our pivot a la Postecoglou, rather than behind it (Plan A) with all the downsides of that move.

***

Plan E - The Extreme Solution

As the title says, this one is a bit of a wildcard. So, we want to maintain the Enzo-Caicedo pivot in possession, but still invert a full back? Well, then one of them (definitely not Enzo, though) could be the full back out of possesion!

As crazy as it might seem, it’s somewhat of a trend these days to play a midfielder at full back (usually on the left due to the worldwide lack of good LBs) and then invert him into the middle in possession. Whereas it would make more sense if Caicedo was the RB (he even played it occasionally at Brighton), we’re way too strong at RB to remove that position... LB might be another thing entirely, depending on how much you rate this Cucurella rebirth and how raw Veiga arrives.

Pros include having the ideal pivot and the dream box, while also being able to field the most attacking line up possible, such that even Pep might consider an overkill. Cons are closely related to the latter, the line up does seem ‘a tad’ too attacking and we’d even lack in numbers up front (at least a winger needed once again). Also, James/Gusto would still be tied to the defence, but most importantly, our best midfield ball winner (if we’re counting Galladog as gone) would be removed from it out of possession, leaving only Enzo there and a pair of attacking midfielders...

Verdict – Fun, but very unlikely.

***

Plan F – The Cruyffian Solution

Johan Cruyff’s iconic formation was the now obsolete and long time not seen 3-diamond-3. Which means its grand return might just be around the corner*! Upon closer shorter inspection, it is rather similar to the now prevalent 3-box-3... The difference is purely in the tilt of the square (actually quadrangle) in the middle. And my oh my, how that little tilt does a world of difference for our squad!

*No joke, that is how things work in football and any game with strategy... Meta often changes in a cyclical way.

Check it out:

*We’re talking in possession only, if that needed to be repeated. Out of possession it’s still a 4-2-3-1.

Same as in Plan A, there are 4 combinations of how we’d get to that midfield diamond, depending on whether we’re inverting (I still call that ‘inverting’ even though it’s a bit different now) the LB or the RB, and also whether Enzo or Caicedo are chosen to stay in the CDM role.

I don’t particularly mind either of those 4 combinations, but I’d personally pick the one in the first image (Enzo and James as 8s in the diamond). I feel like this set up would give us extraordinary flexibility since both of those players are of the kind which we sometimes want to drop deeper and sometimes want to push forward to join the attack – and from this position they could do both, depending on the situation.

For example, when the opponents are heavily marking Caicedo, Enzo can drop next to him and form a de zerbian narrow double pivot in build up (a modern tactical trend) to help him out, with James doing a postecoglou. When the opponents are going into hard pressing mode, the 3-3 defensive set up can provide us with a natural 6-4 split to outnumber and beat their press (borrowing another trick from Maresca’s old AC Milan pal De Zerbi). Conversely, when the opponents park the bus and we feel ‘lucky’, we can attack in a riskier 4-6 split by simply advancing both 8s into half spaces, with James/Gusto looking for a possible overlap as well. So many interesting possibilities!

Of course, a typical 5-5 split would still be possible (in fact it would remain the standard), we’d just alternate which 8 joins the attacking 5 depending on the position of the ball, the game state etc. Think of this set up as a 4-2-4 split with 4 defensive players, 4 attacking and 2 in between. The 4 players up front would often play in a straight-ish line with wingers as wide as possible and Jackson who likes to drop deep. Nkunku would adore that kind of a switching dynamic with a striker, in a true SS spirit*. This might be the single best position/role we could conjure up for him.

*If that sounded wrong to you, you’re a nerd.

As good as it sounds, this solution like all others is not without flaws either. Firstly, at risk of becoming annoying (as if that hasn’t already happened), Cucurella would be in the back 3. Secondly and more importantly, there’s probably a reason why no one today tilts the box into a diamond, as minor as that sounds. Not only are the double pivots in fashion, but a diamond doesn’t use the already mentioned most dangerous parts of the pitch (outside of the box) – the half spaces, whereas the box does. A diamond only has 1 player in the pivot, 1 in between the opposition lines, and 2 players probably a bit confused as to where they should go. By all means, if Maresca removes the confusion by creating a solution that is beyond me right now, this might just be the best option we have... Until then, it’s all just a theory.

CONCLUSION

I believe this is a comperehensive list of all realistic (and some unrealistic) ways Maresca could field this Chelsea team. Considering he’s supposedly a coach who picks one set up and ‘never’ changes, we can safely say one of these images depicts what our team will consistently look like next season.

Personally, I’d take any of the plans above his Plan A at Leicester. Even the ‘Extreme’ one. For the reasons explained in the ‘cons’ section, I just don’t see Plan A as even remotely fitting to our team. Consequently, my confidence in the new coach will be pretty shaken if that is what he chooses to do. I do hope I’m in the wrong there...

If I were to rank all the possible inversions in order of suitability for our team (and the inverted players themselves), here it is:

1. RB _postecoglou_ inversion OR into the diamond (good)
2. LB normal inversion OR into the diamond (could be good)
3. RB normal inversion (we shouldn’t do this)
4. LB _postecoglou_ inversion (we definitely shouldn’t do this)

Even if Maresca reaches the same conclusion as me and moves away from Plan A, we can probably cross off Plan B (he doesn’t like advanced full backs), Plan C (not a ‘tinkerman’) and Plan E (too extreme). That leaves us with Plan D i F. The preseason matches are coming soon, so look for Postecoglou inversions and midfield diamonds*! If there’s none of that, well, we might be in for a(nother) rough ride...

*I gotta admit, the little ‘tactico’ in me has a massive crush on this option.

Hopefully with Maresca we’re getting more of adaptive tactical genius a la Conte and less of dogmatic stubborness a la Sarri... We will know shortly.