Who is Antonio Conte Really?

Explaining why Milan should not consider hiring the Italian icon next summer

Last December I made an article going through nearly every manager who I thought had at least a chance of being hired to replace Stefano Pioli at Milan next summer, and one of the names I brought up was Antonio Conte. When I wrote that “Antonio Conte’s name will inevitably be linked to Milan to some extent at some point”, I did not imagine it would go down like this. Purely based on what’s coming from the media, he currently seems like the strong to become Milan’s next manager next season. It is by all means worth adding that the most reliable sources have not given off the same impression, and that it’s likely still highly undetermined who Milan will appoint next summer; it’s doubtful the management even has a clear favorite, let alone that they’ve made a definitive decision. Nonetheless, due to how hot the Conte-Milan topic is at the moment, I’d like to explain — in greater detail — why Milan should not even consider hiring the coveted manager next summer.

A “Serial Winner”?
A while ago — last year I think — I had someone tell me that Antonio Conte is the most overrated manager of all time. I know, deeming players “underrated” or especially “overrated” is problematic and can make for very dull discussions, but in this particular case I was taken aback for one reason. The superlative usage of the term in this case implies that there is more thought behind the notion than when someone is usually called “overrated”. I did not quite understand the angle back then, but today I would say I do — which is not to say that I agree with the aforementioned notion.

Antonio Conte is regarded as one of the great managers of this generation, one of the great Italian managers of all time, and even as a top coach today, but is he really? What has he accomplished to reach this status? I certainly think that his highly successful career as a player, primarily for Juventus and the Italian national team, amplifies his status as a manager, as does his personality. I have a similar theory on how José Mourinho’s status as one of the all-time great managers is largely a result of people resonating with what I would instead call his “persona”, and while I would like to write about this at some point, this is not the right time. The point is, Conte is portrayed by a certain image and aesthetic which derives from his player career. Back in 2018, he famously declared himself a “serial winner”, and the quote “my past speaks very clear as a player and as a manager” from the same interview is also very telling as for how Conte is regarded. In Italy, there is one simple word for it: “campione”. In his player career he would ultimately go down as one of the great “grinta” players of all time; similarly also as a mentally strong leader figure, and as a “serial winner”, winning five scudetti, one Champions League, one Coppa Italia, and one UEFA Cup with Juventus. These characteristics of his player career would perpetuate Conte’s reputation as his managerial career took shape, and my point is that I think this image of Conte is heavily distorted, in a way that heavily favors him. In my eyes, this distorted image of Conte is a substantial reason why he’s such a popular candidate for the Milan job from a fan perspective. To see why this image is distorted and misleading, we will have to run through Conte’s managerial career, although leaving out some details along the way — the article can only be so long.

Arezzo, Bari, Atalanta & Siena (2006–2011)
Antonio Conte began his managerial career by taking on some challenging jobs of significantly lower prestige than those we know him for today. His first job as a head coach was with Arezzo in the 2006–07 season, and here I just think it’s funny to note that he was initially sacked, thereby replaced by none other than Maurizio Sarri, who was then sacked himself in the same season, and his replacement? Antonio Conte. Arezzo were relegated to Serie C, and given what Conte and Sarri went on to do after this season, as well as the fact that most of the people reading this likely know nothing about Arezzo today, I wouldn’t hold this season against either of them. Conte’s next gig was with Bari, and here I do think it’s worth going on a little history lesson on Antonio Conte and Italy as a country.

Especially historically — but to an extent even today — there has been a significant divide between the north of Italy and the south of Italy. The origin of this is undeniably economic, but this has perpetuated a cultural divide that is probably of greater significance; a divide fueled by hate and resentment. As perhaps best exemplified by the Neapolitan people, people in the south of Italy tend to feel an increased pride for the south, their city, and their culture due to this conflict, and in the case of Naples this pride famously translates to the Neapolitan people’s relationship with the city’s football club. On the other hand, despite the fact that Juventus is very much a symbol of the north — owned by the Agnelli family since 1923 & largely the richest and most successful club in Italy throughout its history — Juventus is by far the most supported club in southern Italy, and it has been that way for decades. In fact, the club has a more prominent fanbase in southern Italy than in any other region. Antonio Conte is no different. He was born and raised in Lecce, one of the major cities in the southern region of Apulia — “the heel of the boot” — but he was also born and raised juventino. As a player he would come up through Lecce’s academy, and he would even make a name for himself in the first team, which ultimately led to his dream move to Juventus in 1991. This move was not enough to make him a hated figure in Lecce, but his decision to passionately celebrate when he scored against Lecce in 1997, was. A decade later, Conte’s decision to take over Bari in 2007 was the final nail in the coffin for his legacy in Lecce, as Bari are fierce regional rivals of Lecce’s. Why does this matter? Well, again, Conte was Juventus through and through, but he had no problem taking over as manager of their biggest rivals, Inter, in 2019. In fact, he would win the scudetto with them in 2020–21, and of course this article is centered around his potential move to Milan, also fierce rivals of Juventus. The point here is that Conte has repeatedly proven to be a professional above all, which is not just to say that he is willing to take on a job that might have sensitive implications, but also that he’s willing to commit to it and do his very best. That is to say: if Milan want Conte, and they can find an agreement on financial and technical matters, Conte will be the next manager of Milan; it is largely in Milan’s hands.

Anyway, sure enough Conte’s stint with Bari was a lot more successful than his stint with Arezzo, as he improved their results in his first season, and helped them gain automatic promotion to Serie A — ending a six-year absence from the top division for the club — the following season. Then, his first job with a Serie A club would be one he’d rather forget. His managerial stint with Atalanta was plagued by poor results and a hostile relationship with the club’s ultras, which ultimately led to his resignation in the middle of the season, as the club was sitting in the relegation zone. The following season he would take a step back down to Serie B by taking over Siena, and sure enough it would end in another success as he led them to promotion to the Italian top flight, although he finished second in the league behind… Atalanta.

This era of Antonio Conte as a manager is often forgotten, and I don’t blame people for that, but I think it’s important to remember, because over the following decade he would establish himself as the probably world’s best floor-raiser, in which he’d exclusively take over clubs/teams that weren’t particularly satisfied with their position, and he would subsequently raise their level significantly in the short-term, without fail. But does he really give you that guarantee? Based on his early managerial years, the answer is no, and this might be important to consider further ahead in this article.

Return to Juventus (2011–2014)
Conte’s managerial career really becomes interesting once he takes over his beloved Juventus in 2011. The club had previously been struggling significantly following the Calciopoli scandal in 2006, and despite the fact that it immediately gained back promotion to Serie A in 2007, Juventus struggled to regain their position at the top upon its return to the Italian top division. In 2007–08, the club finished third (although 13 points behind first-placed Inter), second in 2008–09 (10 points behind first-placed Inter), seventh in 2009–10 (a whooole lotta points behind treble winners Inter), and finally also seventh in 2010–11 (use your imagination). Conte would take over the following season, and would go unbeaten in the Serie A en route to the club’s first scudetto in nine years. The following season, he would lead Juventus to another scudetto, and in his third season he would set a record for the most points won by a team in a Serie A season, with 102.

This was undoubtedly a great achievement, but I think we can question how great of an achievement this was, especially with some of Conte’s other shortcomings, and with how this achievement may apply to today. First of all, it is important to understand the context of Italian football in this era. The Serie A underwent a particularly difficult period during the 2010’s, which certainly had deeper roots, but it didn’t truly begin until 2010–11 — the season following Inter’s treble, which was José Mourinho’s final season at the club. The league didn’t immediately plummet in quality over night, but Inter would start on a slow and steady descent in 2010–11, and the scudetto would be won by Milan, led by none other than Massimiliano Allegri. Allegri ended up being even more successful as Juventus’ manager later on in the decade, but since his return to the club in 2021 he has struggled significantly in the contemporary landscape of football; globally and domestically. Allegri’s Milan would be the main competition for Conte’s Juve in the latter’s first season with the club of his heart, and Conte would just win the battle. Also, if you think I’m not going to make some sort of reference to a certain disallowed goal, you are crazy. Anyway, this was impressive, but by today’s standards I think most would agree Allegri isn’t the best manager (of course could be debated, but hey, another day), and that is not all. Conte did help Juventus significantly, but his scudetto was no miracle. One of the main reasons why Milan — just like Inter — would end up suffering throughout the majority of the 2010’s was their lack of competent administrators and executives. Milan had deep-rooted financial issues which derived from the 2010’s, but so did Juventus, and it was the appointment of the now-legendary Beppe Marotta that helped Juventus not solely overcome these financial issues, but also strengthen the team in the process.

Marotta was appointed as the CEO and GM of Juventus in 2010, following six successful years at Sampdoria, and even in his first season at the club he would lay some of the foundations for Conte’s success at Juventus over the coming years. Marotta was not flawless, as his first managerial appointment was Luigi Delneri, who had achieved tremendous success together with Marotta at Sampdoria the season prior, and previously also with ChievoVerona, but who was ultimately sacked after just one season at the club. Marotta also made some dull, forgettable signings in his first season with the club, but more notably he signed Leonardo Bonucci, Andrea Barzagli, Alessandro Matri, Fabio Quagliarella and Simone Pepe. In Conte’s first season at the club, his squad would be reinforced further, with huge signings such as Andrea Pirlo, Arturo Vidal, Stephan Lichtsteiner, and Mirko Vučinić. This is to say, the “floor-raising” of Juventus in the early 2010’s was not necessarily actually caused by Antonio Conte, but rather their rise throughout the decade was orchestrated by Beppe Marotta, although Conte also played a crucial part in it. Based on how Juventus developed following Conte’s departure, it was certainly not Conte’s player development and tactical excellence which made Marotta’s recruitment look good, but rather Conte who benefited from Marotta’s recruitment (not to imply that Conte didn’t help). When you also consider the state of the Serie A at the time and how Juventus fared in other competitions, Conte’s managerial stint at Juventus no longer feels like some quintessential achievement. It is worth adding that Juventus’ lack of participation in any European competitions helped them win the scudetto in 2011–12, and as a matter of fact there is a clear trend of Conte benefiting from seasons in which his team has not had to play in Europe, or in which his team has crashed out of European competitions early on. Not only did Antonio Conte fail to win the Coppa Italia with Juventus, but he also performed terribly in European competitions. Since 2012–13, a Conte-managed team has only made it out of the group stages of the Champions League twice. In the knockout stages that season, Juventus would beat Celtic in the round of 16, before crashing out to Bayern München in the quarter-finals, losing 4–0 on aggregate. The following season would be even worse, as Juve’s historic domestic dominance was contrasted by their awful performances in European competitions. They finished third in their Champions League group, which consisted of eventual champions Real Madrid, Galatasaray, and FC København, but this was not the end of that story. The team would also crash out of the Europa League, losing to Benfica in the semi-finals. Again, when you apply all this context, I think Conte’s managerial stint at Juventus appears increasingly ordinary, and his case as a top manager today weakens.

Italy 2014–2016
International football is really a different sport from club football, and that is part of the reason why I don’t think Conte’s stint with the Italian national team is too significant. However, some clear trends have appeared throughout Conte’s managerial career, and some of these apply to this stint. Most notably, I would say Conte did succeed in raising the floor of this team. At Euro 2016, Italy’s national team was in terrible shape, as was evidenced by their lineups. Among the players who started a game that tournament were Éder (no, definitely not that one), Emanuele Giaccherini, Marco Parolo, Graziano Pellè, a 21-year old Federico Bernardeschi, Angelo Ogbonna, Simone Zaza, Stefano Sturaro, Mattia De Sciglio, an aging Daniele De Rossi, and an aging Thiago Motta. Despite this, Conte led Italy to the quarter-finals, where they were ultimately unlucky to Germany on penalties; in my opinion the strongest team of that tournament. On the other hand, a more negative trend which would continue here was Conte’s tendency to not keep a job after more than two years.

Chelsea (2016–2018)
I think Antonio Conte’s stint at Chelsea is arguably the most important one of his career, not only for his legacy, but also for us to understand who he is. Chelsea were coming off an unprecedented season of crisis when Antonio Conte was appointed, and we know the story: Chelsea started off poorly, Conte subsequently changed the formation, and Chelsea cruised to a league title. To this day, Pep Guardiola has only been beaten to the Premier League title twice: once by Jürgen Klopp, and once by Antonio Conte. However, this is a season that should be treated with a lot of context.

According to Understat, Chelsea actually ranked second in expected points this season, despite ending up with the second highest points tally ever in a Premier League season at the time. Even more notably, they ranked roughly 10 expected points behind top-ranked Manchester City; according to the metric, Manchester City were firmly ahead of Chelsea. Admittedly, the metric is flawed, but if expected points is a flawed metric to measure level of performances or how many points a team “should” win (which is arbitrary for what it’s worth), points is an even more flawed metric in my eyes. Chelsea didn’t just overperform their expected points by a substantial 17.26, but Manchester City also underperformed theirs by 7.41, which makes for a total margin of 24.67 points in Chelsea’s favor. If you look at many of the goals Chelsea scored this season, and how some of Manchester City’s games turned out in contrast, I think you’ll see that there is a lot of substance in the metric. It couldn’t possibly be better exemplified than by the first time these two teams faced each other that season. Going into the game, Chelsea had 31 points, while Manchester City had 30 points — both teams with an equal amount of games played. Manchester City would be the team to take the lead, and they had a huge chance to extend it to two goals in the second half, but Kevin De Bruyne would miss an open goal, and Chelsea would equalize just a few minutes later. Conte’s reliance on margins — both in favor of his team and against that of his competition— and individual brilliance this season, is evident not only through De Bruyne’s miss, but also through Chelsea’s goals in this game. Furthermore, all in all, Manchester City amassed 2.24 expected goals that game, in contrast to Chelsea’s 1.25. It was a game in which Chelsea had all the margins on their side, which subsequently gave them all the momentum for the remainder of the title race. For what it’s worth, it’s also worth noting Chelsea’s underlying numbers were not significantly affected by their slow start: following Chelsea’s 3–0 loss to Arsenal, they didn’t even rank second in expected points, but third, and still firmly behind Manchester City. Meanwhile, another factor that was important was that Chelsea had finished tenth the prior season, meaning they were not distracted by any European competitions; another pattern of Conte’s career.

You can call these critiques of this season harsh, but the truth is that things undeniably went crashing down the following season, as partly implied by the underlying numbers. In terms of individual brilliance, Diego Costa was one of the players who Conte had relied the most on in 2016–17, and he was essentially replaced in the summer, in one of the all-time great disastrous transfer windows of all time. In the summer of 2017, Chelsea spent a fortune on the likes of Antonio Rüdiger (the only successful signing, and it still took multiple seasons for him to get going), Tiémoué Bakayoko, Davide Zappacosta, Danny Drinkwater, and Álvaro Morata, before adding Olivier Giroud, Emerson Palmieri, and Ross Barkley in January. This might very well have been the start of a trend of Antonio Conte negatively influencing his club’s recruitment, but it’s very hard to find reliable information on how much influence he has had in the recruitment department throughout his career. Nonetheless, a bad summer transfer window, the practical departure of Diego Costa (he didn’t officially leave until January), the addition of European competitions, and decreased margins in Chelsea’s favor saw them plummet from 93 points to 70 points in the Premier League. Although their expected points tally decreased, the difference between 75.74 and 68.46 was not comparable to the regression in points. As for how Conte performed in Europe, Chelsea managed to qualify to the round of 16, but while there they wouldn’t put up much of a fight against a Barcelona side which was eventually knocked out by Eusebio Di Francesco’s Roma.

Antonio Conte would at least lead Chelsea to an FA Cup win in 2017–18, but he was fired in the summer nonetheless, and at that point Chelsea had been damaged both financially and on paper, putting into question how much Conte’s initial “raising of the ceiling” was really worth? Of course, he would also leave the club after just two seasons, marking the continuation of that trend.

Inter (2019–2021)
I speak about Chelsea as Conte’s quintessential managerial stint, but if the Italian market were bigger it would likely be Inter instead. Conte’s time at Inter is widely regarded as a huge success, but to what extent is this true? The point of this article is not to dismiss everything Conte has achieved in his career, and I want to acknowledge that I am aware that this rundown of his career will inevitably have a negative connotation too it, which may come across as biased and dishonest. However, that is because I primarily want to focus on the nuances of Conte’s managerial career that I don’t think are already well-known and widely acknowledged. He did well at Juventus, he certainly did well with Italy, and he did well at Chelsea, but there is a lot of context to apply to those stints as well. The same applies to his stint at Inter.

Most of us know the story of Conte’s time at Inter. As I referred to earlier, Inter went on a steady decline following their treble win in 2010, and from the 2010–11 season up until the 2020–21 season, the club won the Coppa Italia once, and nothing else, while also only qualifying for the Champions League four times (in 10 seasons). When Conte won the scudetto in just his second season at the club, it was Inter’s first one in 11 years. However, it should be pointed out that Inter were already on the rise when Conte was appointed. In fact, the man who appointed Conte was none other than Beppe Marotta, who had left Juventus for arch-rivals Inter in 2018, essentially taking on the same role as CEO of Inter’s sporting department. When Marotta arrived at Inter, their manager was none other than Luciano Spalletti, and following his scudetto with Napoli last season I think it will be a lot easier to make the argument that Spalletti’s dismissal at the end of the 2018–19 season was actually quite unfair, and Inter’s improvement the following season was more so a result of new signings as opposed to the arrival of Conte. Spalletti had his struggles in his first season at Inter in 2017–18, but he would ultimately lead them to their first Champions League qualification in seven years. More importantly though, he was sacked after the 2018–19 season despite some very promising results. Inter ranked third in expected points in Serie A that season (via Understat), which does not seem extraordinary in and of itself, but they actually ranked above Juventus — the actual champions — while also ranking less than three expected points behind Carlo Ancelotti’s top-ranked Napoli. According to FBref, Spalletti’s Inter ranked third in xG, third in xGA, and second in xGD in 2018–19. When you consider who the club would sign over the coming two seasons, it is not unfair to claim that Spalletti, too, could have led Inter to a scudetto if he had stayed; especially given what he achieved with Napoli.

Nonetheless, Spalletti was out, Conte was in, and the first season under Conte was undeniably a success. Inter were in the race for the scudetto for most of the season, and although the fact that they only finished one point behind eventual champions Juventus is misleading, they were a bonafide top team in the league that season. At the same time, in terms of expected points their tally only improved by 3.63 (via Understat), although it is notable how they finished less than one expected point behind Gasperini’s top-ranked Atalanta (Juventus would win the scudetto despite not finishing in the top three in expected points, again). At the same time, when you inspect xG and xGA instead, it is quite clear that Atalanta were the best team in the league that season. As per FBref — usually a more reliable source for xG, although it does not provide data for expected points — Atalanta didn’t just score 98 goals, but their xG of 83.5 was the third best in the top five leagues that season. Of course, it was their defense which was their weakness, but only to a certain extent: FBref’s data also indicates that Atalanta ranked second in xGA in the Serie A, just barely behind Conte’s Inter. Were Inter the best team in Serie A that season? It’s very hard to argue it. Simultaneously, they did certainly look very strong on paper. When Conte took over, Stefan de Vrij was already established as one of Serie A’s very best defenders (he would then win Serie A Defender of the Season in 2019–20), as was Milan Škriniar, who was entering his prime. Furthermore, Alessandro Bastoni looked like one of the most promising young defenders in the league, and ready to take on a starting role. Marcelo Brozović had established himself as one of the very best midfielders in the league under Spalletti, and Lautaro Martínez was one of the best young players in the league. This is not to mention all the reliable depth pieces, and most importantly: the signings Inter would make in 2019–20. Antonio Conte had a lot more to work with compared to Luciano Spalletti, as Marotta brought him the likes of Romelu Lukaku, Nicolò Barella, Cristiano Biraghi, Alexis Sánchez, Christian Eriksen, and Stefano Sensi, in his first season. As for Conte’s ability to “raise the floor”, this kind of context is fundamental to account for. In 2020–21, Inter’s squad would be bolstered by Achraf Hakimi, Matteo Darmian, Arturo Vidal, and the return of Ivan Perišić. Even then, despite Inter being the best team on paper, and despite ultimately winning 91 points, they were arguably not even the best team in the league that season. The underlying numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, but it should still be pointed out that Inter only ranked third in xG (overperforming it by 14.3 goals), second in xGA (overperforming that by 4.8 goals), and second in xGD (via FBref). Understat’s data similarly has Inter ranked third in expected points. Again: this is not to discredit what Conte achieved at Inter, but to apply context to it.

Furthermore, it absolutely should not be forgotten how Conte performed in European competitions at Inter. In 2019–20, Inter would finish third in a Champions League group consisting of Barcelona, Dortmund and Slavia Praha, with a negative xGD of -0.3 as per FBref. In the Europa League, Inter would make it past Ludogorets, Getafe, Bayer Leverkusen and Shakhtar Donetsk, but would lose to Sevilla in the final. In fairness, this European run did signify a lot of additional games for Conte, and it didn’t seem to impact his results in the league too much. The same can’t quite be said about the scudetto season, as Inter would finish bottom of a Champions League group consisting of Real Madrid, Borussia Mönchengladbach and Shakhtar Donetsk, playing just six games in European competitions all season. Here, the underlying numbers were a valid excuse for Conte’s failure, and Inter were ultimately somewhat unlucky not to qualify to the round of 16, but it did ultimately help them win the scudetto as they were able to focus almost solely on the Serie A in the second half of the season; especially when you consider the underlying numbers.

Tottenham (2020–2022)
Antonio Conte’s stint at Tottenham might very well be the most odd one of his managerial career. To say the least, the club was in crisis when Conte took over. After 10 games, Nuno Espírito Santo had led Tottenham to ninth in the league, and the underlying numbers were even worse; so, so much worse, as Tottenham ranked 16th in expected points (via Understat). By all means, this was not a reflection of the talent in Tottenham’s squad, as it consisted of the likes of Cristian Romero, Pierre-Emile Højbjerg, Harry Kane, and Heung-min Son, although in fairness also a lot of underwhelming players (Hugo Lloris, Ben Davies, Matt Doherty, Oliver Skipp, Lucas Moura, etc). Nonetheless, Tottenham’s performances at the start of the season were largely the result of Nuno Espírito Santo arguably having the worst managerial stint in Tottenham’s history. At the same time, Tottenham’s squad consisted of a lot of underwhelming players — as mentioned — and what Conte would achieve when he took over was highly impressive. Conte led Tottenham to a fourth-placed finish, beating out arch-rivals Arsenal to a Champions League spot with a 3–0 derby win late on in the season. Believe it or not, the underlying numbers spoke in Conte’s favor this season. Starting from Conte’s arrival at Tottenham, they finished third in expected points, as per Understat’s data. The arrivals of Dejan Kulusevski and Rodrigo Bentancur in January certainly helped, and would bolster the squad. Furthermore, here, again, Tottenham would crash out of the Europa Conference League, and while this largely came down to Tottenham having to forfeit a game due to a COVID-19 outbreak within squad, as opposed to poor performances, it is at least another example of Conte benefitting from an absense of games in European competitions. Nonetheless, what Conte did with Tottenham in the 2021–22 was a great achievement, and very few will have expected it. On the other hand, he would not build on this success during his second season at the club, to say the least.

Tottenham would continue to bolster their squad in the summer with the likes of Ivan Perišić, Yves Bissouma, Richarlison, and Djed Spence, but these signings would go on to have next to no impact the coming season. Djed Spence would end up being loaned out and replaced by new signing Pedro Porro in January, Richarlison would score just one goal in the Premier League, Ivan Perišić would contribute very little outside of set pieces, and Yves Bissouma struggled for both playing time and with injuries. Antonio Conte would be sacked in March, at which point Tottenham ranked seventh in expected points as per Understat. In fact, they barely ranked above Brentford in eighth, who also had a game in hand. The actual results, meanwhile, were no better. Here, it is again important to note a change: the addition of Champions League football. Despite being drawn a favorable group, including Eintracht Frankfurt, Olympique de Marseille, and Sporting CP, it was a late miss by former Arsenal player Sead Kolašinac which would prevent Tottenham from being knocked out of the competition in the group stages. Nonetheless, when faced none other than Stefano Pioli’s Milan in the round of 16, Tottenham would fail to create anything from open play over two legs, with Milan ultimately going through to the quarter-finals quite comfortably, despite only winning 1–0 on aggregate. Similarly to his stint at Chelsea, Conte started very well at Tottenham, yet ended up being sacked after less than two years at the club, and retrospectively it’s hard to determine whether his term at the club was mostly positive or negative.

How good is Antonio Conte?
To put myself informally: he’s aight, but he’s not all that. In all seriousness, Antonio Conte has been made out to be one of the leading managers of his generation, and someone who remains a special manager to this day, and in my eyes he simply is not. As implied earlier, aside from his material success, Conte is portrayed by a certain image and aesthetic; that of a mentally tough, demanding, and proven champion, who will get results no matter what. In reality, Antonio Conte is a great man-manager, but a very flawed tactician, and even from the human perspective of management he can be problematic. In my eyes, he’s not too dissimilar from someone like Massimiliano Allegri. Allegri was able to achieve plenty of domestic success in a weak era of Italian football, on the back of poor underlying numbers, and in recent years his shortcomings as a tactician have been exposed, but he’s still an excellent man-manager.

In my eyes, Conte is by all means a better tactician than Allegri, and therefore a significantly better manager as well, but what’s more interesting when you compare him to Allegri is the question of whether or not his overperformances are sustainable? I’m not going to dive into the underlying numbers of Allegri’s teams now, but if you take your own time to go through them you might be shocked to see that they imply that Juventus were nowhere near as dominant as they seemed during Allegri’s first stint at the club, yet the numbers never caught up to him; he continued to win. At that point, I think it’s fair to question how meaningful those numbers really are? When it comes to Antonio Conte, his team similarly overperformed their underlying numbers significantly in his title-winning season at Chelsea, and his teams at Inter overperformed their underlying numbers as well. When it comes to your opponents underperforming their xG, that is usually caused by some sort of balance between strong goalkeeper performances and luck, however the overperformance of xG is not quite the same, and could instead be chalked down to more psychological aspects. Maybe this is Antonio Conte’s secret as a manager. We know he makes an extremely strong impression with how he interacts with his players, both one-on-one and collectively, and this could perpetuate an overperformance through psychological factors such as confidence, morale and determination. Really, this is not a science, and it’s hard to know what to make of these numbers; who really knows? Ultimately this article is just based on my opinion, and I may be wrong in my assessment of Conte. Nonetheless, I do think it’s fair to say that you probably don’t want to rely on a significant overperformance of your underlying numbers in the long-term, and we arguably saw this during Conte’s stint at Chelsea. Furthermore, his record in European competitions is undoubtedly worth discussing as well.

To not make this article too long, I don’t want to focus too much on Conte’s historical failure in European competitions, but I do want to say this: I don’t think it is something you should criticize him too strongly for unless you have identified valid reasons for Conte’s failure in European competitions. Ultimately, it is a matter of a pattern, and simply identifying the pattern and assuming it will continue due to inherent, yet unnamed (!) flaws of Conte, is not quite fair. Nonetheless, while I disagree with those who simply look at Conte’s record in European competitions and claim he’s inherently incapable of achieving any level of European success, I do think his track record in European competitions is a concern. What I think is perhaps mostly concerning is how his failure/lack of involvement in European competitions seems to perpetuate domestic success, which implies that he is not capable of getting results in European competitions and domestic competitions simultaneously. Benefiting from not playing in European competitions is natural, but Antonio Conte almost seems to be reliant on it.

Certainly, there are a lot of concerns with Antonio Conte, and a lot of context that usually isn’t applied to his career, which is why I don’t agree with him when he says his “past speaks very clear as a player and as a manager”. When you look at the tangible achievements of his managerial career, Antonio Conte has won five league titles and one domestic cup in the top five leagues, and that’s it. Now, that is not to say that this is not impressive, but especially when you factor in the players he’s had to work with, the competition he’s been up against, and the way his teams have often overperformed, it simply isn’t true that Conte is an all-time great manager, nor one of the best managers in the world right now, in my opinion. Tactically, even if you just look at the results, Conte’s teams have not consistently been able to be defensively solid nor offensively threatening, and have sometimes been both vulnerable defensively AND uninspiring going forward simultaneously. I think Conte’s tactics are sometimes unfairly criticized because of his more off-ball-oriented and often transition-reliant approach — tactical characteristics that many people dislike regardless of how effective they are — and again I think Conte is much more tactically proficient than someone like Massimiliano Allegri. At the same time, I don’t think Conte is an amazing manager at all, and when you apply full context to his career, I don’t think it — his résumé, if you will — makes a particularly strong counterpoint to my previous statement.

This is all not to mention Antonio Conte’s history of conflicts with the management; of him leaving his job after no more than two years, and potentially even his influence on expensive and simultaneously unimpactful recruitment. I think a proper examination of Conte’s career should be enough to explain why Antonio Conte is not a great option for Milan — not just because of his limits as a manager, but also because of his potentially volatile personality; consistent tendency to not stay at a job for more than two years; his potentially high wage demands, and also his potentially negative influence on recruitment. Even then, there is another key reason which explains why I don’t think Milan should even consider hiring Antonio Conte: it is a bad tactical fit.

Tactical fit
My main gripe with Antonio Conte’s tactical fit at Milan is how he meshes with Milan’s personnel, however I still think it’s worth going over some general tactical aspects of Conte as well. What I think is worth pointing out is that Conte may be known for simply playing with three defenders, but his best teams have usually set up with a 3–5–2 specifically, and I think there are some key reasons to why he’s found more success with this formation. One of the main reasons is how this setup affects his team out of possession. Conte’s press is usually at its most effective when it is compact, and especially when you consider how his press sets up a potential counter-attack, his 3–5–2 has proven to be especially effective in this regard. At Inter, for instance, we regularly saw Conte’s team drop back into their own half in a 5–3–2 shape while out of possession, to then start an aggressive and compact press which usually did an excellent job of closing out space and forcing dangerous turnovers. Now, when Conte’s Tottenham set up with a 3–4–3, they set up in a similarly compact 5–4–1 press, but the issue there was the decreased midfield support, which made it harder for Tottenham to return to their defensive shape once they lost possession. Meanwhile, in possession and in attack, we’ve seen some impressive highs from Conte’s 3–4–3 teams, with one attacking player occupying each area/vertical zone of the pitch, but while this numerical overload has had its success, it has — again — also left the team more vulnerable in possession, and it often hasnt’ maximized the output from the personnel. Specifically, the presence of the wing-backs in this formation can leave the wingers in a bit of an awkward half-space-oriented role. In contrast, Conte’s 3–5–2 setup is not as defensively vulnerable, exploits its personnel better, and is simply more balanced. In this setup, the two strikers tend to interact with each other and their teammates in a more natural manner that is also in tune with Conte’s transition-based focus. The ideal symbiosis between the two strikers will ideally attract increased attention to the central areas from the opposing team, therefore leaving a lot of space for the wing-backs to attack out wide. Of course, the central midfielders also play an important role, and in contrast to the wingers in Conte’s 3–4–3, they play a more natural, supporting role in the half-spaces. The lack of wingers is made up for by the increased attacking roles of the wing-backs, midfielders, strikers, and even the wide center-backs. The formation is more balanced going forward, and more defensively solid in my opinion.

But why is all of this relevant? Because Milan would have to set up in a 3–4–3 if they were to appoint Conte, which I don’t think is ideal. Why would they have to set up in a 3–4–3? The answer is simple: even if they were to sell Rafael Leão — theoretically — they would have too many wingers to play a 3–5–2. With that being said, let’s look at why Milan’s personnel also doesn’t fit Conte.

Personnel issues
First of all, when we look at Milan’s defense, we need to establish one thing: Malick Thiaw and Fikayo Tomori should be bonafide starters next season, and here we already encounter some potential problems. Like many managers who set up with a three-back formation, Conte doesn’t use his wide center-backs as traditional center-backs, but likes to use them almost as full-backs, which also means that their stronger foot is ideally that of the side they play on. They’re ideally expected to be progressive and to even provide fringe contributions in attack from deeper, wide areas. This profile doesn’t really fit neither Thiaw nor Tomori. As for Tomori, he has displayed impressive ball-striking in the past, and despite his lack of progressive qualities, he could be a decent fit at right center-back. However, this would force Thiaw to either play as the central center-back, or as the left-center back. In the past, we’ve seen Thiaw struggle as a central center-back, largely due to his lackluster concentration, and more importantly his slow recovery speed. Meanwhile, in a Conte-led team he is likely an even worse fit for the left center-back role as he is right-footed and not particularly ambidextral. In fairness, as a right center-back he would likely not be too different from Milan Škriniar of Conte’s Inter, while Tomori would then be a solid fit for the central center-back role despite his underwhelming aerial presence. With that being said, there aren’t any major issues so far, however when we consider depth, and who will occupy the left center-back role, there are.

Milan’s only left-footed center-backs are Marco Pellegrino and Davide Bartesaghi, neither of which are even rotational players at the moment. With the theoretical lack of a fringe creative threat from right center-back, Milan would need to sign not just one, but ideally two left-footed center-backs with established progressive- and creative qualities. Meanwhile, Pierre Kalulu and Davide Calabria — both of which would be excellent fits for the right center-back role — would merely be rotational options, meaning one of them would have to be sold on top of that. Most likely, that would have to be Kalulu, and in fairness he is likely to leave anyway, however having Calabria as a backup center-back is not ideal. On top of that, investing in two new center-backs to accomodate for a change of personnel — after the club just made one last summer — is not ideal. Ideally, the club’s plan should be to bolster the depth of the team in defense — without spending too much — and then spend a substantial fee on a new striker. This plan would be compromised if Conte were to be appointed. When we look at the wing-backs, we consider some more minor issues. Theo Hernández is a perfect fit for the left wing-back role, but he would have no primary backup option, so to clarify: instead of signing a cheap backup center-back and a cheap backup left-back, the club would have to make a more sizeable investment for a new starting center-back, and add a backup option and a backup left-back on top of that, which would make it significantly harder for the club to afford the ideal striker. Simultaneously, the most natural right wing-back is Filippo Terracciano, who is still quite unexperienced and raw, whereas the more proven right-back, Davide Calabria, would be of greater value at right center-back due to his struggles going forward as well as his qualities in buildup and in the defensive phases. Mostly, these issues are all unideal, but not exactly dealbreakers in and of themselves. That does not quite apply to the midfield and attack.

As for how Milan’s midfield would fit under Conte, it’s hard to know where to begin. The starting double pivot would ideally be Tijjani Reijnders and Ismaël Bennacer, which is far from ideal. Tijjani Reijnders is a player who thrives as a more advanced 8 who can simultaneously drop deep to help in buildup, and who isn’t required to do too much work defensively. Under Conte he would likely have a much more rigid, direct, and off-ball-oriented role, which doesn’t suit his qualities at all. Meanwhile, the supposed defensive anchor of the pivot would be Ismaël Bennacer, whose excellent workrate and defensive fundamentals are ultimately somewhat limited by the fact that he is quite small, and he would ideally be partnered by a more physically imposing midfielder, but in this case he wouldn’t be; he would be expected to be the sole defensive anchor. Then, when you consider the depth, the fit is even worse. First of all, in Yunus Musah, Ruben Loftus-Cheek and Yacine Adli, there are too many players, especially when you account for Reijnders’ excellent durability. Simultaneously, the most defensively prolific of the three players, Yacine Adli, is a former number 10 who just last weekend acknowledged that he’s still somewhat lacking in the defensive phase (via MilanNews.it). Meanwhile, Yunus Musah and Ruben Loftus-Cheek — just like Tijjani Reijnders — were fundamental signings when Milan decided to transition from a 4–2–3–1 to a 4–3–3 last summer. More specifically, neither Musah nor Loftus-Cheek are particularly good defensively, and both are more suited towards a more progressive and advanced role, with less space to defend. With Milan returning to the double pivot, their midfield depth would become bloated and unbalanced. It should also be emphasized that Milan generally just don’t have the profiles of midfielders Antonio Conte would prefer on top of that. With the 3–4–3, Conte enjoyed the most success at Chelsea, where he mostly relied on a double pivot of N’Golo Kanté and Nemanja Matić — a pivot which was primarily characterized by defensive solidity, but which also gave the team a sporadic creative threat as well as ball-retaining- and progressive qualities. The only truly defensively solid midfielder Milan will have next season is Ismaël Bennacer, who could be compared to Kanté, but even Kanté relied on a more physically imposing, defensive partner next to him.

In attack is where I have my biggest issues with the tactical fit of Conte at Milan. As for the striker position, it is only fair to assume that Milan will sign a new player, and if Conte is appointed he will rightfully be involved in deciding who that player will be. However, it is out wide where it gets awkward. First of all, Rafael Leão is Milan’s best player, and as I’ve said many times I think he can become one of the best players in the world. Naturally, the next step for him to do that is a new manager. In a 3–4–3 under Conte, I don’t think Leão would necessarily be wasted, but it’s not the change he needs to take the next step at all in my opinion. As mentioned, Conte’s 3–4–3 doesn’t use wingers in a traditional sense, as they are a little more central due to the presence and prominence of the wing-backs. For me, this would take a lot away from what Leão offers in possession. Eden Hazard is the point of reference for this role under Conte, and clearly there are some major differences between him and Leão. Notably, Hazard was almost second to none when it came to close control and comfortability in more central zones, among wingers. His low center of gravity, agility, technical excellence, intelligence and creativity, as well as his natural ability to play in wider areas, made Hazard a dynamic, lethal threat; an excellent fit under Conte. Leão, in contrast, may have his moments of genius and an enormous technical upside, but he’s still not the most technically secure player, and especially in more central areas we see that he’s not yet completely comfortable. Now, developing in these areas could help him, and that would obviously happen through exposure, but the issue is that this role would see him used more prominently in more central areas than out wide, which just wouldn’t be a good way of exploiting his skills. I think it’s also worth emphasizing that underutilizing any player is one thing, but underutilizing by far your best- and most important player, is another thing. I have seen some argue that Antonio Conte would be the perfect coach to discipline Leão and eradicate any inconsistency- and/or attitude issues he shows on the pitch, but I don’t agree with this at all, and quite frankly I think this criticism of Leão largely plays into the thinly veiled racist stereotype that black, skillful players struggle to make the most out of their talent because of “attitude issues” and “a bad mentality”.

When we move on to the other wingers, the same issues that I have brought up regarding Leão’s potential fit under Conte essentially apply to Samuel Chukwueze, who I think is Milan’s second best right winger. As for Leão, it’s worth adding that using him as a more direct goal threat could help him develop on that end, but I still maintain that he would be underutilized due to his increasingly restricted and inconstructive role in possession. As for Chukwueze, I trust him somewhat more in wider areas, but he is less as a goal threat, and I think he’s unequivocally someone who is at his best when utilized as a touchline winger who can occasionally drift more centrally — preferably with the ball. His dribbling and ball-carrying are by far his strongest attributes, and these simply aren’t attributes that would be utilized to nearly the ideal extent under Conte. In fairness, we saw Conte make an adjustment to his setup when he was playing Dejan Kulusevski out wide at Tottenham, but having his desired profile at right wing would likely have been better for the team. Then, as for Noah Okafor and Christian Pulisic, I don’t have many complaints, aside from the fact that I am still astounded by the club’s decision to sign Noah Okafor, and thereby commit to using Pulisic as a right winger. Nonetheless, nowadays these two players are not the most traditional wingers, and their best attributes are off-ball-oriented, although they can still contribute with the ball at their feet. One issue worth raising here is that if these players were to start together, the lack of creativity would be quite staggering. When you look at Eden Hazard, Willian and Pedro at Chelsea, you see a clear, consistent dynamism through both direct off-ball threat and creative, possession-based threat. Noah Okafor and Pulisic are both primarily goal threats nowadays, and without a creative presence from the front three the team could become very stale going forward — granted these two players would ideally be utilized as depth options, but when asked to play they would inevitably make the team worse relative to the starting options, not just due to the downgrade in ability, but also through the change of profiles.

Conclusion
So, this article has largely focused on Conte’s career as a whole, but how would I summarize why Milan should not even consider him as their next manager? Well, when you apply context to his career, I maintain that that Conte no longer appears to be a particularly special manager at all. This is not to say that he isn’t good; he is, and especially in Italy it’s difficult to dismiss his results, but I have serious doubts about how impactful of a manager he really is, especially in today’s game. It’s not just a matter of aesthetical issues with his style of play — which I don’t even necessarily have anyway — but rather that there are a lot of asterisks to what he has achieved throughout his career, and a lot of signs that he simply isn’t an amazing tactician, along with a lot of concerning results in domestic cups and European competitions. Milan are a team who have stagnated competitively, thereby needing a manager to pull them in the right direction, and based on that description the world’s best floor-raiser may sound like an excellent option, but is that even an accurate description of Conte? Based on his results so far in his career, sure, but ultimately we are only talking about four different jobs here, and it is only a matter of a pattern; it doesn’t necessarily have to continue, and to imply otherwise is reductive and shortsighted in my opinion.

I think it’s fair to factor in that Conte could also be a negative influence for the club’s recruitment process, even though it’s not completely known how involved he has been in this regard in the past. Furthermore, his determination to not keep a job for longer than two years makes him an awkward fit for a club who I think should now finally move in a direction that is exciting — not just in terms of recruitment, but in terms of tactical identity and style of play. In my eyes, this has to be achieved by appointing a younger manager who would be willing to commit long-term. The fact that Conte has collided with the management of his club on multiple occasions, and the fact that he has also been a couple of collapses after initial success, are other factors that concern me. On top of this, it is likely that he would have high wage demands, and meeting those demands would not be in line with Milan’s current strategy. In recent years we’ve seen Gianluigi Donnarumma, Hakan Çalhanoğlu, Alessio Romagnoli, and Franck Kessié leave the club for free due to the club not meeting their respective wage demands. Moreover, the process of renewing Rafael Leão’s contract took approximately a year due to his financial demands, and last month negotiations for Serhou Guirassy broke down as Milan were unwilling to meet his financial demands. Milan are careful with their wage bill, and appointing Conte would likely go against that.

Yet, even if you think Conte is maybe not a perfect- but still a viable option with all of this in mind, I think what really breaks the deal is that Milan just don’t have the ideal personnel for him. The depth chart would be awkward, the club’s mercato plans would be rearranged and compromised, the midfield would become bloated and unideal for Conte’s style of play — somewhat similarly to the attack, and Conte would have to utilize the weaker of his two primary formations, in my opinion. I just cannot see an argument in Conte’s favor that holds up.