Allegri's system

[BINHO]

Agree on the 4-2-3-1. Binho is best out wide and tracks back. Boateng or SES can do the same on the Right. Urby can also be a replacement on the left, and we have plenty of CDM's!!!

If Allegri makes the switch, I will give him props on being versatile, something he's lacked the past years.

[ACMILAN1983]

Agree on the 4-2-3-1. Binho is best out wide and tracks back. Boateng or SES can do the same on the Right. Urby can also be a replacement on the left, and we have plenty of CDM's!!!

If Allegri makes the switch, I will give him props on being versatile, something he's lacked the past years.

I've argued this point countless times. I think it's totally unfair on Allegri to say he's not been flexible/versatile with his system over the years, as situations have usually forced him to be as such. When at Cagliari, he made his name by using his players in a 4-3-3 with very dynamic players. At Milan, when he joined he tried to use 4-3-3 but soon acknowledged it wasn't working and changed it to 4-3-1-2.

His first season also had a different system to last season, with Ibra used much more as a CF playing across the front line in the first year whilst last season he was more free to drop back and support from midfield.

His basic shape might be 4-3-1-2, but playing different players requires different tactics. Boateng as the 1 is different to using Urby or Robinho as the 1 and therefore requires changes in how the team plays. Same with having Seedorf or Aquilani in midfield as opposed to Nocerino or Gattuso. He varied the system depending on opponents as well. Last season against Barca we played extremely narrow to defend against the ability to hold possession. However, 2 years ago we played Napoli with our "mezzala" pushing extremely wide and high, pinning the Napoli wingbacks and opening spaces for the more creative talents to utilise the space left in the middle.

Injuries have required changes as well. For example, the side with Pato was different to the side with Robinho or Cassano instead. I've described how Boateng and Urby require different approaches. Even in defence, playing Nesta often resulted with the backline dropping deeper than when younger players came in.

[Gio-mania]

Feels like parallel talks are going on in two separate threads, so I'll just do it here.

Robinho should more logically play at LWF than L(A)M, then. The 4-3-3 seems more suitable than the 4-2-3-1 given the players we have. At the end of the day it is essentially similar, the only difference being how high up the pitch the wingers play. Another question of course is what role the "trequartista" will have, how high up he'll play, and of course who it will be. I think we have many players that are interchangeable, which is good for rotation and theoretically also for making players swap roles/positions during games. It would still be nice to know what the "ideal" is, our best starting XI.

My reasoning is that Montolivo, De Jong and Boateng are given starters. Robinho has to be seen as a starter too, on the left I presume. That leaves 2 spaces open:

Robi ------- Boa / Monty ------ X / Boa
------Y / Monty --- De Jong

Now, if we choose to play Monty up front, Boa becomes a R(A)M/RWF. We need a DM to pair with De Jong. Candidates are probably Muntari, Traore, Ambro. In this case Monty would be either a trequartista, which he said he isn't (but I was very impressed in the EUROs) so maybe more likely he'd be a CM, giving us a flatter midfield 3.

Y = Muntari, Traoré, Ambro

Should Monty cover the defense with Nigel De Jong, Boa plays central. This leaves room for Bojan and SES as more offensive options. Bojan may or may not be able to play a bit further back.

X = Bojan, SES

Two midfielders left out are my main man Nocerino but also Urby and Constant. The former could probably find space in the midfield trio (4-3-3), though his defensive duties are limited. Maybe he could offer options on the wings (in which case a 4-2-3-1). In any case, those are my suggestions for Urby and Constant. So really there are a lot of variations on this theme that Allegri can present. Many of the central midfielders are interchangeable, except for De Jong who I really need to see shielding the back four (also Ambro and Muntari for that matter, though they are back-ups). We can go from a really attacking 4-3-3 to a more defensive 4-2-3-1, and everything inbetween, like balancing the wings, having maybe Constant on one side and Robi on the other. Also Abate, really, if De Sciglio becomes the boss of the RB spot.

[ACMILAN1983]

Feels like parallel talks are going on in two separate threads, so I'll just do it here.

Robinho should more logically play at LWF than L(A)M, then. The 4-3-3 seems more suitable than the 4-2-3-1 given the players we have. At the end of the day it is essentially similar, the only difference being how high up the pitch the wingers play. Another question of course is what role the "trequartista" will have, how high up he'll play, and of course who it will be. I think we have many players that are interchangeable, which is good for rotation and theoretically also for making players swap roles/positions during games. It would still be nice to know what the "ideal" is, our best starting XI.

My reasoning is that Montolivo, De Jong and Boateng are given starters. Robinho has to be seen as a starter too, on the left I presume. That leaves 2 spaces open:

Robi ------- Boa / Monty ------ X / Boa
------Y / Monty --- De Jong

Now, if we choose to play Monty up front, Boa becomes a R(A)M/RWF. We need a DM to pair with De Jong. Candidates are probably Muntari, Traore, Ambro. In this case Monty would be either a trequartista, which he said he isn't (but I was very impressed in the EUROs) so maybe more likely he'd be a CM, giving us a flatter midfield 3.

Y = Muntari, Traoré, Ambro

Should Monty cover the defense with Nigel De Jong, Boa plays central. This leaves room for Bojan and SES as more offensive options. Bojan may or may not be able to play a bit further back.

X = Bojan, SES

Two midfielders left out are my main man Nocerino but also Urby and Constant. The former could probably find space in the midfield trio (4-3-3), though his defensive duties are limited. Maybe he could offer options on the wings (in which case a 4-2-3-1). In any case, those are my suggestions for Urby and Constant. So really there are a lot of variations on this theme that Allegri can present. Many of the central midfielders are interchangeable, except for De Jong who I really need to see shielding the back four (also Ambro and Muntari for that matter, though they are back-ups). We can go from a really attacking 4-3-3 to a more defensive 4-2-3-1, and everything inbetween, like balancing the wings, having maybe Constant on one side and Robi on the other. Also Abate, really, if De Sciglio becomes the boss of the RB spot.

I must admit I got pretty confused when reading your post, so please forgive me if I'm wrong. If I understand correctly what you're suggesting is our system is fluid and can transform during the match from 4-3-3 to 4-2-3-1 (with Montolivo as a CM who pushes up into the trequartista role)?

So the initial lineup could be:

-----------Abbiati-------------
-----------DEFENCE-------------
---De Jong--Montolivo--Y-------
---Boateng-----------Robinho---
-----------Pato/Pazzini--------

But as we attack it transforms to look like:

-----------Abbiati-------------
----------DEFENCE--------------
-------De Jong---Y-------------
--Boateng--Montolivo--Robinho--
---------Pato/Pazzini----------


If so, then I think we're both have similar ideas, in that I was suggesting 4-3-3 with Nocerino pushing up to support the attack (transforming our shape), with Montolivo continuing to dictate from deeper areas (I figure we need
someone to do it after losing Thiago).


My initial lineup was:

------------Abbiati--------------
Abate---Bonera--Acerbi----De Sciglio
---Montolivo--De Jong--Nocerino--
----Boateng-----------Robinho----
--------------Pato---------------


But as we attack, we'd transform to:


------------Abbiati--------------
Abate----Bonera--Acerbi----De Sciglio
--------Montolivo-De Jong--------
-------------Nocerino------------
--Boateng-----Pato------Robinho--


I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, so I might be wrong.

[Gio-mania]

Sorry if it was confusing. I wanted to see what options we have for the starting XI. So what I was trying to show is a) that the distinction between 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 is based on what players we use and b) that with a healthy roster we can theoretically find loads of alternative line-ups, we have to see which players work together of course. I didn't really take into consideration changes we could make to our shape during a game. But it turns out we can do stuff there too.

Tough, but maybe exciting, choices await for Allegri. Sadly the Gazzetta says we'll stick to 4-3-1-2 though. I hope they don't know what they are talking about.

[ACMILAN1983]

lol, thanks for clarifying. I'm hoping we will see transformations in system during games, as otherwise the side is likely to be static but also unable to rely on individual talents as in the past.

I tend not to believe Gazzetta or many media outlets for that matter much because they tend not to focus a great deal on tactics.

[ACMILAN1983]

Given that we're looking at many potential changes this summer, notably on the managerial front, I thought it would be useful to "bump" this thread to see what opinions are on how we should set up next season.

I've have been thinking that if Allegri remains, we'll stick to 4-3-3, but then if someone else comes in, then we'll see shifts towards new ideas and systems, such as Seedorf reportedly keen on returning to 4-3-1-2. Whatever happens, I'm sure people have their own ideas about where they want to see us headed towards.

Personally, I've always advocated that our club's philosophy should be based on the concepts which Sacchi brought back in the 80's. While many might argue that the game has changed and that the approach no longer applies due to changes in the rules, I think now, more than ever we're seeing more of the major powerhouses in Europe adopt some of the key concepts, such as high pressing lines, tight units and value placed on the collective group, not the individual. Sacchi alone isn't the only influence here (probably not the biggest either), as Marcelo Bielsa, Valery Lobanyovsky and Rinus Michels (and Total football in general) have major influence in the modern game.

Thing is, while teams will use concepts and ideas from these various brands of football, I've not seen one which is as well balanced and tactically disciplined as Sacchi's Milan. If we look at the pressing of teams as an example, then Barca's pressing (under Guardiola) was excellent, but hectic, with the team often being left open in wide areas for the counter. Bayern this year and Dortmund over the past few have pressed opponents really well, but stretch the game much more than Sacchi's side, meaning they can be vulnerable and reliant on individuals rather than the group (especially when tiring). Juve are the other side who spring to mind for their high pressing, but again like Barca it can become hectic and more importantly, stretches the game when they play high volumes of games, due to tiredness.

I think part of the problem is these teams don't aim for the balance Sacchi's side had, nor do they control their pressing. This is where I think we need to explore various solutions for our side, fully integrating Sacchi's concepts into our club.

Starting with shape, Sacchi's basic set up was 4-4-2, but it was set up to vary and switch subtly depending on the match, varying to 4-3-3 if the team became slightly lopsided (i.e. Donadoni would often attack more on the left than Colombo on the right) and to 4-2-3-1 when one of the attackers dropped behind another (i.e. Gullit would often drop behind Van Basten).

The thing that was special about the team was it always maintained a balance, because while players were free to move within the unit, there were core tactics that had to be followed and a tightness to the group.

This was because of the concept of squeezing the space on the pitch. Teams couldn't find room between lines to hurt the group, nor would they be able to break through behind because the team was set up to play offside. With the changes in the offside rule, this becomes more complex, as it's so much easier to break the offside trap these days. However, teams are adapting to that by playing a more possession based game to control opponents. Also, while it is ultimately more difficult to play offside, it's not impossible if the unit is drilled and the space on the pitch is squeezed, leaving less room for opponents to break through lines. We should take a note from Barca and Bayern in terms of controlling games with possession (something we already do to an extent), but we should be focusing attention to maintaining a tight unit in games, as this will allow us to control opponents, looking to hurt us with counters or balls behind our defence, with our pressing.

Pressing can be tiring, which many have cited as being a problem in the modern game with the number of games played in a season now. However, as I said before, most big teams now have a hectic sort of pressing where they'll rush at opponents to win the ball back immediately. Sacchi's pressing was all about tactics, with players understanding where they needed to be relative to opponents and the situation in the match.

This was controlled using 3 types of pressing. The first was the full pitch press, which was pressing opponents all over the pitch to win the ball back early and maintain high levels of pressure. The other was the half pitch press, which was pressing in your own half and reducing space in the defensive third. The final was a false press, where one player would press opponents, giving the impression of the group pressing, but actually giving teammates time and opportunity to get into position. While still very physically demanding, this sort of organised pressing allows control over where and when energy is expended, meaning the physical demands are more controlled, albeit the mental demands are much higher. Sacchi himself has cited that the Dutch pressing from Total Football (which imo is the biggest influence in the modern game) is much more about athleticism, while his pressing was all about the tactics.

As for our attacking, it would be controlled in quick direct bursts, with creativity and direction coming from the midfield and the attack acting as a kind of reference to where the rest of the team is positioned. It's up to the defence to control the lines from the back to ensure the unit is never broken.

What I think we need for this concept to work is balance all over the pitch. The goalkeeper has to be very capable with the ball at his feet (as unlike the past the keeper can't pick up a backpass and must act like a sweeper). The defence has to be capable of starting moves from the back, essentially the starting points of the attack. The midfield must be capable both defensively and offensively, being balanced in both attacking and defensive phases of the game and the attack has to be hardworking, prepared to support defensively as well as in the attack. Note that some of our strongest players this year have been such because of their balance. Mexes in defence has been important for his ability to move the ball out of defence into an attack, Montolivo is the most balanced midfielder in the group, instrumental both defensively and offensively and El Shaarawy is as much valued for his defensive contribution as he is his attacking qualities.

This concept is very much about the collective unit and how they work together and can draw parallels to the old Roman Military defensive unit, where soldiers would group extremely tightly together and use their shields as cover all around the unit, making it impenetrable from external attacks. They would also make quick direct thrusts with their spears (from in between the shields) when they attacked their opponents.

Sorry for the long post, but I've been fascinated with the changes in football over the years and how we can apply the concepts of our greatest team to our club's philosophy going forward. I'm aware I've not said much specifically about systems and shapes, instead focusing on more abstract ideas and concepts, but for me this is more critical than how we lineup our side.

[Danny]

I honestly don't see the point debating this till it's confirmed he's staying. Because I hear the final decision would be announced today, and word is he's gone.

In general I like the 4-3-3 system, and I think we have the players for it - the second half of the season was excellent using that formation and it can be built on.

[Revolver]

Starting with shape, Sacchi's basic set up was 4-4-2, but it was set up to vary and switch subtly depending on the match, varying to 4-3-3 if the team became slightly lopsided (i.e. Donadoni would often attack more on the left than Colombo on the right) and to 4-2-3-1 when one of the attackers dropped behind another (i.e. Gullit would often drop behind Van Basten).

It's not on the topic but I'm very interested about Sacchi's Milan, and since I investigated a lot about that, and watched some games, I must comment.

To me, it was illusion that Sacchi played 4-4-2 at Milan. He did play 4-4-2 at Italian NT during 1994 World Cup, with two center midfielders and two wide players, but not in Milan.

Rather than that Sacchi's system in Milan was 4-3-1-2.

At his first season, 1987/1988, Ancelotti was a holder, Colombo and Evani played on the sides, and Donadoni played attacking midfielder. After Rijkaard's transfer, in 1988/1989 season, Sacchi gradually moved Rijkaard (who at the beginning played at center back, beside Baresi, instead of F. Galli) into holder position, moving Ancelotti to the left, with Evani dropping to the bench.

As system could vary, at times it gave illusion it was 4-4-2, because Donadoni often moved to the sides, preferably to the left, with a side player moving to the center, forming a classic 4-4-2. Donadoni's preference to move more to the left than to the right, was not a preference really, it was an instruction from Sacchi, because Gullit (who played supporting striker on the right side) was eager to move to the sides too, and that way the formation often looked like a balanced 4-3-3.

Although in most info on the Internet you'll find that Sacchi played 4-4-2 in Milan, by watching games, and I watched a dozen of them (vs. Napoli, Real Madrid, Steaua, C. Zvezda x2, Benfica, Atletico National, Olimpia...), it's clear that Ancelotti played on the left, when you expect him to play in the center, and that Donadoni was not left midfielder, but attacking midfielder, playing in the center for most of the time. Ancelotti moved to the center, only when Donadoni moved straight to the left horizontally.

I don't have time now, but I may draw some diagrams of formation migration when I find some more time, to prove my claims.

[ACMILAN1983]

I honestly don't see the point debating this till it's confirmed he's staying. Because I hear the final decision would be announced today, and word is he's gone.

In general I like the 4-3-3 system, and I think we have the players for it - the second half of the season was excellent using that formation and it can be built on.

I'm aware it's early, but at the same time it's not too busy of late and I'd like to hear how people want us to evolve tactically. As you can see, I already have many thoughts about how I want us to develop.

It's not on the topic but I'm very interested about Sacchi's Milan, and since I investigated a lot about that, and watched some games, I must comment.

To me, it was illusion that Sacchi played 4-4-2 at Milan. He did play 4-4-2 at Italian NT during 1994 World Cup, with two center midfielders and two wide players, but not in Milan.

Rather than that Sacchi's system in Milan was 4-3-1-2.

At his first season, 1987/1988, Ancelotti was a holder, Colombo and Evani played on the sides, and Donadoni played attacking midfielder. After Rijkaard's transfer, in 1988/1989 season, Sacchi gradually moved Rijkaard (who at the beginning played at center back, beside Baresi, instead of F. Galli) into holder position, moving Ancelotti to the left, with Evani dropping to the bench.

As system could vary, at times it gave illusion it was 4-4-2, because Donadoni often moved to the sides, preferably to the left, with a side player moving to the center, forming a classic 4-4-2. Donadoni's preference to move more to the left than to the right, was not a preference really, it was an instruction from Sacchi, because Gullit (who played supporting striker on the right side) was eager to move to the sides too, and that way the formation often looked like a balanced 4-3-3.

Although in most info on the Internet you'll find that Sacchi played 4-4-2 in Milan, by watching games, and I watched a dozen of them (vs. Napoli, Real Madrid, Steaua, C. Zvezda x2, Benfica, Atletico National, Olimpia...), it's clear that Ancelotti played on the left, when you expect him to play in the center, and that Donadoni was not left midfielder, but attacking midfielder, playing in the center for most of the time. Ancelotti moved to the center, only when Donadoni moved straight to the left horizontally.

I don't have time now, but I may draw some diagrams of formation migration when I find some more time, to prove my claims.

It was Sacchi's Milan that shaped my thoughts on how football should be played. I watched the matches when young and the side left me amazed although I was too young to really appreciate the tactical aspect of the game. As I've grown older I've grown to appreciate what Sacchi's ideas were about and how far ahead of his time he actually was (even now I think his ideas are more advanced than most).

I can understand where you're coming from, because you had one "winger", who was more dominant offensively (Donadoni) and another who was more withdrawn (Colombo). However, where the real complexity comes in imo is the freedom the players had. Donadoni may have been predominantly on the left, but he was free to move across. Like total football, the concept was to ensure gaps wouldn't be left behind, meaning others (Ancelotti or Evani in your example) would cover or move to find balance.

Anyway, that was kind of the point I was making in the paragraph you quoted. While most (including me) will say the basic shape might be 4-4-2, it was very fluid and the side often changed shape during matches, switching to 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 or as you've said here, 4-3-1-2.