Why Antonio Conte got the answer to the Manchester City dilemma badly wrong

The tactical – and almost philosophical – quandary that you have to figure out when you face Manchester City was certainly not solved by a supine Chelsea on Sunday

Antonio Conte was unable to counteract Pep Guardiola’s tactics (AFP/Getty Images)

For Antonio Conte, it is “stupid”.

For Jurgen Klopp, however, there is “no alternative”.

For everyone else, it is the tactical – and almost philosophical – quandary that you have to figure out when you face Manchester City. It is just like with Pep Guardiola’s Barcelona side, and Spain 2008-12. They are now so devastatingly good that managers have to think deeply about the potential risk and reward of going on the front foot against them, of even stepping out against them. This is a strength City have, and now an advantage. The ominous threat of what they can do to you is sufficient to make opposition sides so much more supine.

It is saying something that a manager who describes himself as proactive, as Conte does, was willing to describe such an approach in such a way.

“I am not so stupid to play against Manchester City open and to lose 3-0 or 4-0,” the Italian said of Jamie Redknapp’s comments about “anti-football”. “If I remember well, two days ago, Arsenal played twice against them and then you criticise a lot Wenger because they concede three goals in only 30 minutes. The pundit has to use the head to understand when you speak about tactics because I think you must have knowledge to speak about tactics and not only to speak in a stupid way.”

These are remarkable comments, and reflect just how City play with the minds of managers. They are almost as remarkable as what happened later in the game.

For their part, the Chelsea players are said by sources to have generally agreed with their manager’s approach. Some were actually said to be blown away by just how good City were, how they couldn’t lay a glove on them. They were astounded.

Manchester City were too good for Chelsea (Getty Images)

There is thereby naturally a logic to what Conte did. The idea is to just limit the space and, really, hope. The Chelsea players spoke of how, just like against the current Barcelona in the Champions League, they knew they were in trouble if they made a single mistake. City are that lethal right now, and probably better than Barcelona.

“We prepare the game in this way,” Conte explained. “Don’t concede space between the lines. When you play against City you have to use your brain, otherwise you risk to finish the game in a bad way and to lose 3-0 or 4-0. I think we tried to don’t concede the space to Manchester City for a long part of the match was good.”

It’s just hard to escape the idea that the defending champions should have done more than just defend themselves, that they should have attacked a bit better themselves. This is where there are fundamentally fair criticisms of Conte.

There was one exceedingly odd passage of the second half when the City players were passing the ball among themselves, with Chelsea players apparently unwilling to close them down. What – genuinely – was all that about?

That went beyond just looking to concede the space, and revealed a striking lack of ambition and conviction. Whatever about being stupid to come out against City, how would you describe not even trying to tackle them? It also fit into what was the bizarrely low-key nature of this ‘big six’ game.

Above all, it is one big difference between this season and last.

Antonio Conte struggled to leave any attacking imprint on the game (Getty Images) (AFP/Getty Images)

When Chelsea won at Eastlands in December 2016, they actually played with a defence that sat just as deep… but the contrast was in how they broke; they adventure they showed when they had the ball. That bite was sorely missing from Sunday, especially in those odd moments when they so stood off City. That was just baffling.

It’s also playing the numbers a little too much. This is precisely what Klopp was getting at when he said that there is “no alternative” other than to attack City. “Otherwise, you’re just standing on the edge of your box, hoping to win the lottery.”

In this game, Conte barely filled in the card. That’s what was frustrating – especially for the champions.

Some of this may be down to the ongoing issues at the club, that have fed into the uncertainty over Conte’s future. Among other things, he had a striker as forceful as Diego Costa leading the line last season. This time, he didn’t play a striker at all, seemingly not trusting Alvaro Morata or Olivier Giroud in this specific role.

This too fed into the sense that Chelsea were either unable or unwilling to do much beyond a certain area of the pitch.

There’s also the general sense that there just isn’t the same conviction around the champions, the same confidence.

There’s nothing wrong with responding to a side as good as City, adapting to them – but that should not mean doing nothing in attack, either.

It’s not “stupid”, but it has almost as little logic as going all-out attack against them.