The Catenaccio Myth

August 23rd, 2011 | by: papai | Comments Off

The legend of Catenaccio is one the most enduring legacies of Calcio. Wildly successful, it has become almost synonymous with Italian Football in certain people’s minds. Unfortunately, it has also been miscast as the Ultimate Evil, the monument to Anti-Football so as to speak by certain sections of the media. Even today, nearly 40 years after the death of pure Catenaccio, many people still believe that all Italian teams play or resort to this system in times of desperation. This post intends to tackle the myth behind Catenaccio and in the process, try to deconstruct why it has endured so long in popular imagination.

Evil Catenaccio

Origins

Karl Rappan, the famous Austrian coach, had a dream. In that dream, he saw that if the opposing center forward went behind his central defender in the WM formation, the former was basically clean through to goal. To counter this monstrous vision, he decided to take off one of his attackers, and put another defender behind his central defensive line, in front of his goalkeeper. The plan was that this defender will clean up any ball that went behind the central defensive line. The “Sweeper” was thus born. Rappan called this system “Verrou” – the French for doorbolt.

Catenaccio Is Born

Rappan’s ideas struck a chord in legendary Italian coach Nereo Rocco. He devised what is essentially known as the classic Catenaccio, by modifying the sweeper into a free roaming “Libero” who would have a much larger area of impact, and added secondary playmaking duties. The system was further polished by Helenio Herrara for his La Grande Inter. The success of Rocco’s Milan and Herrara’s inter both domestically and in Europe started forging the myth of this footballing system.

So What Is It Really?

Pure Catenaccio/La Grande Inter

Man Marking – the key aspect to the defensive phase is that all opponents will be tightly man marked by the central defenders, the wing backs and the defensive midfielders, with the mobile libero double teaming wherever the ball approaches.

Counter Attacking – The main creative thrust of the system were the fantasista, a central playmaker and sometimes the libero. Efficiency of the forwards was paramount since very few chances were created.

It should be remembered that while Catenaccio was the primary defensive system in Italy, it was by no means the only one. Catenaccio was a “system” of playing, and not a hard formation. Many variations of Catenaccio existed, and a very popular use was switching tactics to protect a lead, or to avoid defeat. One very famous example involves the legendary Juventus player John Charles (voted the greatest foreigner to have ever played in the Serie A), who would very often start out as a Center Forward and then drop back as a Central Defender once the team started leading.

Anyways, by the mid sixties, Catenaccio was, in the words of Gianni Brera, “The only way to play football.” But, far across Europe, in Amsterdam a Dutchman named Rinus Michels was plotting a revolution that will shake the very foundations of the footballing world.

The Death of Pure Catenaccio

The main flaws of the Catenaccio system lay in its reliance on man marking. The first chink in its armor was highlighted by Celtic in the European Cup final against Herrara’s Inter, where the highly aggressive Celtic Full Backs overwhelmed the system. However, the final blow to Catenaccio came against Stefen Kovac’s (Rinus Michels had departed to Barcelona) Ajax in the 1972 European Cup final. Total Football had arrived. Man-marking was dead, and so was pure Catenaccio.

However, from the ashes of Catenaccio, rose a new system, which was even more enduring than its ancestor. It was known as the “Zona Mista” – the Mixed Zone.

Zona Mista

The Zona Mista was a tactical solution devised by the Italian coaches to marry the best features of both Zonal Marking and Catenaccio. In this system, the primary defensive tactic was Zonal Marking, however the libero was assigned to man mark dangerous opponents. This new system was incredibly potent, and the”real” reason today’s generation hear stories of “Italian Defense.” From the late seventies onwards, under the guidance of Giovanni Trapatonni the Italian giants Juventus started a cycle of dominance both within Italy and in Europe. The culmination of the Italian Football dominance was in the 1982 World Cup victory. For the Zona Mista defensive system, the consecration came in the form of Maradona’s tears and Gentile’s immortal words – “Football is not for ballerinas.”

Juventus Circa 1984

Winds of Change

The changes to the offside rule rendered the Sweeper obsolete, sounding the death knell for Catenaccio. Then Arigo Sacchi took charge of Milan, and a different way of playing the beautiful game gained ascendancy. Slowly, teams stopped the use of Catenaccio system in totality, but the bones of Catenaccio are still visible in football today.

Legacy of Catenaccio

The key features of the Catenaccio system are seen being in use even today. Obviously the classical sweeper is not in existence today, but Jose Mourinho’s move of employing Pepe to man-mark Messi in last year’s Champion’s League semi-finals would have drawn a chuckle from Herrara himself.

And what about Greece winning the Euro 2004? Although not a classical Catenaccio by any means, the salient features of man marking, using sweepers were all present in their epic run in the tournament.

When two teams have different skill levels, the wise manager employs the correct tactics to equalize the gap. Countless clubs, all over the world, employ the essence of Catenaccio and more pertinently the Zona Mista to endure stronger, more creative opposition.

Still, outside Italy, Catenaccio has become an ugly term, synonymous with dull, negative football. The reason for this is the success of the system has made ALL defensive football synonymous to Catenaccio. Any good defensive performance by an Italian team is instantly hailed as “a return to the days of Catenaccio.” Unfair though it may be, but in my opinion it is the surest indicator of the measure of success this system has achieved over the years.