Catenaccio vs Parking the bus

Adit wrote:If my memory is correct 1990 is the year that introduced a definite and correct offside rule.Previous laws had so many flaws,1990 law generally allows /helps (or fifa believes) teams to play attacking fooball and it doesnt help the defensive tactics at all.,Especially a formation using libero.

The only change adopted in 1990 is that a player who is level with the defender is not offside, while previously he was offside (he had to be a cms. behind the defender). In practice that doesn't mean much, as Referees and linesmen have been deciding the offside rule in a "handcrafted" way, hence they never had enough precision for this small differences.

Aristotle Onassis wrote:Thanks for the explanations The Franchise .... I'm out of questions.

I think from all that's been described here, I'm going to have to fall back on it being more an expression, a description, rather than a complete style all on its own. Parking the bus, that is.

I think I can agree with that.

I dont know what claissifies as a system or style, but I think the its clearly less thought out and planned then Catanaccio.

Parking the bus is applied at certain times and any team can do it without any pre planning, clearly you cannot do that with Catanaccio.

Great read and I agree with everything you said except for one. The greatest Cantenaccio team is not Herrera's Inter but in my opinion it is Nereo Rocco's AC Milan. Herrera's Inter gained fame because of the ultra defensive tactics and high level of cynicism. Rocco's Milan was much more attacking and entertaining. When someone hears the name Cantenaccio, defensive football immediately comes to mind. That is a myth, Cantenaccio does not always mean defensive football. AC Milan vs Ajax in the European Cup Final is regarded as the one of the most deadliest attacking performance by a team ever seen.

Well thats fair.

Truth be told I dont know who was better and the books I have read, indicate the same, its hard to actually tell here in 2011 which team was better in the 60's.

I do know that Milan were fantastic back then, but they were no angels themselves, they shared in the violent skulduggery like Inter did. Albeit not to the extent of Inter.

One thing I am sure of and I agree with, Milan were very offensive in those times.

Two reasons they were chosen for this comparison.

1. Milan were more offensive, Inter more defensive. This thread was about defensive teams.

2. Milan or Inter, whoever is better I dont know. But Inter fairly or unfairly, seem more commonly known as the team that famed Catanaccio.

Really nice read. But the parking the bus examples you are using, ie Inter, Chelsea and Real Madrid is not PTB 100%.

I tought all of them did attack fairly enough. And Real Madrid in the Copa Del Rey were attacking alot in the first half, if you remember statistics we had 35% ball possesion and 7 shots on goal while Barca had 1 shot off target.

They are just using a defensive counter attacking system, that puts defensive over attacking. Plus, Chelsea had alot of chances to score in Stamford Bridge, don't wanna troll your section but you know the reasons why they couldnt convert these chances.

My toughts.

omarish wrote:Really nice read. But the parking the bus examples you are using, ie Inter, Chelsea and Real Madrid is not PTB 100%.

I tought all of them did attack fairly enough. And Real Madrid in the Copa Del Rey were attacking alot in the first half, if you remember statistics we had 35% ball possesion and 7 shots on goal while Barca had 1 shot off target.

They are just using a defensive counter attacking system, that puts defensive over attacking. Plus, Chelsea had alot of chances to score in Stamford Bridge, don't wanna troll your section but you know the reasons why they couldnt convert these chances.

My toughts.

Cant agree.

Inter and Chelsea didnt attack at all.

The Madrid game I speak of is the CL game pre-Pepe red card, not the Copa game.

Also if you read, I was speaking pre penalty incidents, Chelsea didnt come out to attack at all. But another example would again be the first leg, where their only chance was Drogba vs Valdes from a Marquez mistake.

The CL game was weird. He went very defensive and I believe he was gonna do the Kaka tactic, or atleast sub in Kaka becouse you could see Kaka warm up form the bench.

Inter attacked alot in the San Siro game IMO, Maicon went high up, but after they got 2 goals they went back and defended again.

Chelsea did their fair amount of attacking I think.

Personally they all are just extremly defensive but parking the bus is not their intention and attacking is still one of the most important aspects for them all. Thus I can not see it as parking the bus.

I dont think your reading what I wrote properly.

I wasnt talking about the game at the San Siro..they won 3-1 and they didnt park the bus. I already said that.

I talked about and also the diagrams show, the 2nd leg.

And if these 3 teams werent parking the bus, then who was ever?

These 3 teams are not just the most defensive of the big teams I have seen vs us, they were the most defensive performances I have seen period.

Oh okay, then I understand. Anyways, in the Catenaccio vs PTB area, I think PTB is more effective defensively. It completly suffocates space, thus I see it as viable tactic when you are leading aggregate in CL for example playing away.

The Franchise wrote:

Not going to jump into the debate and all tonight because i want to go to bed, but in this game it was all about parking the bus for chelsea and we actualy played 4-2-3-1 in this game


tbh ive always thought Carlo got the idea to use anelka as a winger/inside forward from these tactics too
and in the OP you mentioned inesta saved your bacon, i think theres a certain someone else you're forgetting to acknowledge

But Lampard was constantly dropping back in, perhaps on the counter they appeared how you set out, but defensively it was how I put it. Considering how little possession you had, you was set up more like how I had it then 4-2-3.

And no, there is noone else who saved our bacon. Just Iniesta.

You should of had one penalty, we shouldnt of had Abidal sent off, whatever.

The Franchise wrote:But Lampard was constantly dropping back in, perhaps on the counter they appeared how you set out, but defensively it was how I put it. Considering how little possession you had, you was set up more like how I had it then 4-2-3.

And no, there is noone else who saved our bacon. Just Iniesta.

You should of had one penalty, we shouldnt of had Abidal sent off, whatever.

adngoaeengoanbaou boqa o[ai bao aso' qa'
]a
' qa'

i disagree with the stament with every inch of my being, but ill be good


and im pretty confident it was a 4-2-3-1 but if you watched it recently ill take ur word for it

It's astonishing what people considers it is to "attack a lot".

Well we can both be right you know.

Your saying it was 4-2-3-1 and in attack, perhaps it was. Lampard clearly got forward more then Essien.

However, you barely had the ball and therefore he barely supported the attack.

Because you didnt have the ball, he was tight in midfield. Essien was often coming out to press the midfield (once they entered the Chelsea half) while Ballack sat deeper in front of the back four and barely tried to make tackles (so he didnt lose position).

So, in defence, there wasnt a set 2 man shield with 3 in front. That was closer to the shape in attack. Of course, Anelka wasnt really wide, he played in the pocket of space, as I have tried to show in the tactics board.


As for the pens, its been done to death. Pique handball was the only legit one, you obviously have your own opinion and lets leave it at that.

The Franchise wrote:Well we can both be right you know.

Your saying it was 4-2-3-1 and in attack, perhaps it was. Lampard clearly got forward more then Essien.

However, you barely had the ball and therefore he barely supported the attack.

Because you didnt have the ball, he was tight in midfield. Essien was often coming out to press the midfield (once they entered the Chelsea half) while Ballack sat deeper in front of the back four and barely tried to make tackles (so he didnt lose position).

So, in defence, there wasnt a set 2 man shield with 3 in front. That was closer to the shape in attack. Of course, Anelka wasnt really wide, he played in the pocket of space, as I have tried to show in the tactics board.


As for the pens, its been done to death. Pique handball was the only legit one, you obviously have your own opinion and lets leave it at that.

+1 to that

It's so tiring that fans of other teams always "forget" what they don't like. Barça fans are the only neutral ones that agree that the referee favoured us in some occasions, but was also against us in others.

Fatman, for instance, is forgetting this:

The Franchise wrote:
And no, there is noone else who saved our bacon. Just Iniesta.

You should of had one penalty, we shouldnt of had Abidal sent off, whatever.

You said it very well without even mentioning a few things - a valid penalty appeal for us in the first leg, a red card not given against them in the first leg, a hand ball by them in the box in the second leg going unnoticed

Anyway this topic has been more than done to death and I always say what cat just said - refereeing decisions going for and against teams is an integral part of both club and international football, always has been and always will be at least as far as I can see. Making snide references to the times when we got any so called benefit from refereeing decisions, possibly because we have been so successful in recent times and have become so widely admired by the who's who of the football world, had unfortunately been quite common on these forums for some time. In recent times such unpleasant comments had become rare which was great but then today I see this one. At least this poster did not keep dragging it for long.

free_cat wrote:It's so tiring that fans of other teams always "forget" what they don't like. Barça fans are the only neutral ones that agree that the referee favoured us in some occasions, but was also against us in others.

Fatman, for instance, is forgetting this:

Barcelona easily get more decision's against them or just as many as they get for them, people just delude themselves into believing Llourinho's garbage.

free_cat wrote:It's so tiring that fans of other teams always "forget" what they don't like. Barça fans are the only neutral ones that agree that the referee favoured us in some occasions, but was also against us in others.

Fatman, for instance, is forgetting this:

And if pique's a penalty, then this one is aswell



And both of this incident happend before any of chelseas, so if barca would have got 1 of this the game would have been completly different and there is a big chance that pique's handball would never had happend..

Parking the bus gets thrown around far too often...

Parking the bus implies panic, chaos...11 people behind the ball, pushed back very closely to their own net running frantically (often with little regard for tactics) trying to protect their own goal and hoofing the ball as far as it can possibly go being their main objective....i.e Inter vs Barca minutes 70ish-90 (except with 10 people)

In many ways Catenaccio is the antithesis of that...Its based on strict adherence to tactical positioning and aims to create calm and quiet a long the back four and avoid panicked or frantic play at all costs

One thing that needs to be cleared up: While Picchi is often referred to as playing deep behind the defense, that was not really the case. It would be shortsighted to say that Picchi played behind the defense when in reality his game was constant back and forth movement from deep positions to the defensive line. He would commonly leave his position deep at the back of the defensive diamond (sometimes for seemingly no reason) and push up to create a flat back four

Here, for example:



Going from left to right thats Burgnich, Picchi, and Guarneri...Facchetti is the farthest to the top of the screen

Thats the defensive line, at the end of the circle in mid field....Picchi is most certainly not playing behind the defense in this situation

On the flip side: Here's Inter vs Ajax



Thats our sweeper on the far left of the screen (by this time Picchi was gone)....about a mile behind the rest of our defenders...

Picchi was somehow able to play as a safety net behind the defense and a part of the offside trap seemingly at the same time...After Picchi retired, the sweepers that came after were able to play deep and clean up messes as the sweeper required, but none were able to multi-task safety-net and offside trap simultaneously, and thats when catenaccio fell apart

Catenaccio was more Inter vs Barca up til the 70th...it was calm, it was heavily organized, it was tactically rigid with positioning, etc

Once the game got close to the end though, all tactics were basically thrown out the window and the strategy became: "defend like your life depends on it" (i.e parking the bus)

this is kind of what i ment when i always say beautiful football is played in the mind, winning football is thought of and played in the brain and then the field, you dont need aestethically beautiful football to win, for me its always the strategic components and the philosophy that i consider vital.



the best interpretation of catenaccio would of course beat this barcelona, it would beat anyone.

proof? 2 cls from inter in the 60s and 3 from milan in the 90s

Picchi of course wasnt stationed permantly behind the backline, this wouldnt make sense for all games.

Different teams, differeny systems, players on the pitch naturally adjusted. If Picchi saw moving forward was a more advantagous position, it only makes sense he would do so. But primarly his position was behind the back line defensively speaking (which is the main objective of this thread, the defensivel phase). Of course, as said, he had superb vision so him moving forward and playing long passes was of course common.

TMO how is Inter winning the titles in the 60s proof they would beat Barca? Thats outragous.

What does Milan in the 90s have to do with anything? They didnt play Catanaccio.

And your idea about football is well known and it cant be agreed with on here. Noone remember these functional winners who dont play good football.

Name the best sides in history? Call out names.

Everyon replies, Brazil 70's, Total football Holland, Milan of Sacchi, Hungarians in the 50's, Madrid of Di Stefano and co.....ALL sides known for attacking, pleasing football in which individual greatness, team collectivity and breathtaking football was the key.

Nobody cares nor remembers the dull, boring teams who might win but did so with negative football.

Milan best period is known as the time Sacchi was in charge, but in fact with Capello they won more things. Why is it despite them winning more and it being more recent, does nobody remember it and yet everyone still talks about Sacchis team?

How come we all know the total football of the Dutch in he 70s...when in fact they lost to Germany in the final who employed defensivey, boring tactics? Why dont we know more about Germany?

Dont give me, you dont need aestethically beautiful football to win. For the very best, winning isnt ever enough, as a Madrid fan, you are expected to know this, yet conviently you have Mourinho the modern day results over joy coach therefore you dont care now.

Valdano was the man at your club who understand this, he is essentially a legend of your club, he understands the meaning of being a really great club and team. But you let him him go in favour of this, Mourinho win at all costs scheme....shocking move by your club in view.

The Franchise wrote: Picchi of course wasnt stationed permantly behind the backline, this wouldnt make sense for all games.

Different teams, differeny systems, players on the pitch naturally adjusted. If Picchi saw moving forward was a more advantagous position, it only makes sense he would do so. But primarly his position was behind the back line defensively speaking (which is the main objective of this thread, the defensivel phase). Of course, as said, he had superb vision so him moving forward and playing long passes was of course common.

TMO how is Inter winning the titles in the 60s proof they would beat Barca? Thats outragous.

What does Milan in the 90s have to do with anything? They didnt play Catanacci.

And you idea about football is well known and it cant be agreed with on here. Noone remember these functional winners who dont play good football.

Name the best sides in history? Call out names.

Everyon replies, Brazil 70's, Total football Holland, Milan of Sacchi, Hungarians in the 50's, Madrid of Di Stefano and co.....ALL sides known for attacking, pleasing football in which individual greatness, team collectivity and breathtaking football was the key.

Nobody cares nor remembers the dull, boring teams who might but did so with negative football.

Milan best period is known as the time Sacchi was in charge, but in fact with Capello they won more things. Why is it despite them winning more and it being more recent, does nobody remember it and yet everyone still talks about Sacchis team?

How come we all know the total football of the Dutch in he 70s...when in fac tthey lost to Germany in the final who employed defensivey, boring tactics? Why dont we know more about Germany?

Dont give me, you dont need aestethically beautiful football to win. For the very best, winning isnt ever enough, as a Madrid fan, you are expected to know this, yet conviently you have Mourinho the modern day results over joy coach therefore you dont care now.

Valdano was the man at your club who understand this, he is essentially a legend of your club, he understands the meaning of being a really great club and team. But you let him him go in favour of this, Mourinho win at all costs scheme....shocking move by your club in view.

what i ment is that the strategy and philospohy worked in its time, and even though football has changed and so has catenaccio's use and effectiveness, i think that if implemented in a way in which it can succeed then it would be the ultimate antidote for barcelona's football.

btw i hadnt bothered to read your complete response here is my complete response to it..

imo the way you come off here it shows that by even suggesting that the way you guys think is not completely correct makes you reply in a bit of a defensive manner.

now why wouldnt people remember the teams who won using such systems, dont you enjoy a bit of tactical beauty as well? you didnt mention inter of the 60's in there, you only use it to try to revoke a point which in the first place you didnt even understand.

bla bla bla say what you may about the rememberence i dont care, i wont change your mind and you wont change mine.

and what are you implying that i am a bandwagoner of mourinho? because you have bitten at me before expressing how you think i idolize him.. i just think similarily,to tell you the truth i cant care less for what happend to valdano, without believe there is not change and not even cryuff as a manager walked into barcelona doing what he wanted, mou understand that to win here and change the mentality of the club he needed more power, and valdano was something stopping him.

you just find my way of thinking and MOU'S AS well wrong dont you...

tactical brilliance will always beat anything and everything, no matter how it's expressed in the field when it comes to aesthetics. why would you point at mou and call it anti-football? he is a coach and as a coach he is entitled to think of a way to face any enemy and beat them no matter how you play.

you cant seem to understand that i am not saying that ugly football is the answer, but that the way the football is thought of in the mind is the important thing, regardless of how "beautiful" it turns out to be. aesthetics could only be a draw back for a team if it keeps it from reaching a system or way of playing that can make them hard to beat.

if the opponents cannot score a goal, they cannot win the match

Giovanni Trapatonni- "Is "Catenaccio" Creative? No "Catenaccio" is a system, a system that ruled out defeat as far as possible."

Michel Platini- "The Brazilians use 4 men to defend, italians use 8 "

Michel Platini-" its not the same philospohy, its not the same culture but its all part of football, greece became euro champions with their uncompromising attacks, and just 1 or 2 attacks"

it is part of football mates, just because its so different to what you play or think is best, doesnt make it any less of a way of playing the game.

thats how chelsea and inter, and madrid have shown in the past to be able to defeat barcelona.

in the end of the day football can be played and won in many ways, but what makes one way better than the other?

The Misunderstanding of this prime principle has led to people such as your selves to label such football as anti football because it is the living opposite of barcelona's brand of football, and you dont like it when you get beat by it.

"park the bus" and "catenaccio" are just 2 different ways of defending and countering, if done to its maximum exponent you cant lose unless you cant score your self, or outside factors play a role..


its so obvious when you come to understand it that it becomes common sense...

dani, excellent post.

I will put it this way - Winning with style > Winning without style > Losing with style > Losing without style

In other words I'd take a functional winning Inter Milan over an aesthetically pleasing losing Arsenal. However a Barcelona who does both for me is way better than either. At the same time a losing Arsenal is still better than a losing Chelsea of 2010-11.

In international football for example Cruyff's team is recalled more than Beckenbauer's but I am sure Beckenbauer feels greater happiness at having won the world cup than Cruyff feels at having lost it closely. Neither can compare to the stature that Pele is given however. Hence there is no substitute to winning with style.

In my view this is what Real Madrid are doing currently. Let's recall in 2006-07 they hired Capello to get back the winning habit. Once they got that they wanted to recover their style as well. Right now once again they are desperate to win. They know Mourinho won't stay for long. So they want to use his time to get the team back to winning big and the minute he leaves the next coach they hire will be asked to rediscover their style while maintaining the winning.

One question we can ask ourselves is why Capello was fired and Mourinho has been garlanded. I can suggest a few reasons. One is that Mourinho uses a horses for courses approach. That means only when he faces a definitively superior team like Barcelona he goes for cynicism and negativity but against weaker teams he allows the players to play freely. Capello forced them to play in one way all the time. Maybe Mourinho has learned from what happened to Capello in spite of the title win. Then again in Capello's defense his team had much less quality than Mourinho's has and La Liga then had other strong teams. Sevilla especially were going great guns in the days of Juande Ramos. The other, possibly even bigger reason, is that for all his winning mentality, Capello failed badly in UCL. It has actually been probably the biggest blemish in his illustrious career that he has not done that well in knock out competition for many years. Mourinho on the other hand is a knock out and UCL specialist as he continues to demonstrate.

Really liked this line in your post which is also on the lines of my signature - "in which individual greatness, team collectivity and breathtaking football was the key"