Antonio Conte looks an omnipotent alchemist - but so did Louis van Gaal

It was part managerial masterclass, part tribute act, proof that when history repeats itself it can be neither tragic nor farcical but instead rather impressive. This was a feat with a familiar plot. A great footballing nation could only name what seemed one of its least distinguished teams. They entered a tournament without the usual hopes and expectations. Shorn of talent further forward, they opted for the insurance of a third central defender. They faced favoured opponents, blessed with a golden generation. They outmanoeuvred and out-thought them. They were tactically brilliant. In a shock win, perhaps the man of the match was the manager. It explained why he had already landed one of the highest profile club jobs in world football.

For Louis van Gaal in 2014, read Antonio Conte in 2016? The similarities are considerable and compelling. Italy’s 2-0 evisceration of Belgium, like Holland’s 5-1 demolition of Spain in the World Cup, served to whet appetites in England. The feeling then was that Manchester United had secured a coup by recruiting Van Gaal. The sense that Chelsea had done well to land Conte was endorsed by Italy’s start. In Britain, more than most other places, there is a willingness to imagine managers have special powers. Like Van Gaal two years ago, Conte looks an omnipotent alchemist, capable of reading a game superbly, of using limited personnel perfectly and making imaginative, influential substitutions. It is hard not to wonder what a manager who can conjure such excellence from the non-scoring striker Eder and the Sunderland reject Emanuele Giaccherini might do when the raw materials are rather superior and a huge transfer budget can be deployed.

The temptation to get carried away is increased at international tournaments, simply because every game assumes a greater importance than those that merely constitute one thirty-eighth of a campaign. Yet it points to an ability to excel when the pressure is highest that bodes well. Perhaps that was what Van Gaal did at Old Trafford: he won many a must-win match when it seemed defeat would bring the sack. The problem was that he won too few in between. Left-field moves that won admirers at the World Cup – such as swapping his goalkeeper for a penalty shootout – were never required at Old Trafford. His unorthodox thinking seemed counter-productive. He never constructed a champion team.

Holland’s prowess and progress in Brazil, all the way to third place, prompted the thought that Van Gaal was the manager of the tournament. The first round of fixtures in France have brought similar suggestions about Conte. Contrasts were drawn with others in an environment populated by semi-retirees and those who have never scaled the heights on a weekly basis: he is one of the few, if not the only one, capable of getting an elite club job.

But Van Gaal illustrated one of the perils of appointing a manager whose summer was already occupied. Netherlands stayed in Brazil for so long that he missed the start of United’s pre-season training in July 2014. Should Italy, now suddenly being tipped as winners by some, last the distance in France, Conte will rush from one job to another.

Van Gaal’s reign suffered a false start in part because of Netherlands' march into the semi-finals. He did not make the first of his signings (Luke Shaw and Ander Herrera, targets identified by David Moyes, had already arrived) until August 20. So far this summer, Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester City and United have all bought players. As yet, Chelsea have not. Miralem Pjanic, mooted as a midfield upgrade, has instead joined Juventus. Chelsea may linger in limbo as long as Italy advance across the English channel, excited by the prospect of what a manager who can draw such a result from a side containing Marco Parolo may do when he has Eden Hazard and Cesc Fabregas at his disposal, and worried that Conte’s window to transform them is narrowing.

The Italian is not Van Gaal. He is from a different generation, almost two decades younger. He seems to relate to his players better, to motivate them better. He is unlikely to play as many of them out of position or to force them into a straitjacket because of dogma. His judgments not as frankly weird as Van Gaal’s. The chances are that his plans are more advanced and that when he does buy, it will be with rather greater research that the Dutchman showed in the purchase of Marcos Rojo, a player he noticed at the World Cup without even being aware he had played for Spartak Moscow a couple of years earlier, and who proved substandard. Conte’s touch should be surer, his skills more transferable between the club and international games.

Yet there is an ongoing debate if systems with three centre-backs really work in the Premier League. Van Gaal’s defensive excellence with Netherlands proved a precursor: his United team were too defensive in their mindset and perhaps the telling detail was that the Netherlands only scored twice in 300 minutes of knockout football. The World Cup was a sign of things to come for United, but not a preview of overachievement masterminded from the dugout. While Conte’s Serie A achievements with Juventus should offer more realistic grounds for optimism, Italy’s Euro 2016 campaign may not be a trailer for his Chelsea after all. Emulating Van Gaal this summer would be a feather in his cap; doing so next season really would not.