Why Enzo Maresca Is Taking So Long to Become Manchester City Boss
The delay around Enzo Maresca’s move to Manchester City should not be mistaken for uncertainty about the football idea. If City wanted a radical departure from Pep Guardiola, they would not be pushing for Maresca. They would be looking for a disruptor, a personality appointment, or a manager with a completely different tactical identity.
Instead, the attraction is obvious. Maresca knows the club, understands the language of positional play, has worked inside Guardiola’s staff and has already coached in City’s development structure. The hold-up appears to be contractual and legal, rather than ideological. Sky Sports has reported that City are close to appointing him on a three-year deal, with compensation to Chelsea forming the key part of the process, while The Guardian has reported that Chelsea have been seeking settlement over Maresca’s Stamford Bridge exit and alleged breach-of-contract issues.
That matters because this is not simply a manager changing jobs. It is the first major act of Manchester City’s post-Guardiola era. City have confirmed Guardiola is stepping down after ten years, 20 major trophies and a period that transformed the club’s football identity. The next appointment therefore has to do two things at once: protect what has been built, while proving the club can still evolve without the defining coach of its modern history.
Maresca is seen as the ideal replacement because he represents continuity without being a clone. He was City’s Elite Development Squad coach, later worked as Guardiola’s assistant during the 2022-23 treble season, then proved at Leicester that he could carry a possession-heavy idea into a senior dressing room and win with it. Reuters noted when Chelsea appointed him in 2024 that he had led Leicester back to the Premier League in his first season, with a style based on building from the back and using Ricardo Pereira as an inverted full-back.
His tactical fit is not subtle. At Leicester, Maresca’s base shape was largely a 4-3-3 that became a 3-2-5 or 3-2-4-1 in possession. One full-back stepped into midfield, the two No 8s pushed higher into the inside channels, and the wingers held width to stretch the opposition back line. Coaches’ Voice described how Leicester’s inverted full-back helped form a double pivot, allowing the No 8s to attack higher areas and support the centre-forward.
At Chelsea, the starting point shifted more towards a 4-2-3-1, but the underlying principles remained familiar. The Premier League’s own tactical analysis noted that Maresca moved away from the 4-3-3 he mainly used at Leicester, preferring a 4-2-3-1 at Chelsea, but that the shape still regularly morphed in possession into a 3-2-5, 3-3-4 or even a 3-4-3 diamond depending on the movements of the full-back, pivot and No 10.
That is why City like him. He does not need to be taught the concept of rest defence, central overloads, wide isolation, short connections or third-man runs. He already coaches through those ideas. The question is not whether he understands Guardiola’s game model. The question is whether he can make it feel alive again when Guardiola is no longer the one delivering it.
His first immediate task is to re-establish City’s control without making the team slow. Guardiola’s best City sides did not just keep the ball; they controlled where opponents could counter from. Maresca’s Leicester often protected attacks with a back three and double pivot beneath the ball, creating a 3-2 structure designed to guard central spaces against transition. That must be the first non-negotiable at the Etihad. If City lose the counter-pressing edge, they become just another possession side with high full-backs and expensive forwards.
The second task is to define the midfield hierarchy quickly. Maresca’s teams need clear roles: the player who holds, the player who inverts, the eights who attack the inside channels, and the creator who receives between the lines. At Leicester, the No 8s were liberated by the inverted full-back. At Chelsea, Cole Palmer’s role as a central No 10 became central to how the team connected attacks, with Coaches’ Voice highlighting how the inverted full-back helped Palmer receive in more dangerous right-sided interior spaces.
City have enough technical quality to absorb those ideas, but the balance has to be right immediately. The post-Pep team cannot become over-coached in sterile areas. Maresca must give City the same structural security while restoring speed in the final third, especially through wide players holding the touchline and attacking one-v-one situations. His Chelsea side used maximum width from the front line to pin back fours and create spare players elsewhere, usually in midfield or at centre-back.
The third task is psychological. Maresca has to make the players feel they are not simply maintaining Guardiola’s museum. That is the hardest part of succession. Guardiola will remain part of the wider City Football Group as a global ambassador, with the club saying he will give technical advice across the group. That may be helpful, but it also adds a layer of shadow. Every team selection, tactical tweak and difficult result will be measured against what Pep would have done.
The hangover could come in three forms. First, the players may unconsciously compare the message. Guardiola’s authority was built over ten years of proof. Maresca will arrive with strong credentials, but not the same institutional weight. Secondly, opponents may sense a moment of vulnerability. City finished second to Arsenal last season and are entering a new era, which means the rest of the league will see opportunity rather than inevitability. Thirdly, the delay itself eats into preparation time, particularly with players away at the World Cup and pre-season approaching. The Guardian has reported that City do not return for pre-season training until the middle of next month, giving them some time but not a full summer runway.
In formation terms, expect Maresca to begin with two possible templates. Against most Premier League opponents, the likely base is a 4-3-3 that becomes a 3-2-4-1 or 3-2-5 in possession. One full-back steps inside next to the holding midfielder, the other side forms the back three, two advanced midfielders occupy the half-spaces, the wingers stay wide, and the striker pins the centre-backs. That is the Leicester model, and it is the cleanest fit for City’s Guardiola-era squad habits.
The alternative is the Chelsea model: a 4-2-3-1 out of possession, with a No 10 given freedom to receive between midfield and defence. In possession, that can still become a 3-2-5, but the double pivot gives extra protection and may suit tougher away games or matches against elite transition teams. The Premier League analysis of Maresca’s Chelsea specifically noted the 4-2-3-1 base, the regular inversion of one full-back, and the possibility of a 3-2-5 or 3-3-4 depending on how the pieces moved.
The common themes are clear: one full-back moving inside, a back three behind the ball, wide wingers, aggressive No 8 or No 10 movements, and a counter-press designed to win the ball before the opposition can attack open grass. He is unlikely to rip up City’s structure. He is more likely to refine it, simplify some parts early, and then add variation once the squad trusts his voice.
That is why the delay feels frustrating but not alarming. City are not searching for a new identity. They are trying to complete a complex appointment without dragging Chelsea into a wider dispute. Once Maresca arrives, the real challenge will begin: proving continuity can still be competitive when the man who embodied it has gone.
The safest appointment is not always the easiest one. Maresca gives City the clearest tactical bridge from Guardiola, but bridges are judged by what happens when people start walking across them
