Rene Maric interview (Borussia Mönchengladbach): "The players understand the challenges better than the manager"

Rene Maric from Borussia Mönchengladbach is the youngest assistant manager of the Bundesliga at 27 years of age. A few years ago, the founding member of tactics website spielverlagerung.de contacted Marco Rose. Maric and Rose have been working together since 2016 - and won four titles in three seasons.

In the interview with SPOX and Goal, Maric talks about his time as a community member at SPOX, the importance and the coaching of the principles of play, a coach who worked with children's rhymes and his simplified view of soccer-specific topics based on his accumulated experience in professional football.

Mr Maric, you being the Bundesliga's youngest assistant manager at 27 is widely known, as is the fact that in 2011, you were one of the founders of spielverlagerung.de, a tactics website. What's less widely known is that the founders of that website met at SPOX.

Rene Maric: Yes, everything kind of started at SPOX. Of the current boys at Spielverlagerung, Tim Rieke, as well as MB, and HW - who would like to remain anonymous - began their writing at SPOX. That was around ten years ago. One would write articles about training sessions, another would do footballing history or tactical details and so on.

And you then became active in order to communicate with the writers on mySPOX?

Maric: Exactly. At that point, I was already a youth coach in Austria. I got the position at TSU Handenberg when I was 17, because I had suffered a serious cruciate ligament injury and sporting director Günter Russinger virtually demanded that I take it. I was watching a lot of YouTube videos of individual players, while I was also Googling training exercises and things relating to tactics. That's actually how I discovered SPOX in the first place and in order to be able to correspond with the writers I had to register with the site. Eventually, in conjunction with Tobias Escher of taktikguru.net, that gave rise to what spielverlagerung.de would become.

spox

In 2016, you became assistant manager at RB Salzburg under Marco Rose. A year later, you won the UEFA Youth League with Salzburg's U19s, followed by the Austrian league title with the first team in 2018 and 2019. A boring question first: what is tactics to you?

Maric: For me, it's definitely not a specific match plan with pre-determined sequences, situations, or moves. In my mind, tactics describe the sum of a team's decisions about how they're going to solve a particular situation. Tactics is, for instance, a player recognising where and how he is being closed down but still managing to still see an available teammate. And also how that teammate has positioned himself in such a way to remain available, and then to receive a pass in the right place at the right moment. Ultimately, it's a very simple process: on the pitch, you're either protecting the ball, demanding the ball, or creating space. There is nothing else. Tactics is the mutual resolving of a situation through these actions by means of predefined playing philosophies, which correspond with the players' abilities and their understanding of the game.

Should a manager's objective be to develop the players in such a way that they're able to coach themselves on the pitch, as it were?

Maric: That shouldn't just be the manager's objective, but the players' too. Players being able to coach themselves and their teammates makes it more likely that they'll find the proper solutions on the pitch. Intervening from the touchline isn't always easy: you never see the problems quite as clearly as the players who are experiencing them on the pitch. Mike Tyson once said that everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. And sometimes, figuratively, you get punched in the mouth during a game, too. Therefore, the more players are able to find good solutions, the better the situations are that they'll be able to put their teammates in. Too much coaching instruction can compromise that ability in players.

What role does a player's natural game intelligence have here?

Maric: It has to be applied correctly. Seeing a solution from the sideline is obviously different to finding that solution on the pitch and then being able to implement it. You have to make effective ideas available to players. You can't just provide them with solutions. Decision making has to come first, then implementation. The difference is that the manager has a more complete view of the bigger picture, but the players understand the challenges within their own positions better than the manager.

In what way?

Maric: When we talk about a game idea, we always talk about it in relation to the players, because they're the ones who have to implement it. There are lots of small details. For example: if a full-back is attacked diagonally, head-on, or perhaps even at different speeds, then those are all completely different playing situations. Although they look very similar, the solutions are different. Usually, managers employ solutions as a means of exploiting space. It's different for the player, though - if he is able to play with one touch and has a clear follow-up movement or if he has to take two touches without a clear follow-up movement. The player feels a difference because there are naturally two different responses - even if it looks from a wide angle like the spaces are similar. Of course the coach can also imagine himself in the situation and provide additional instruction based on that, particularly with common or re-occurring situations, but there will be times where there are infinite solutions to a problem and only very limited training time.

And in situations like these, the playing philosophies specified by the manager are meant to help the players find quick, or even automatic solutions?

Maric: Exactly. From the touchline, you're only virtually viewing the solution, which appears to be relatively clear. On the pitch, however, the player has to internalise all aspects of the problem and ask himself, 'Where can I play to? Can I play deep, diagonal, or across? Do I need to lay the ball off or is a quick switch available?' He has to review six, seven, eight solutions within seconds. Of course, a full-back is attacked differently in part than other players, but he is attacked nonetheless, and from a specific direction. If he is pressed head on, there is an instinct not take the ball into the direction of the opponent's movement - and that's the same for every position. The fundamental principles in football based on the initially mentioned actions are always the same, but you can derive patterns specifically for a position or the opposition.

How can coaching be used to improve this sense of pressure?

Maric: As a general rule, every player feels pressure in a different way. Lionel Messi, for example, may feel it less than other players. It's about training them in such a way that will allow them to feel as little pressure as possible and to not lose the ball. That's because - on the field - it is the player who decides: if he feels that by taking another touch he will lose the ball, then he'll pass - and, in itself, that wouldn't be the wrong decision. In the past, people always used to discuss the way the distances in a back four should look. If the opponent positions itself four metres deeper, however, the full-back might need to stand two metres higher. You could make this more scientific by incorporating angles, specific distances, or geometric shapes. But for me, that's the wrong approach. You should trust the players to find the right decision within the principles of play.

So the solutions don't have to be the same, even though the playing philosophy is?

Maric: Exactly. If you were on the pitch by yourself, the best solution would be to run towards goal in a straight line at top speed. If you're facing an opposing player, the best solution is to get past him with a successful dribble or pass. That would force your direction and speed to change. The difference between the solutions is always player-related: if I am told to go past the opposition player, I would lose the ball, and there would be a counter attack. If Messi is told the same, he goes past the defender and scores a goal.

imago images

To what extent should training be kept as practical and as simple as possible, so that players almost don't realise what they're learning?

Maric: Every session has different objectives. Not only in terms of pure content but also where it begins from. Do I review the last game or do I prepare for the next? Do I want to engage and develop the player individually or do I want to get a sequence, a pattern, or a philosophy onto the pitch? How can I merge those? And how do I do that with the team? If you want to convince the team of a way of playing, it makes little sense to make it as difficult or as complex as possible. Development and success - that's what training should be guided by. Complexity for the sake of complexity hardly makes sense. I've learned that. There used to be Yugoslavian coach named Ivan 'Dalma' Markovic. He was a manager for forty years and he used to communicate his playing philosophies within these very visual, funny poems. Almost like nursery rhymes. The players loved it and still know them by heart to this day, more than twenty years later.

In relation to youth promotion, you have said that coaching should be 'less explicit' and that the players' substantive development is secondary. What exactly do you mean by that?

Maric: In my opinion, you need to find the balance between instructed and instinctive play. In some circumstances, overly instinctive play will not be focused enough or will lead to players remaining within their comfort zones. Too much instruction, though, and that can be detrimental to their creativity, and their ability to solve problems independently. I feel, for instance, that limiting touches in training drills is occasionally counter-productive: if I'm never allowed to dribble, how am I supposed to know how to do it?

So, should you work less on players' weaknesses?

Maric: If a youth player is relatively capable across the board, he might make it in the fourth division. If, however, he has an outstanding skill, it should be trained in such a way that it becomes good enough for the Bundesliga. If that player is fast enough to leave everyone behind while taking the ball with him, for instance, his ability to switch the play doesn't need to be his best feature. Conversely, if you had the perfect player, but his conditioning only allowed him to function for ten minutes, you don't need to improve his dribbling. Instead, you'd work on his stamina, and towards him lasting for 45 minutes, then - eventually - for 90. The better question isn't about strengths and weaknesses at all, but: 'which coaching emphasis will produce the most relevant and valuable effect?'

At Mainz, Thomas Tuchel once said he had never played eleven-a-side on a full-sized pitch in order to optimise their own game in the intended spaces, which would leave the players virtually no other thought patterns. Which, then, is more crucial: the training drill or the coaching?

Maric: In a best-case scenario, the drill and the coaching work together. Coaching shapes and supports the objectives of the drill. In turn, the exercise provides the best possible platform for the coaching. In my view, pitch sizes either complicate or simplify actions, ensuring that they either happen more frequently, less frequently, or no longer at all.

In line with this approach, for the sake of the coaching, it is crucial to let the players be as creative as possible within the set pitch size, isn't it?

Maric: Yes, quite. If the drill already limits the players' possible actions, the manager should not add to that. It shouldn't become too much. If I introduce a lot of rules into a drill and then follow those up with a lot of coaching, that is often counterproductive. Intervening during free-flowing play with various methods, however, does make sense.

You have a degree in psychology. To what extent is that necessary on a coaching team, and how important is this aspect when dealing with individual players?

Maric: It's very important, because interaction is more important than methodology or expertise. Without good relationships, nothing is conveyed successfully, even if you're potentially full of lots of information. In that respect, the presence of a psychologist within a coaching team makes sense. The most important thing, however, is that when pursuing a collective goal, everyone is aware of their responsibility in terms of their interaction with other people from the staff, the team, or the club - only that leads to success.

When speaking to people who know you well, most will praise your social competence. Is this something a person simply has or is it another benefit from university?

Maric: I dare say outsiders will find this easier to assess. I too have my quirks, idiosyncrasies, and moments during which I'm not quite as easy to get along with. Apart from that, I'm a relatively straightforward person. I'm usually in a good mood, thankful for my job, and eager to make the most of it. The psychologist Carl Rogers once named authenticity, congruency, appreciation, and empathy as important tenets. I try to be guided mostly by that.

Last winter, you said on Twitter that you had learned a lot at Borussia Mönchengladbach but that you were also 'still making a lot of mistakes'. Could you elaborate a little?

Maric: There are so many details here, we simply don't have time for me to list everything. In Frank Geideck and Philipp Schützendorf, for example, we have an assistant manager and a video analyst who have been with Borussia for a very long time and are extremely competent. In talking to them, you're picking out facets, perspectives, and ideas that can help you develop. In the beginning, my most severe mistakes were being impatient with Marco or even encroaching on his territory, sometimes due to my nativity. It starts with the manner of discussions within the coaching team, continues with the way you interact with the media, and ends with your own readiness to admit mistakes.

Due to the experience you've gained so far on a professional level, do you know view some football-specific subjects in a simpler and more practice-related way than before?

Maric: Yes. If the consequences of your own work are not only more visible but also more tangible, you develop a better sense for the importance of details. The basics always have to add up, because they occur in almost every situation. Often, the creation and snapping shut of pressing traps, for instance, can only occur two or three times in a match - well-reproduced philosophies, on the other hand, can do so almost continuously. Simply put, football is a players' game. Players constantly make decisions at the highest speed. This means that, as mentioned previously, preset routines are only possible very occasionally. I also try to think differently now: not from the team to the individual player or from the idea to the process downwards, but rather the opposite - from the individual player or a playing situation upwards. A team always consists of individuals; a situation always consists of players with ideas, not of numerical relationships.

And yet, football also seems to have a hold on you even in your spare time. You spent your winter break in Ethiopia with Patrick Eibenberger, head of Gladbach's head of athletics, giving lectures. Tell us about that.

Maric: My friend Addis Worku works in the First Division over there. Years ago, he just messaged me to chat about football. I replied out of curiosity, and we've been in contact ever since. He even came to watch two of our games in Salzburg. Not only is he an expert but also a good-hearted, great guy. In that respect, the trip was primarily a visit to see a mate and to see a bit of his country. In addition, we held a free course, organised by Addis and targeted at the local coaches of the first and second divisions, since it is Addis' personal wish to improve Ethiopian football. Patrick and I did two half days of lectures. His subjects were athletics and weight bearing control, mine were essentially football theory and practice.

Finally: just how proud are you of everything you've accomplished so far, and can you imagine returning to the post of head coach?

Maric: I am very proud. More than pride, though, I feel gratitude: it is not a given for either Marco Rose, Christoph Freund or Ernst Tanner at Salzburg, and now Max Eberl at Borussia Mönchengladbach, to give a chance and their trust to such a young outsider. A return to the head coach post is fundamentally conceivable, but I don't yet know where I would go. I'm currently doing my A licence. Should I be successful, I would then just need my Pro licence. I need to gain much more experience. I realise that there is still a lot I can learn, and I think that I can do so from Marco in particular. I'm only really thinking about the present.