"When you lose the ball, it's 1 on 1 across the entire field!"

Today, the vast majority of teams defend according to the principles of zonal a defence. What were the reasons that led you to favour the option of man-marking ?

When I arrived in Cannes and took stock of the situation (AS Cannes was then languishing at the bottom of the National 2 league table, editor's note), I told myself that if we did everything like the others, we would have difficulty raising our level. The idea quickly came to me that we needed to invent, or at least resort to, something else to get the best out of the squad.

Even if it meant breaking the rules?

Precisely because I wanted to break the rules… For thirty years now, all teams have been playing with a zonal defence approach. Today, most players are completely unfamiliar with the concept of man-marking. However, I'm convinced that one of the ways to cause problems for an opposing team is to force them into formations they're not prepared for or accustomed to. Furthermore, I've reached a point in my career where I aspire to have my team play the football I love. I like generosity, forward play, and intensity. These are qualities that are found in man-marking techniques. Given all these elements, this approach was the obvious choice.

"Today, the vast majority of coaches approach the game through possession and positional play. It's a kind of Guardiola syndrome."

Were your players surprised when you presented your project to them?

Let's just say they weren't expecting it. Today, the vast majority of coaches approach the game through possession and positional play. It's a bit like the Guardiola syndrome. I admire those teams, but for my part, I told myself: "Be yourself, do what you love!" I know about playing-out patterns, we do them, but that's not what guides my thinking. My ambition is for my players to win back the ball while the opposing team distorts its block to attack. And for me, the clearest and easiest solution to implement can be summed up in one sentence: "When you lose the ball, it's 1 on 1 all over the pitch."

Do your players know the identity of their opponent the day before the match?

No, it's the game and the action in progress that decide "who will be marking whom." What matters most during the match isn't so much the notion of individual marking as counter-pressing. The player who has just lost the ball, or their teammate closest to the ball, must instantly switch to defensive mode, making the effort to immediately enclose the ball carrier. Furthermore, it's important to emphasize that winning the ball back is always a collective process, even if it relies on individual attacks. With this in mind, it's not necessarily the player making the greatest effort who wins the ball back, but often their partner. Beyond the tactical aspect, it's the mental dimension that matters.

Precisely, isn't it dangerous to base your game plan on the players' mental commitment, which can fluctuate from one match to the next ?

All tactical options have advantages and disadvantages. Coaching means accepting to work with both. In this case, focusing on individual marking means accepting to take calculated risks, based on the assumption that your players won't give up and that they will go all out to compensate for a teammate's missed run or to cover a space they weren't initially responsible for. It also means accepting the idea that we will be put in difficulty when one of our players is eliminated and even that we will concede goals that the zone defence could have prevented. The key is to know what we gain in return for accepting this risk. For now, the balance between the positive and negative effects is clearly tilting in favour.

"What matters most in the course of the match is not the notion of individual marking but rather that of counter-pressing."

Within this perspective of sacrifice for the benefit of the team, the profile of "flamboyant players", those more inclined to attack than to defend, must pose an insoluble problem for you?

For me, a good player is one who fits into the team project. But you know, the difference between ball handlers and what we used to call "water carriers" has narrowed considerably. Today, even "flamboyant players" understand that the faster they recover the ball, the more likely they are to attack. And in this regard, I don't know a single player who won't go for what allows them to enjoy themselves and win. Now, if a player doesn't make the effort and puts the team in jeopardy, their place can no longer be on the field. In which case, I'm not the one who takes them off; they're the one who sits on the bench all by themselves.

What happens when you've been destabilised and not a single one of your players can get out to the ball carrier "within time of a pass"?

We change the approach by implementing compensations aimed at creating a compact team block. Very often, my midfielder is then tasked with rebalancing the team until we're in position and can return to man-marking with the player closest to the ball. The main principle is that we no longer adopt a "geographic" approach of occupying space; instead, we seek to impose an individual and personal balance of power during defensive phases. This is, in fact, the heart of the thinking!

"This "1 against 1" approach is only validated when each ball recovered represents an opportunity to play forward."
 

National 2 league matches and the Coupe de France semi-finals, is it the same battle and the same defensive options when losing the ball?

Of course, why should we change a style of play that works so well? When we drew Grenoble (Ligue 2) in the Coupe de France (round of 32, editor's note), some of the team leaders came to me to ask if we were going to keep the same defensive moves. When I told them yes, I think they thought I was crazy. And it worked! Same thing against Lorient (L2) in the next round. And we went through! Against Guingamp (L2) in the quarter-finals, it was the players themselves who sent messengers to me asking not to change anything! They didn't have to push hard. Today, as we prepare to play the semi-final against a Ligue 1 team, I feel the concentration and the excitement, but no fear or uncertainty about the tactical choices and the game plan.
 

Do you think the element of surprise plays in your favour?

If I take the case of Grenoble, Lorient, and Guingamp, who are all in Ligue 2, yes, I think they were a little destabilized. Or, at least, that they weren't able to solve the collective problem we posed for them. But I want to clarify that this "1 on 1" approach to defensive phases only applies when every ball won back represents an opportunity to play forward. We didn't shrink. On the contrary, we always intended to "attack" them, imposing intensity in all corners of the pitch. I believe the key to these matches was as much the way we defended as the way we tried to attack our opponents. Will it be the same against Reims, who play in Ligue 1? I don't know, but I'm looking forward to seeing what game plan they come up with.

Logically, you should be getting beaten up…

Yes, certainly, since their individual qualities are much stronger than ours. All the more reason to rely on a game plan that relies on the investment and intensity of all my players. I don't know what the result will be, but I know what qualities we'll rely on to try to get through this round.

Do you see any specific offensive moves that might cause you problems?

Yes, I do, and of course, I won't talk about them. Whether in the cup or the league, it's up to the opposing coaches to find the solutions... In any case, what's certain is that we'll do everything we can to make life difficult for them!