Learn Hardcore German: Nach dem Konflikt sagt der Trainer, die Mannschaft habe gut reagiert und sich schnell wieder entspannt. - After the conflict the coach says the team reacted well and relaxed again quickly.

nach = after (in a temporal sense)
In German, nach always takes the dative case when it refers to time.
Konflikt is masculine:
- Nominative: der Konflikt
- Dative: dem Konflikt

So after nach, you must use the dative form dem, giving nach dem Konflikt = after the conflict.

Why is the word order Nach dem Konflikt sagt der Trainer and not simply Der Trainer sagt nach dem Konflikt?

Both Nach dem Konflikt sagt der Trainer and Der Trainer sagt nach dem Konflikt are grammatically correct, but they follow different word order rules and have slightly different emphases.

Key point: In a main clause, German requires the finite verb in 2nd position (the “verb-second rule”):

If the subject comes first:
Der Trainer (1st) sagt (2nd) nach dem Konflikt …
If some other element (like a time phrase) comes first:
Nach dem Konflikt (1st) sagt (2nd) der Trainer …

Putting Nach dem Konflikt at the beginning emphasizes the time frame (“after the conflict”), then tells you what happens in that time frame (“the coach says …”).

So:

Der Trainer sagt nach dem Konflikt … → neutral order, focus on “the trainer”.
Nach dem Konflikt sagt der Trainer … → slightly more focus on “after the conflict” as the setting.

Why is it sagt der Trainer (present tense) if nach dem Konflikt sounds like a past event? Shouldn’t it be sagte?

You could say:

Nach dem Konflikt sagte der Trainer, …
= After the conflict, the coach said …

That would be normal narrative past.

But using the present sagt is also common, especially in:

news reports,
sports commentary,
summaries of past events.

This is called the “historical present” or “narrative present”: past events are described in the present to make them feel more vivid and immediate.

So:

Nach dem Konflikt sagte der Trainer, … → normal past narration.
Nach dem Konflikt sagt der Trainer, … → stylistic choice; it still refers to something that happened after the conflict, but it is narrated as if it’s happening “now” for dramatic or journalistic effect.

Why is there a comma before die Mannschaft habe and no dass in front of it?

The comma introduces a separate clause that reports what the trainer says:

Main clause: Nach dem Konflikt sagt der Trainer,
Reported clause: die Mannschaft habe gut reagiert und sich schnell wieder entspannt.

German often uses indirect speech (indirekte Rede) in this way. There are two main patterns:

With dass and (usually) the indicative or subjunctive at the end:
- Der Trainer sagt, dass die Mannschaft gut reagiert hat.
Without dass, but with Konjunktiv I (subjunctive I) and normal main-clause word order:
- Der Trainer sagt, die Mannschaft habe gut reagiert.

In style similar to newspapers, option 2 is very common:
comma + subject + Konjunktiv I (no dass).

Why is it die Mannschaft habe and not die Mannschaft hat?

habe is the Konjunktiv I (subjunctive I) form of haben for 3rd person singular:

Indicative: er/sie/es hat (he/she/it has)
Konjunktiv I: er/sie/es habe

In indirect speech, German often uses Konjunktiv I to show that you are reporting someone else’s statement rather than directly asserting it yourself.

Compare:

Direkte Rede (direct speech):
Der Trainer sagt: „Die Mannschaft hat gut reagiert …“
Indirekte Rede (indirect speech):
Der Trainer sagt, die Mannschaft habe gut reagiert …

By using habe, the sentence signals:
“This is what the trainer says/claims,” without the narrator explicitly confirming or denying it. It’s a kind of neutral, reported tone, very typical in journalistic German.

In everyday conversation, people often skip Konjunktiv and say:

Der Trainer sagt, dass die Mannschaft gut reagiert hat.

But in more formal written German, habe is preferred here.

Why is the word order die Mannschaft habe gut reagiert and not … dass die Mannschaft gut reagiert habe?

Both exist, but they belong to slightly different constructions:

With dass:
- Der Trainer sagt, dass die Mannschaft gut reagiert habe.
  → Subordinate clause: verb (here, habe) goes to the end.
Without dass:
- Der Trainer sagt, die Mannschaft habe gut reagiert.
  → Reported clause with main-clause word order (verb in 2nd position).

Your sentence uses option 2:

die Mannschaft (1st position)
habe (2nd position, finite verb)
gut reagiert und sich schnell wieder entspannt (rest of the clause)

So the pattern is:

[Main clause], [reported clause with Konjunktiv I and V2 word order].

This structure (no dass, Konjunktiv I, verb in 2nd position) is especially common in news and formal writing when reporting what someone said.

Why is the tense habe gut reagiert (a perfect tense) rather than reagierte or hätte reagiert?

The structure here is:

die Mannschaft habe gut reagiert
→ Konjunktiv I of Perfekt (present perfect).

Reasons:

Perfect vs. preterite (Präteritum)
In modern spoken German, the Perfekt (with haben/sein + Partizip II) is preferred for finished past actions:
- sie hat gut reagiert is more natural in speech than sie reagierte gut.
In indirect speech, that becomes:
- sie habe gut reagiert.
Why not reagierte?
- reagierte is simple past, indicative.
- It would sound like normal narration, not explicit reported speech.
Why not hätte reagiert?
- hätte reagiert (Konjunktiv II) expresses irrealis/hypothetical (“would have reacted”).
- Here the trainer is stating what actually happened, not a hypothetical situation, so Konjunktiv I Perfekt (habe reagiert) is correct.

So habe gut reagiert = (he says) the team has reacted well — reported as a completed action in the past.

Is die Mannschaft grammatically singular or plural, and why is the verb in the singular?

die Mannschaft is grammatically singular and feminine:

Nominative singular: die Mannschaft
Corresponding verb: die Mannschaft hat / habe …

Even though it refers to a group of players, it is treated like one unit grammatically, so you use singular verb forms:

Die Mannschaft hat gut reagiert. (indicative)
Die Mannschaft habe gut reagiert. (Konjunktiv I)

In English, “the team” can be either singular or plural depending on dialect and style (“the team has” vs. “the team have”), but in German it stays grammatically singular.

Why do we say sich … entspannt? What is the function of sich here?

The verb sich entspannen is a reflexive verb in German:

jemanden entspannen = to relax someone
sich entspannen = to relax oneself / to relax

In your sentence:

… und sich schnell wieder entspannt.

The sich shows that the subject (die Mannschaft) is acting on itself: the team calmed/relaxed down again.

Without sich, entspannen would usually mean “to relax something/someone else,” which is not the intended meaning here.

So:

Die Mannschaft hat sich entspannt. = The team relaxed / calmed down.
Der Trainer hat die Spieler entspannt. = The coach relaxed the players. (different meaning)

Why is the word order sich schnell wieder entspannt? Could you change the order of sich, schnell, and wieder?

In … und sich schnell wieder entspannt, we have:

sich = reflexive pronoun
schnell = adverb of manner (“quickly”)
wieder = adverb of repetition (“again”)
entspannt = past participle

General tendencies:

In the verb cluster at the end (with participles), the reflexive pronoun is usually close to the verb, but adverbs can come between them.
The chosen order sich schnell wieder entspannt sounds very natural:
- sich (who is affected)
- schnell (how fast)
- wieder (again)
- entspannt (main verb)

Other variants:

sich wieder schnell entspannt
→ also grammatical, but slightly different rhythm/emphasis.
schnell hat sich die Mannschaft wieder entspannt
→ different overall structure, still correct.

But sich schnell wieder entspannt is a very typical, smooth order in this sentence.

Why are Konflikt, Trainer, and Mannschaft capitalized?

In German, all nouns are capitalized.

Konflikt – a common noun (conflict) → capitalized.
Trainer – a common noun (coach/trainer) → capitalized.
Mannschaft – a common noun (team) → capitalized.

Verbs (sagt, reagiert, entspannt) and prepositions (nach) are not capitalized (unless they start a sentence).

So capitalization is a reliable hint that a word is being used as a noun in German.

How would this sentence look in direct speech in German?

A natural direct-speech version would be:

Nach dem Konflikt sagt der Trainer: „Die Mannschaft hat gut reagiert und sich schnell wieder entspannt.“

Here:

hat … entspannt is indicative Perfekt (normal way to talk about a completed past action).
No Konjunktiv I inside the quotation marks, because the trainer is describing things from his own perspective.

The original sentence switches to indirect speech (indirekte Rede) by changing hat → habe and dropping the quotation marks.

If I don’t want to use the subjunctive, how can I rephrase the sentence more colloquially?

A more colloquial, very common version (especially in spoken German) would be:

Nach dem Konflikt sagt der Trainer, dass die Mannschaft gut reagiert und sich schnell wieder entspannt hat.

Notes:

You keep dass and use the indicative (hat) instead of habe.
The hat at the end belongs to both participles:
- gut reagiert
- sich schnell wieder entspannt
This is perfectly natural everyday German, even though in formal written style you’ll often see the Konjunktiv I version from your original sentence.