Watching the lads on the tv over here in Germany, each time the opposition has a corner the commentators invariably say that our zonal marking allows players to make a run in and quite often get a (free) header. The more knowledgeable of you out there must have your opinions on zonal marking. Is it good or bad and should we persist with it?
I have always been a fan of zonal marking. Zonal marking is basically marking space and by doing that you have each part of the box covered, where as when man marking you can lose your man and get in each others way by tracking runners. So you have a bit of territory to defend and it doesn't matter what the opposition players are doing, if the ball comes in that space then you attack it and clear the ball.
Zonal or man marking the problem is centre halves more interested in stopping the attacker heading the ball than winning it themselves. You've already got a shirt on so leave his alone spot the flight of the ball and GO AN EFFIN WIN IT YOU PANSY. Thats why Kenwyn was so good because he'd never been taught to mark just attack the ball.
Think we are saying the same thing if you defend the ball rather than the man no one gets a free header cos one of you is there trying to head it away. The amount of "defenders" who aren't even looking at the corner being taken is scary
When I played, albeit at schoolboy level, in a country not known for its excellence... I was a centre back who bosses the other defenders. I'd have literally ignored any demand from a coach to use zonal marking. Gaps appear and concentration lapses. man marking is the way for me.
Is that why you possibly didn't make it? If zonal marking is done properly then gaps should not appear and concentration lapsing is down to the individual, nothing at all to do with the tactics.
Have to agree with SAFC83 on this one - if it's done properly then zonal marking is an excellent form of defence - MON seems to like it as well!! Each individual is given a job to do at a corner - 2 men on the posts, 7 men in the box and sess outside the box - I think it works really well when you have players capable of it and (for me) it's the way we should play
I'd love to say it was dodgy knees but I like millions of others just wasn't up to it/wasn't really interested enough. Women tabs and booze appealled too much.
Surely the proof of the pudding is how many goals did we concede from corner kicks/free kicks last season, don't have the stats can anyone help.
Under different management so for that reason I would tend to keep away from that one mate. My way is always right
to be fair, We had only got beat by 1 goal up to WBA, where we let in 4, I dont have a clue on set pieces though, but our defending in general was very good nearly all season, we just didnt have a 15-20 goal a season striker.
sometimes man marking is great for singling out main threats in opposition teams, but zonal is better for the whole team to carry out. it makes the game more open and enjoyable too
I suppose the best example of it being down to individuals in either system that count is Rafa Benitez. Widely regarded as one of the best exponents of zonal marking whilst with Valencia, he was widely criticised at Liverpool for it because all the critics decided it was a bad idea as your opponent gets the run on you. Funny that because opponents would also have had the run on the Valencia defence they were so quick to jizz over.
