have a read of this article by martin keown. there is a really good article by a coach about zonal marking (which i can't bloody find ) but this isn't bad... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...om-Manchester-Citys-zonal-marking-system.html and sunday league level there is no question that man marking is the best way to defend set pieces but if you set zonal marking up correctly its a far more intuitive way to defend. maybe you were badly coached
You hae hit the nail on the head there. Wow! Considering what we've managed to achieve some fans attitudes are completely laughable.
I'm delighted with the transfers, some fans have short memories I guess. Think where we were four years ago!
sorry should have been decent delivery or good movement, I just find that if you aren't picking up a perticular player you get indecision on who should go for the ball if its in the area between two defenders. thats just my personal view point. at the very least if you man mark you should get somebody competing with the attacker which should normally be enough.
Love it: "Britain's distrust of zonal marking is a bizarre feature of the national footballing identity and the last bastion of British boneheadedness in a country that is finally seeing the benefit of deep-lying passers and embracing formations other than 4-4-2." Mind you, he's obviously never listened to Canary Call ............
You hae hit the nail on the head there. Wow! Considering what we've managed to achieve some fans attitudes are completely laughable.
Supers makes a good point. A system proven to be most effective at one level may be hopeless when tried at another level, e.g. if the players are unable to execute it properly. Of course, man marking isn't easy to execute properly either, since players tend to e.g. fall asleep on the job!
when i hear hansen and lawrenson constantly bemoaning zonal marking on match of the day i just hang my head. this programme goes out to millions and they have obviously never analysed the system or tried to work out why it is used by so many coaches these days. it is very embarrassing and people wonder why our kids aren't great at football? idiot pundits who don't understand the modern game don't help. thank god for gary neville who, by the way, doesn't like zonal marking - but at least he understands how it works!
You've probably heard this, but it really sums it up. Lawro was summarising when the commentator referred to the huge increase in the use of performance technology etc., including real-time in-match analysis providing minute by minute data on what was going on on the pitch. Lawro dismissively replied "Oh, we had all that at Liverpool in my day" ........ pause for effect .......... "we called it the manager". Guffaws all round in the press box.
I'm not for a second saying you're wrong mate, and I'm definitely not saying Lawro is right, but Hansen and he did win a few trophies in their time so he probably is reasonably qualified to talk about defending.
What I meant Munky was that Lawro's mind appeared closed to the suggestion that even a manager such as Bill Paisley (or whoever) might gain new insights into the game had he had the sort of performance data available nowadays. Fact is, every top club uses it however brilliant the manager is. The idea that any manager worth his salt doesn't need the help of this hi falutin statistical analysis stuff is way off the mark.
Lawrenson and Hansen are useless. My personal favourite with lawro was when he critisised a player for playing for Ireland after being born in England, forgetting he did exactly the same.
Fair do's Robbie, and he remains firmly entrenched in the 80's mindset so you are right in what you say. And more to the point the bloke is a colossal bell-end at the end of the day
