Thanks for that. Not sure that Norwich free-kick is conclusive, and defenders pointing at each other to pick up Giaccherini before he scored from a corner suggest man-marking, but maybe you're right (or maybe it's a hybrid system). Dismissing zonal marking just for being zonal marking is a pretty weak argument though. Lots of teams use it successfully and I've seen no evidence (other than lazy old-fashioned commentators pointing it out as the reason every time a goal is conceded by a defence using zonal marking) that it is any less effective than man-marking.
For that Norwich freekick fox is standing zonally in front of the man who gets the flick on. From the flick on Wanyama doesn't track his runner and a Norwich player receives the ball in ridiculous amounts of space with no one but boruc goal side of him. It's not a hybrid system, the players take up zonal positions and once the ball is played they loosely follow players in their zone, in most cases the attacker has a good run at the ball and with no one goal side. Zonal marking is a terrible tactic and is in no way preferable to man marking unless you have defenders who can't mark in which case they shouldn't be playing football. Edit: I agree we man mark for corners and in that sense its a hybrid system. Our marking for corners is pretty rubbish, as you point out with giacherrini's marker leaving him and gifting him a freeheader. although there is at least some marking and pressure on key attackers, something that we don't achieve when we zonally mark at set-pieces
The straight line positioning doesn't necessarily mean it isn't man-marking. All that means is you keep the attackers away from the goal (or they'd be offside), you can still pick up a man in that system. And I'm sorry but anyone who says man-marking is simply a better system than zonal marking is talking rubbish. Even the best markers can lose their man in a crowded penalty area with players running everywhere. With a zonal system at least you're concentrating on the ball first and foremost, though that's not a perfect system either, hence the use of both of them among the best teams (though most of the best teams, it has to be said, favour the zonal system these days). The fact there are always free attackers when we're defending set-pieces doesn't necessarily mean we are using a zonal system though, it could just as easily mean our defenders are no good at marking! I have to say there's one thing I don't understand which is why we never have anyone on either post, that would seem a no-brainer to me, and probably would have prevented Giaccherini's goal, but what do I know?
Maybe, it seems preferable to me to have a rebound from which everyone is onside, than for the ball to go cleanly into the net though!
It isn't man marking because they aren't marking men but adopting zones. You can't dictate the play to the attacking side, they always have the upperhand as they make the decision and you react. When there's man marking you at least know where they are and can react quicker and more effectively. Its no different to open play where every team in the world adopts man marking in the interests of defending the goal. We are no good at marking because pochettino has adopted a system that favours marking space rather than applying pressure on the attacker and cutting down the space he has to operate in. You can clearly see from the free kick previously mentioned that we are gifting the opposition far too much space before and after the ball is played. It is true that zonal marking can be more effective in the instance of having a ****house defence that can't mark attacking runs. If you have a team that can track runners and apply pressure to them man marking is always preferable. With a zonal system at least you're concentrating on the ball first and foremost As I previously stated the attacking team hold the cards and you always have to react to them if you don't know their movements and the movements of your teammates there is going to be much more space for the attacking team, even if you do know what your team mates are doing for the first ball you don't know what the opposition is going to do and it is much harder to react with a preset zonal system. Particularly from freekicks like the one we just watched where the dangerous zones are 10 metres away from the starting point of the defense. It makes much more sense to mark corners zonally where the attackers are running towards you rather than away from you and man mark freekicks. I actually can't think of one advantage of zonal marking over man marking other than the difficulty in marking a player which as I say is the bread and butter of defenders and they should be capable of at least remaining goal side and not letting the attacker take a touch and then shoot like we saw against norwich. Which I will reiterate was abysmal defending. I have to say there's one thing I don't understand which is why we never have anyone on either post, that would seem a no-brainer to me, and probably would have prevented Giaccherini's goal, but what do I know? Its much better to have 2 players first picking up a man or if no one is free marking a dangerous zone, there have been studies done on this apparently but i don't know them.
Giaccherini scored because nobody tracked him, and nobody marked the zone in which he scored from, I can't remember who the culprit(s) were but it was terrible defending I know. The set piece taker tends to put the ball into 'an area' or dangerzone between the GK and defensive line for example, he's not necessarily targeting a specific player, if MP thinks we can better defend said 'area' zonally rather than worry about tracking your runner 100% then zonally is a far better option to man marking. As for having a man on the post, when I used to play we used a hybrid system, everyone marked a man, if you were free you marked a zone/went on a post. I was one of the short kids so I always got stuck on the post, maybe stick Lallana or somebody who's not the best defender on it. It makes sense for a free defending player to mark a dangerous area, but it also makes sense to have someone on the posts, just a question of how best to utilise your defensive players, something for MP and has minions to work out. There will be different systems to use for each different set piece, corners most likely would have someone on the posts, shooting free-kicks from 25 yards dead centre you wouldn't have anyone on the post as you want to hold the defensive line as high as possible, set pieces from the wing where you're looking to defend an area again you want your defensive line as high as possible, but also if you want zonal marking want to defend the right area, its all about getting the right balance of pushing the defensive line up and how well your GK communicates with the 2 CB's who organise it all.
The set-piece taker is very capable of playing the ball to the advantage of his team mate whom will if he's any good find more space in a zonal marking system than in a man marking system. In our case we can't track the runners effectively because we begin from a position of lax marking. We may have some idea of where the ball is going to go but its the attacker that poses the threat and controls where the ball is to go. Zonal marking is particularly useless when used to defend wide deep set pieces, such as happened a couple of times against norwich, as the dangerous zones are some distance away from where the defensive line begins in which case we are neither marking men or a dangerous zone.
Sorry, but zonal marking is much more common in open play than it is at set-pieces. Almost every team in the world adopts zonal marking in open play, with the exception perhaps of the two central defenders. It could be argued that instead of reacting to the attackers you should react to the ball, since without the ball the attackers can't score, which I suppose is really the basis of zonal marking on set-pieces. I'm not sure it's possible to know whether we are poor at defending set-pieces because of the system or because of the players deficiencies. It's clearly not the case that zonal marking is only more effective if you have terrible defenders though. If anything it's more difficult to effectively mark zonally. In a zonal system the player nearest to where the ball is going has to move to intercept the ball before it reaches an attacker. The fact we sometimes fail to do that doesn't mean zonal marking itself is to blame. Do we blame man-marking every time a player gets free in the box and scores? Of course not. It's possible that I am taking a simplistic view of this issue as you are with marking, it certainly seems intuitive that effectively making the goal smaller by putting men on the posts is a good idea, and when you see a goal conceded that probably would have been avoided it leads to a knee-jerk reaction, much the same as people have against zonal marking. I welcome evidence to support the view that it's more effective not to put players on the posts, but as yet I haven't seen any.
I heard Gary Neville talking about this. He reckoned that putting men on the posts is not effective and that you only see a goal-line clearance once or twice a season. Better to put players towards the front of the goal to cut off near post corners. He suggests that this saves more goals but because its less obvious, people don't realise whats going on.
This video (from 2:10) is a good illustration of what I meant by a "hybrid" system, by the way, and explains the reason teams (not only use) position themselves in a long line when defending indirect free-kicks: http://performance.fourfourtwo.com/tactics/how-to-zonal-mark-from-a-corner
To defend a dangerous player you man mark him perhaps you leave the non dangerous ones they don't really matter as they aren't dangerous. At set pieces pretty much every player is dangerous and warrants close attention and therefore man marking. If they have the ball you mark the players that are dangerous. That doesn't mean following them around wherever they go but you need to know where they are and be able to cut down their angle to goal. We are poor at defending set pieces because we don't mark the attackers well enough. Its obvious for norwich's first freekkick that they had too much space which was through lax marking which imo was because we do not begin the defense of the freekick by man marking them. Players are going to get free in the box either way. Our failure to remain goal side of players is a critical error, I don't purely blame it on zonal marking but its a symptom of it as our defenders cannot track the runners as effectively. You are right in saying I am being too simplistic. indeed there is always going to be a combination of man marking and zonal marking. The distinction I would draw is that the players that are actually dangerous should be man marked as that is the most effective way of cutting down their space and restricting their ability to score.
I'm not sure why you're quoting me there because with the exception of the last one your responses don't seem to bear much of a relation to what I said! So I'll deal with that last point: You repeatedly say man-marking is more effective but you never explain why, except to say a zonal marker "cannot track the runners as effectively" which is a truism. The aim of zonal marking is not to track the runners, it's to attack the ball. If we fail to deal with the ball coming in, then that's the problem, not the fact we fail to deal with runners. I would argue that the most effective way of restricting a player's a ability to score is to keep the ball away from them, and I don't see that as an argument in favour of either form of marking really.
The reason why man marking is more effective is because when the attacker receives a pass he will have much less space between him and the goal if he is being man marked. The way we defend allows far too much space between the attacker and the goal. If the ball is being passed from one attacker to another attacker as invariably happens it is better to have a man marking the attacker. Zonal marking may sometimes prevent an attacker from accurately passing the ball but that is taking a huge gamble and not an effective tactic. Over the course of a game the ball is going to fall to an attacker and if he's in space he will be much more dangerous than if he was marked. We are playing highly skilled opposition who can take advantage of small amounts of space let alone the gaping holes that zonal marking from set pieces is creating in our defence. Attackers in dangerous positions should be man marked at all times failure to do so will result in goals conceded and points lost. Edit:If we fail to deal with the ball coming in, then that's the problem, not the fact we fail to deal with runners. How are we meant to prevent the ball being passed accurately to an attacker in a dangerous position for 90 minutes that is absolutely moronic.
Well (tongue in cheek, before you throw a wobbly), the discussion ends there. His positional sense has been so poor at this level, that any point that starts with "where Foxy was stood", surely becomes invalid. Even he probably won't know if that is where he should have been
Yeah that is moronic, and it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you need to head the ball away (in the event of a set-piece) before it reaches the attacker, not make sure the attacker doesn't have space (that should be a secondary concern). As I said, that's not an argument for or against either method. I'm getting the impression you think zonal marking means players aren't allowed to move or something. Maybe you can explain to me what your interpretation of zonal marking is because I don't think we're talking about the same thing. You can still close down an attacker and even tackle him in a zonal system. You don't stand still for the whole match and only deal with players who come into your immediate proximity. The action when a player closes down another player in open play is not influenced by the marking system used. If you just saw those two players in isolation for that moment, you would not be able to tell which system is being used. And in either system goals will be conceded and points lost, that's just the nature of the game. No defence is impenetrable.
The number one priority should be preventing the attacker getting goalside. If you are marking zonally you aren't tracking runners and cannot maximise the chance of being goal side. As we saw with norwich's excellent chance the attacker got goalside and had a clear cut oppurtunity. If there had have been man marking he would not have had this clear cut oppurtunity. The primary concern for any defender should be preventing the attacker from having the space to score. If the primary concern is attacking the ball he will decrease the effectiveness of his defence and the defence of the team. Hence giacherrini's goal where Lambert (or rodriguez) left his man flew for the ball missed it and giacherrini got a free header. That is horrendous defending and does not play the percentages. Such an attitude will cost far more points than primarily focusing on shutting down the attackers space. Unless we win the first ball outright we will be at a significant disadvantage as we saw with the norwich freekcik where there was flickon and norwich players in far too much space. Zonal marking is probably in most cases more effective at winning the first ball but that is not the most effective way of defending. Man marking is in all circumstances the most effective way of defending as it is the best way of preventing the attacker of having the space to score. Edit: Goal side and shutting down space are interchangeable, btw
I think this all makes sense, from the perspective of someone who is man-marking, but in zonal marking you don't care if the attacker is goal-side, because you are going to cut the ball out before it reaches him. You're not concerned with where the opposition players are once the ball has been delivered, you're concerned with where the ball is. In the example of the line of defenders defending a wide free-kick, the "markers" will ensure they match up positionally against a similarly proficient header (that may be the case with corners as well, and probably should be), but when the ball is delivered, they are concentrating solely on the ball. The point about the flick-on if you fail to win the first ball is a good one, but in a zonal system you should be covered because the ball will either travel into a dangerous zone which is being marked, or it will go somewhere that isn't dangerous. The problem arises when players charge out of their zones towards the ball when they have no hope of reaching it and leave space where they should be stood. I think that is possibly a deficiency of our defence, but that's not a deficiency of zonal marking.
