Team for Sunday

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
pass the football said:
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.
Click to expand...

rabbitspectrum said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have to admit Im with rabbit here, although ptf seems to have much more in depth knowledge than me. I've never been a big fan of zonal, stops players being dragged around losing position and inadvertently creating space but needs to be very well organised and difficult to do tight marking.MLT thrived on zonal marking. Personally I don't feel zonal is appropriate for set pieces or in/around the box. But your knowledge seems to surpass mine.
 
Lovelocum said:
I have to admit Im with rabbit here, although ptf seems to have much more in depth knowledge than me. I've never been a big fan of zonal, stops players being dragged around losing position and inadvertently creating space but needs to be very well organised and difficult to do tight marking.MLT thrived on zonal marking. Personally I don't feel zonal is appropriate for set pieces or in/around the box. But your knowledge seems to surpass mine.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to admit I could be wrong, I'm certainly not an expert, but there must be a reason why so many people who do this for a living choose the zonal system. That's what I've tried to understand and what I'm trying to get across here.

It just irritates me when commentators pick up that a team is marking zonally and then if a goal is scored against them they go "well, this is why I don't like zonal marking!", which is just ludicrous really, and it gives the impression to people that there is something inherently wrong with the system. You could equally say, "this is why I don't like goalkeepers!" when a goalkeeper makes a mistake; you know, correlation is not causation and all that. I don't believe that zonal marking is less effective, and that is evidenced by all the teams who choose to use it, and for all the pundits and experts who have professed their dislike of it very vociferously, I've not seen any evidence which suggests that it is less effective than man-marking.
 
pass the football said:
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.
Click to expand...
When the ball is being played into the box pretty much everyone is dangerous, see lallana's volley against the post, it fell nicely and he was unmarked. The chance of a flickon falling into a non-dangerous position isn't low enough to justify zonal marking for mine. And the ability of our defence and most defences to win the first ball isn't good enough to allow for zonal marking. It would make sense for a team of jos's certainly.

In man marking the players will by virtue of their marking be in the most dangerous positions and they will be marking players specifically suited to their ability. Man marking allows the defender to win the first ball, although it doesn't maximise this ability like zonal marking does, and at same time the man marking should ensure that an attacker isn't goal side.
Having defenders behind the ball and attacker also cuts down the angle of the shot and if there is a second ball to be one the defending team should be at a much greater advantage than the zonal marking one.

For the second ball form a set-piece every attacker in the box is dangerous whereas for the first ball only the aerial specialists will really be a threat. I am not convinced that zonal marking can deal with this second or third ball anywhere near as effectively and I am not convinced man marking is much weaker at dealing with the first ball, in many cases it will be just as effective.

Zonal marking can go wrong much easier than man marking, players can be totally unmarked under zonal marking whereas under man marking there should be someone responsible for him and someone to blame which is really quite important.
 
I'm not suggesting one system over the other but one problem with man-marking is that a clever player can lose his marker. That player is either now unmarked or another defender will have to leave the player he is marking leaving him unmarked and so on. This is why the concept of covering an area of space was introduced.

When you say it as simply as that it seems obvious. But of course it isn't.

pass the football said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is quite right. In both systems you should care where the ball is and try to deal with it before it gets to your man or becomes a problem in your space.

Anyone mentioned zonal attacking yet:emoticon-0130-devil
 
Lff said:
I don't think this is quite right. In both systems you should care where the ball is and try to deal with it before it gets to your man or becomes a problem in your space.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against that, the point is in zonal marking you are concerned only with the ball (or at least mostly), whereas in man-marking you have to watch the ball and the man, which is in theory less reliable.

rabbitspectrum said:
When the ball is being played into the box pretty much everyone is dangerous, see lallana's volley against the post, it fell nicely and he was unmarked. The chance of a flickon falling into a non-dangerous position isn't low enough to justify zonal marking for mine. And the ability of our defence and most defences to win the first ball isn't good enough to allow for zonal marking. It would make sense for a team of jos's certainly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I think you've totally misunderstood what I was saying. The chance of a flick-on falling into a non-dangerous position is irrelevant. If it falls into a dangerous position you're better covered by zonal marking because a player should be marking all dangerous zones and watching the ball, not trying to watch a man and, the ball having been deflected and drawn their eye, probably losing him.

rabbitspectrum said:
In man marking the players will by virtue of their marking be in the most dangerous positions and they will be marking players specifically suited to their ability. Man marking allows the defender to win the first ball, although it doesn't maximise this ability like zonal marking does, and at same time the man marking should ensure that an attacker isn't goal side.
Having defenders behind the ball and attacker also cuts down the angle of the shot and if there is a second ball to be one the defending team should be at a much greater advantage than the zonal marking one.

For the second ball form a set-piece every attacker in the box is dangerous whereas for the first ball only the aerial specialists will really be a threat. I am not convinced that zonal marking can deal with this second or third ball anywhere near as effectively and I am not convinced man marking is much weaker at dealing with the first ball, in many cases it will be just as effective.
Click to expand...

That's not an advantage because in zonal marking you match up players according to their heading ability as well, hence what I was saying about players in the defensive line at a free-kick matching up against a player of similar heading ability, and from a corner the best headers will mark the zones that present most danger. The second ball is better dealt with in zonal marking as I've already explained, and really how likely is it that in the event an attacker does get the ball there is nobody between him and the goal? Basically if that happens, you've messed up, no matter what system you're using.

If you're not convinced then fine, but I've already set out the reasons why I believe zonal marking deals better with the second ball.

rabbitspectrum said:
Zonal marking can go wrong much easier than man marking, players can be totally unmarked under zonal marking whereas under man marking there should be someone responsible for him and someone to blame which is really quite important.
Click to expand...

If a player is unmarked under zonal marking, that is not "something going wrong". It simply means they are not in a dangerous area. They will have to move into a marked zone in order to challenge for the ball, so the idea that people can attack the ball unchallenged is false. There is also someone to blame in zonal marking, if the ball is won by an attacker in your zone, it's your fault. Surely that's obvious?
 
Another thing about man-marking which I don't think you've mentioned is that a clever player can manipulate his marker away from an important area thereby creating space for someone to run into. Theoretically, this shouldn't happen with zonal.

After all is said and done, man-marking is what most of us have grown up with and its easy to understand.

OK, whose going to analyse every goal scored in the premier league last season and come up with the definitive answer on which is best? :emoticon-0106-cryin
 
Lff said:
Another thing about man-marking which I don't think you've mentioned is that a clever player can manipulate his marker away from an important area thereby creating space for someone to run into. Theoretically, this shouldn't happen with zonal.
Click to expand...

Indeed, in fact you don't even need to be that clever. If everyone runs to the near post, then the markers are duty-bound to follow, leaving lots of empty space behind them.
 
To be honest I think there is both Zonal and man marking. Instructions will be given for certain players to man mark and others to guard a zone. Usually the smaller attackers are not deemed to be threatening while the ball is in the air. Often though you will find it is the wide defenders that are zonal and are pulled out of position because the player in their zone has gone into the central ruck and they have gone with him the smaller player then comes in behind. As what happened for the Sunderland game.
We used to have the spare player on the line but we do not seem to do that any more.
 
Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but apparently Saints have committed more fouls than any other premier league team this season.
 
pass the football said:
I'm not arguing against that, the point is in zonal marking you are concerned only with the ball (or at least mostly), whereas in man-marking you have to watch the ball and the man, which is in theory less reliable.

Sorry, but I think you've totally misunderstood what I was saying. The chance of a flick-on falling into a non-dangerous position is irrelevant. If it falls into a dangerous position you're better covered by zonal marking because a player should be marking all dangerous zones and watching the ball, not trying to watch a man and, the ball having been deflected and drawn their eye, probably losing him.

That's not an advantage because in zonal marking you match up players according to their heading ability as well, hence what I was saying about players in the defensive line at a free-kick matching up against a player of similar heading ability, and from a corner the best headers will mark the zones that present most danger. The second ball is better dealt with in zonal marking as I've already explained, and really how likely is it that in the event an attacker does get the ball there is nobody between him and the goal? Basically if that happens, you've messed up, no matter what system you're using.

If you're not convinced then fine, but I've already set out the reasons why I believe zonal marking deals better with the second ball.

If a player is unmarked under zonal marking, that is not "something going wrong". It simply means they are not in a dangerous area. They will have to move into a marked zone in order to challenge for the ball, so the idea that people can attack the ball unchallenged is false. There is also someone to blame in zonal marking, if the ball is won by an attacker in your zone, it's your fault. Surely that's obvious?
Click to expand...
I think you underestimate the ability of an attacking team to create dangerous zones by their own movement, you can't dictate to them what the dangerous zones are they create the dangerous zones as they control where the ball goes and where the best headers go. Man marking is a much more effective way of reacting to the movements of an attack. The second ball will be lightning fast and if the zones aren't well set and the ball falls to an attacker there's a strong chance that he will be in too much space.

And it is much harder to match up on heading ability in zonal marking. And if they are matching up on heading ability and following the movements of this attacker i would suggest that it is loose man marking rather than marking the dangrerous zone, which i believe is what constitues zonal marking.

and really how likely is it that in the event an attacker does get the ball there is nobody between him and the goal? Basically if that happens, you've messed up, no matter what system you're using.
This is more likely under a zonal system when the dangerous zones are say 10 metres away from goal. As I said a while ago zonal marking makes more sense from corners when the attack is coming towards you but when it is running away from you there is too much risk of them getting goal side and in previously unknown dangerous positions.

From the set pieces I have seen us defend we have looked ok on a fairly predictable set piece but when the dangerous zone has been in an unpredictable area we have looked hopeless. You can't predict where the dangerous zones are because the attacker dictates where they will be. This is less true of corners but for whatever reason we opt to man mark instead of zonally. It would make more sense to change it around or even better man mark for all set pieces.

I see you agree our defence of set-pieces is bad. DO you think that we should persist with the current system as it clearly isn't working? Its possible zonal marking is a better system but I think it is being implemented very badly by pochettino and he would be better off man marking dangerous runners
 
I remember back to last season under Adkins the time we looked most dangerous from set pieces was when fonte or lambert swung round to the back post and looked to win a knockdown in a previously nondangerous position, a couple of times they were unmarked or at a significant height advantage. It was also a stock Lambert move to drift into the fullbacks space and win a knockdown or shot at goal. Schneiderlin scored a good goal like this running from deep and getting onto a jrod knockdown. For the open play examples man marking would help in the instance of tracking the runner from deep although the forward moving into a non dangerous position is always going to be a problematic decision for a centrehalf and the zonal marking is probably preferrable if the fullback is half decent in the air. For the setpieces I think the best headers should always be marked as where ever they go they will they create a dangerous position even if it is in a non goal scoring one.
 
I've sort of given up on following this coaching master class. I'll just say that either system fails if the players don't concentrate on it and deliver it correctly. Debating which system is better is fairly mute as it is down to the capability of the players to deliver the system and the coach to get the message right.

Both systems strengths are also only weakened by the quality of the acting delivery, movement of the striker and starting position.
 
We have had a few seasons where we were the best side and were allowed to get away with scoring lots of goals and letting a few in. Perhaps we are having trouble with dealing with a higher quality of opposition...some players will be found wanting and others are still on a learning curve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back