Zonal or Man Marking

[Damian99]

Which of two would you employ and why? What advantages does one have over the other and vice versa.

As we seem to have an ongoing problem at defending set plays any decent delivery into our goal area seems to have most of them shitting themselves.

 

[hughy]

Man-marking, any day of the week.

I would never be in favour of us marking zonally. When a team is defending in zones from set-pieces, it's way too easy to get around. When the free-kick/corner is being taken, just pile a large number of attacking players in to one 'zone', and suddenly you've got 5-on-2 in the attacking team's favour, and you've got a good chance of scoring. It sounds simple, but you do see it extremely often. Plus, it's easier to single out a culprit if you concede when man-marking.


Looking at our defending from the goal against Shakhtr, I think courage is what our team lacks.

 

[eViL]

The problem is, and has been for 3 years now, that not one player is actually looking up and challenging for the ball.

They're all too busy watching where players are darting to than actually worrying about where the ball is going to land.

It puzzles me.

 

[nuttynoah]

who gives a fck, i've just found out that Lux Interior is dead.

 

[Dan Ashcroft]

Zonal - for no other reason that it just seemed to work much better for us.


Jol = man-to-man = lots of goals conceded from set pieces.

Ramos = zonal = a lot less of goals conceded from set pieces.

Redknapp = man-to-man = lots of goals conceded from set pieces.

 

[Rackybear]

Zonal - for no other reason that it just seemed to work much better for us.


Jol = man-to-man = lots of goals conceded from set pieces.

Ramos = zonal = a lot less of goals conceded from set pieces.

Redknapp = man-to-man = lots of goals conceded from set pieces.

Agree completely.

When ramos and poyet introduced the zonal marking for our set pieces (4 players on the six yard line, then 3 in front of them) it worked wonders and we hardly ever conceded from set pieces (the late tevez equaliser at WHL is infact the only one I can remember).

Since then we've gone back to same old..

 

[guy]

Agree completely.

When ramos and poyet introduced the zonal marking for our set pieces (4 players on the six yard line, then 3 in front of them) it worked wonders and we hardly ever conceded from set pieces (the late tevez equaliser at WHL is infact the only one I can remember).

Since then we've gone back to same old..

yep i agree with this too. its no coincidence that when we switched to zonal we stopped conceding.

 

[AdelaideSpur]

I have always thought with so many players making so many runs its too hard to stick with the one player, add to that the amount of blocking and pushing going on. At least with zonal you are garanteed to have a player in every position who is watching the ball and can make a legitimate attempt to attack it.

 

[dannythomas]

I don't know whether zonal marking was recognised when Harry, Jordan and Bond were players. So I'm not surprised we don't use it. Just like playing for 0-0 draws away from home was the thing to do in the old days.

 

[DC_Boy]

I'm confused by all this - cos didn't we go zonal for a while and improve on defending set pieces as a result

I must say my reservations about the coaching ability at first team level grows by the day

I suspect in Inglethorpe we have the best coach in the club and I think the first team needs him badly, I'm sure he could spare a few days a week away from the Academy to help save us from relegation

anyway Harry please sort the coaching out cos it ain't working

no good bringing in good players then giving stupid goal after stupid goal away through poor organisation

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I would say the best system is zonal with a bit of man to man as well.

Or as bomber would say; anal.

 

[DC_Boy]

what about 3-5-2 tonight? play chimbo/king corlluka daws woody plus pav - maybe that'll do it

 

[Jimmypearce7]

Zonal or Man Marking?

Either would be good!

 

[mil1lion]

I agree with Zonal for reasons that Dan mentions, that we're better for it. We aren't a team that fights hard enough to win the ball at set pieces. Other teams have that mentality, and so the man to man marking works better. For Spurs though, it doesn't work. I always feel that the opposition want to win the ball more than us, and as a result they fight our players off the ball. So in Zonal marking, it takes the man to man fighting away somewhat and focuses on just taking care of that particular area. If the ball comes into that area, then you deal with it.

When Harry says we lack fight, this is one of those things where it is most evident. We dont have enough players like Woodgate and Dawson to fight for the ball at set pieces.

 

[mil1lion]

Saying that, can we not do both? By that i mean, we get several players to mark a particular danger zone in the box. And we get Dawson and Woodgate to man mark the 2 best attacking players on their team. Possibly even Palacios to man mark a 3rd. So we have 3 man to man markers and 4 zonal markers in the danger areas (front post, rear post, penalty spot and shielding the keeper.) Leaving one or two on the edge of the box (Modric and Zokora,) and one (or two if the former is one) upfield for the counter attack (Lennon)

 

[tRiKS]

In both types not attacking the ball is a primary fault. Man for man narrows culpability and can help you single out weak individuals and replace them/blame them… we love a good blame don’t we…. but essentially it should have no advantage over well played zonal. The idea that zonal leaves you vulnerable to an attacker getting a run on you is misleading because you can get a run on your man maker too. In fact on occasion man marking throws up an issue you don’t get with Zonal means just that to some players they watch the player they are supposed to mark so intently they don’t bother watching the delivery. Palacios did just that in the recent goon game which thank fully came to nothing.

Zonal means the delivery must be exact, marking means you can chuck it in anywhere and relies on attackers getting away for markers. In theory 4 attackers could all loses their markers in zonal you narrow that down to only one attacker that’s managed to break free. It’s also designed to give a GK a set area to worry about. The normal set up for zonal is near post then 3 across the six yard line and one deeper far post. The coaching standard is anything over the 2 central zonal players is the keepers. The defenders know it and the keeper knows it. One of the best zonal systems is Liverpool’s. The cannier coaches playing Liverpool will over hit the corners to back post trying to nod it back the other way because the GK and his nearest 4 zones are so well drilled. They are also decent at defending the second ball too though.

Zonal or man…success still hinges on good players playing well