zonal? Man marking?

[Trumo]

Man marking for me. Zonal is a mugs game.....as is proved

 

Oh ya beaut! What a tit son. What. A. Tit!

[billypilgrimnz]

Man marking for me. Zonal is a mugs game.....as is proved

 

...by? It's like you stopped posting just before the bit where you were supposed to demonstrate your intelligence.

[redsoxs]

...by? It's like you stopped posting just before the bit where you were supposed to demonstrate your intelligence.

 

[Captain]

Man-marking. Opponents score goals, not zones.

 

You really are thick as pigshit, aren't you?

 

Mypost for manager, opponents score goals. You fucking couldn't make it up.

 

Btw, are you sure it's not the ball instead? After all, it's the ball that crosses the line and makes the goal?

[redsoxs]

From another site (RAWK) thanks Prof

 

Here's the data everyone's been craving (having looked up all goal data on chalkboards):

 

09-10 season

 

35 goals conceded in the league

3 pens

5 freekicks

5 corners

22 open play

 

10-11 season so far (22 games)

 

31 goals conceded in the league

3 pens

2 freekicks

4 corners

22 open play

 

Interestingly, we only conceded 1 set piece goal in our last 25 games last season (in the last minute away at Stoke on 16th Jan) which also means we were worse at defending set pieces at the start of last season compared to this one. However last season we rarely kept the same back 4 from one game to the next due to injuries.

[JohanH]

Hybrid-zonal, by which I mean we should go zonal but consider man marking main opposition threats (e.g. Fellaini). This should give us defenders attacking the ball and double cover on the main threats (the man marker and the zonal marker), which hopefully should be enough to prevent them getting a good connection.

 

Zonal should help to avoid the wrestling we see from Skretl and the Greek whenever they get outrun/outthought in a man marking situation.

[piscinin]

Despite what mypost (Martin Tyler's Monkey?) and Sky will tell you, zonal marking is extremely effective. It requires more organisation than man-to-man marking in my opinion, and it promotes the idea of collective responsibility. That's not to say man-to-man doesn't have it's uses. What both require (when it comes to set pieces and corners) is defenders who can both anticipate where the ball is going to be (either within their "zone" or in the direction of the player they're marking), and the nous to react quickly (be proactive). As the ball is most likely to be aerial, timing of the jump is key. That's something that you could say is a negative for zonal marking because it allows the attacker a running jump. However, with zonal marking, I think the players can deal with the second ball much better because they're not out of position because of marking an opponent. What I would say is the either set-up can be unlocked when you have players prone to lapses in concentration or bouts of recklessness.

 

For what it's worth, I'd also put a man on each post and tell (nay, demand) them not to stray under any circumstances until the danger is properly cleared. If my team possesses a player adept at launching a quick counter either by running with or distributing the ball, I'd place him in the D. I'd also have another player (a pacey player, ideally a striker) 30-35 yards out, to prevent the opposition bringing too many men forward, and to give our players a target when clearing upfield.

 

Good post. Just to add though that in this picture those guys marked M have the responsibility for making sure that this is only a theoretical weakness, by ensuring that anyone who could possibly get an advantage through a running jump, doesn't (by blocking the run etc).

 

[silverlining]

The best defensive system to adopt would be to buy some tall, good defenders who can head a ball.

[The Party Boy]

The best defensive system to adopt would be to buy some tall, good defenders who can head a ball.

 

Ha ha very true. The year we hardly let in any from corners we had Crouch on one side of the box, Momo on the other and Sami in the middle. Plus Gerrard, Carragher and Riise who were all decent in the air.

[straight_red]

Despite what mypost (Martin Tyler's Monkey?) and Sky will tell you, zonal marking is extremely effective. It requires more organisation than man-to-man marking in my opinion, and it promotes the idea of collective responsibility. That's not to say man-to-man doesn't have it's uses. What both require (when it comes to set pieces and corners) is defenders who can both anticipate where the ball is going to be (either within their "zone" or in the direction of the player they're marking), and the nous to react quickly (be proactive). As the ball is most likely to be aerial, timing of the jump is key. That's something that you could say is a negative for zonal marking because it allows the attacker a running jump. However, with zonal marking, I think the players can deal with the second ball much better because they're not out of position because of marking an opponent. What I would say is the either set-up can be unlocked when you have players prone to lapses in concentration or bouts of recklessness.

 

For what it's worth, I'd also put a man on each post and tell (nay, demand) them not to stray under any circumstances until the danger is properly cleared. If my team possesses a player adept at launching a quick counter either by running with or distributing the ball, I'd place him in the D. I'd also have another player (a pacey player, ideally a striker) 30-35 yards out, to prevent the opposition bringing too many men forward, and to give our players a target when clearing upfield.

 

Think this is pretty much spot on, I agree that zonal marking requires more organisation than man-marking and that can mean it falls apart in a rather embarrasing manner at times (not that man-marking doesn't have similar flaws.)

 

However, I think one thing man-marking has in its favour is that no one has anywhere to hide. With a zonal system you can argue the toss about someone not being in your zone, or they just moved through the edge of your zone etc, etc. With man-marking it's clear who needs a right good rollicking because they allowed someone a free header.

[piscinin]

Think this is pretty much spot on, I agree that zonal marking requires more organisation than man-marking and that can mean it falls apart in a rather embarrasing manner at times (not that man-marking doesn't have similar flaws.)

 

However, I think one thing man-marking has in its favour is that no one has anywhere to hide. With a zonal system you can argue the toss about someone not being in your zone, or they just moved through the edge of your zone etc, etc. With man-marking it's clear who needs a right good rollicking because they allowed someone a free header.

 

It's funny because Benitez said the complete opposite. He liked Zonal because accountability is clear. Never quite got my head completely around it, but I don't doubt he's right.

[Maldini]

36% of our goals conceded in the league this season have been from set-pieces. The league average is 34%

[Trumo]

36% of our goals conceded in the league this season have been from set-pieces. The league average is 34%

 

The fact that this equates to around 10-11 goals makes it all the more depressing as it's only January.

[Benitaur]

GC= goals conceded

CS= clean sheets

 

2009-10 : 35 GC - 17 CS

2008-09 : 27 GC - 20 CS

2007-08 : 28 GC - 18 CS

2006-07 : 27 GC - 20 CS

2005-06 : 25 GC - 22 CS

 

So far this season:

31 goals conceded in only 22 games

6 clean sheets

 

Man marking proponents can fuck off as far as I am concerned. They haven't got a leg to stand on