Discuss Pellegrini

[Danamy]

Interesting read and probably where I remembered Mancini's remark as to why he preferred zonal to man marking. Equally interesting is the assertion that Zabs and Clichy are unsuited to a man marking system which after Sunday is no surprise. It raises several issues. Currently Zabs and Clichy are first choice FB's and I assume Nasty will partner Kompany on his return making only Kompany out of the 4 suited to man-marking (albeit I could be doing Nasty a disservice here) so why the switch?

It also highlights why Mancini often put Dzeko on during the latter part of a game to give defensive height if the pressure was on and both goals came after Dzeko was taken off. Aguero coming off rather than Dzeko perhaps should have been the call.

Good find.

Hmmmmm

It's hard to swallow and all seems a bit mute considering the person who scored the two goals on Sunday is only 5'8", a whole 2" smaller than Zabba? :-(

What isn't quite so moot is the fact that it was a shambles not once but twice and was a huge contributory factor in costing us 3 points hence the discussion.

To be honest I was gobsmacked we changed the system when it unfolded in realtime. I actually thought it must be a horrendous cockup . That Pellers is a man marking advocate came as a genuine surprise and not in a good way. I don't personally think its a good idea and I really, really don't think its a good idea for a makeshift back 4 to try out.

But its here to stay one presumes and they have to make it work.

I remember the same discussion when Mancini first arrived about zonal marking but given time it was a success, i'm not saying this is the answer but like with all new managers comes tinkering.

Also thanks for correcting me, you are of course right it's "moot"

 

[BobKowalski]

As someone (I think Ducado?) pointed out on match day, it may be that this is more of a temporary thing. When faced with the challenge of 3rd/4th CB pairing, it may have made more logical sense to simplify the corner experience by just giving everyone a man to mark and relying on them to do their job. Zonal marking clearly requires more organization and leadership, MP may simply have felt it was too much to ask.

As has been pointed out countless times, it's really a red herring to worry about the system in play. In all instances, the players need to execute. In this instance, the players did not.

Good points. I suspect you're right. This highlights the need to bring in another CB as well.

Personally it sounds more like trying to justify something after the event. Surely the logical thing to do is stick with the system you know when playing a makeshift back line - especially as 3 out of the 4 have had several years of playing it and even Garcia would have had some experience of our system in the last 12 months. To change it in a fundamental way as a means of helping? Yeah okay that'll work. Oh wait.

Still if you find consolation in this thinking then knock yourselves out...

 

[Anonymous]

I remember the same discussion when Mancini first arrived about zonal marking but given time it was a success

Yep ...

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=155104&p=2755889&hilit=zonal+marking+mancini#p2755889" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=155104&p=2755889&hilit=zonal+marking+mancini#p2755889</a>

It quickly went on to be something we raved about as the defence got tighter under Mancini in comparison to how porous it was under Hughes.

 

[BobKowalski]

Hmmmmm

It's hard to swallow and all seems a bit mute considering the person who scored the two goals on Sunday is only 5'8", a whole 2" smaller than Zabba? :-(

What isn't quite so moot is the fact that it was a shambles not once but twice and was a huge contributory factor in costing us 3 points hence the discussion.

To be honest I was gobsmacked we changed the system when it unfolded in realtime. I actually thought it must be a horrendous cockup . That Pellers is a man marking advocate came as a genuine surprise and not in a good way. I don't personally think its a good idea and I really, really don't think its a good idea for a makeshift back 4 to try out.

But its here to stay one presumes and they have to make it work.

I remember the same discussion when Mancini first arrived about zonal marking but given time it was a success, i'm not saying this is the answer but like with all new managers comes tinkering.

Also thanks for correcting me, you are of course right it's "moot"

To be honest I didn't correct you as such as I didn't actually notice :)

Mancini introduced zonal and it had an immediate impact in that it worked. There was I agree plenty of muttering about it and 'new fangled ways' but then we are a reactionary lot and man marking is for men and zonal is for pansies. Seriously if 'Cardiff' had happened in Mancini's second game with zonal marking then BM would not have survived the meltdown. It would have made Chernobyl look like a sparkler and the Cabal would have formed a month or so earlier than it actually did.

 

[BobKowalski]

I remember the same discussion when Mancini first arrived about zonal marking but given time it was a success

Yep ...

<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=155104&p=2755889&hilit=zonal+marking+mancini#p2755889" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=155104&p=2755889&hilit=zonal+marking+mancini#p2755889</a>

It quickly went on to be something we raved about as the defence got tighter under Mancini in comparison to how porous it was under Hughes.

Seriously how the hell do you pull these old threads? Do you have them bookmarked or something? But it does prove the point just from the first page. It pretty much worked straight out of the box with little or no prep which does beg a rather obvious question...

With all of pre-season to work on man marking why the hell was it such a shambles? If zonal is inherently easier to pick up why insist on man marking with a makeshift back four? Why not stick with zonal until you have a full compliment to choose from and have it down pat in training?

Yes I know there was more than one obvious question.

 

[Anonymous]

In particular wanted to pull this post out of that zonal marking thread because I know Braggster won't mind and I like the post a lot.

I thought we defended the set pieces well, considering who was missing and the height disparity in the sides (doubt Mancio/Kidd will get any credit in the press for that though...). Though I have to say Stoke's delivery was often wasteful, which was obviously helpful.

Agree on the zonal marking. Zonal marking has distinct advantages over man marking, and the best system (as always) depends on the strengths and weaknesses of your side and the opponents. Zonal marking requires at least two big, strong, determined, fearless players to attack the ball in the key areas IMO, otherwise you're asking for trouble.

The 'debate' over man/zonal marking in the punditocracy is obviously a laughable load of old tosh. You'd think teams never concede when man marking.

 

[teddykgb]

As someone (I think Ducado?) pointed out on match day, it may be that this is more of a temporary thing. When faced with the challenge of 3rd/4th CB pairing, it may have made more logical sense to simplify the corner experience by just giving everyone a man to mark and relying on them to do their job. Zonal marking clearly requires more organization and leadership, MP may simply have felt it was too much to ask.

As has been pointed out countless times, it's really a red herring to worry about the system in play. In all instances, the players need to execute. In this instance, the players did not.

Good points. I suspect you're right. This highlights the need to bring in another CB as well.

Personally it sounds more like trying to justify something after the event. Surely the logical thing to do is stick with the system you know when playing a makeshift back line - especially as 3 out of the 4 have had several years of playing it and even Garcia would have had some experience of our system in the last 12 months. To change it in a fundamental way as a means of helping? Yeah okay that'll work. Oh wait.

Still if you find consolation in this thinking then knock yourselves out...

I'll never understand why people have to feel so right on a topic that an alternative idea can't even be contemplated. We both know fuck all as to why we're marking man today and zonal before. It's a plausible reason, I have no idea why you feel a need to denigrate anyone who might not subscribe to your ideas.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure it's viable for Pellegrini to just say "go and mark like Mancini taught you to!". For multiple reasons, his ego surely amongst them, but probably primarily because he may not be able to teach it. A presumption built into the possibility that this is simpler is that Pellegrini's version of a zonal system is different from Mancini's. I cannot say for sure, but I would seriously doubt that every manager implements the same exact zonal marking setup, especially since most of these "systems" are hybridized man and zone concepts.

It remains to be seen whether we will mark zonally or man to man in the future. The truth of the matter is, I think we severely underestimate how much luck has to play in the outcomes of these free kicks and corners. As a result, we'll point to correlations like the introduction of a zonal system coinciding with a decrease in goals, while not properly contextualizing the relatively small sample sizes at play. It is imperative to realize that a correlation is not a causality, that any momentary increase or decrease is likely to be informed by luck as much as anything else. In all systems, players run free or find gaps with a certain level of frequency. It is the job of the manager and team to try to minimize this from happening, but it probably takes an obscene number of corners to remove the luck factor or whether or not the ball delivery coincides with the free runner, whether the header hits the bar or is misdirected, whether the keeper happens to get in the path...etc. There are so many factors on your typical set piece that could go wrong or right that analyzing this stuff is extremely hard. Where we as fans go wrong is when we focus on the results over short periods of time, which are likely to be highly variable. If our stats team is looking at anything, I'd be expecting them to count "opportunities" more than goals conceded. To try to see which system results in the fewest free headers and free runners available, disregarding whether they were successfully exploited or not. This kind of data just isn't going to be available to us as fans who are emotionally watching and all too consumed by the outcomes.

 

[Danamy]

What isn't quite so moot is the fact that it was a shambles not once but twice and was a huge contributory factor in costing us 3 points hence the discussion.

To be honest I was gobsmacked we changed the system when it unfolded in realtime. I actually thought it must be a horrendous cockup . That Pellers is a man marking advocate came as a genuine surprise and not in a good way. I don't personally think its a good idea and I really, really don't think its a good idea for a makeshift back 4 to try out.

But its here to stay one presumes and they have to make it work.

I remember the same discussion when Mancini first arrived about zonal marking but given time it was a success, i'm not saying this is the answer but like with all new managers comes tinkering.

Also thanks for correcting me, you are of course right it's "moot"

To be honest I didn't correct you as such as I didn't actually notice :)

Mancini introduced zonal and it had an immediate impact in that it worked. There was I agree plenty of muttering about it and 'new fangled ways' but then we are a reactionary lot and man marking is for men and zonal is for pansies. Seriously if 'Cardiff' had happened in Mancini's second game with zonal marking then BM would not have survived the meltdown. It would have made Chernobyl look like a sparkler and the Cabal would have formed a month or so earlier than it actually did.

I noticed ;-)

 

[Anonymous]

Nonetheless, I'm not sure it's viable for Pellegrini to just say "go and mark like Mancini taught you to!". For multiple reasons, his ego surely amongst them, but probably primarily because he may not be able to teach it. A presumption built into the possibility that this is simpler is that Pellegrini's version of a zonal system is different from Mancini's. I cannot say for sure, but I would seriously doubt that every manager implements the same exact zonal marking setup, especially since most of these "systems" are hybridized man and zone concepts.

It remains to be seen whether we will mark zonally or man to man in the future. The truth of the matter is, I think we severely underestimate how much luck has to play in the outcomes of these free kicks and corners. As a result, we'll point to correlations like the introduction of a zonal system coinciding with a decrease in goals, while not properly contextualizing the relatively small sample sizes at play. It is imperative to realize that a correlation is not a causality, that any momentary increase or decrease is likely to be informed by luck as much as anything else. In all systems, players run free or find gaps with a certain level of frequency. It is the job of the manager and team to try to minimize this from happening, but it probably takes an obscene number of corners to remove the luck factor or whether or not the ball delivery coincides with the free runner, whether the header hits the bar or is misdirected, whether the keeper happens to get in the path...etc. There are so many factors on your typical set piece that could go wrong or right that analyzing this stuff is extremely hard. Where we as fans go wrong is when we focus on the results over short periods of time, which are likely to be highly variable. If our stats team is looking at anything, I'd be expecting them to count "opportunities" more than goals conceded. To try to see which system results in the fewest free headers and free runners available, disregarding whether they were successfully exploited or not. This kind of data just isn't going to be available to us as fans who are emotionally watching and all too consumed by the outcomes.

Another cracking post mate. I would've just gone with "Zaba losing his man twice doesn't constitute a shambolic defensive system" - but I like the meat you put on the bones for me!

 

[teddykgb]

Nonetheless, I'm not sure it's viable for Pellegrini to just say "go and mark like Mancini taught you to!". For multiple reasons, his ego surely amongst them, but probably primarily because he may not be able to teach it. A presumption built into the possibility that this is simpler is that Pellegrini's version of a zonal system is different from Mancini's. I cannot say for sure, but I would seriously doubt that every manager implements the same exact zonal marking setup, especially since most of these "systems" are hybridized man and zone concepts.

It remains to be seen whether we will mark zonally or man to man in the future. The truth of the matter is, I think we severely underestimate how much luck has to play in the outcomes of these free kicks and corners. As a result, we'll point to correlations like the introduction of a zonal system coinciding with a decrease in goals, while not properly contextualizing the relatively small sample sizes at play. It is imperative to realize that a correlation is not a causality, that any momentary increase or decrease is likely to be informed by luck as much as anything else. In all systems, players run free or find gaps with a certain level of frequency. It is the job of the manager and team to try to minimize this from happening, but it probably takes an obscene number of corners to remove the luck factor or whether or not the ball delivery coincides with the free runner, whether the header hits the bar or is misdirected, whether the keeper happens to get in the path...etc. There are so many factors on your typical set piece that could go wrong or right that analyzing this stuff is extremely hard. Where we as fans go wrong is when we focus on the results over short periods of time, which are likely to be highly variable. If our stats team is looking at anything, I'd be expecting them to count "opportunities" more than goals conceded. To try to see which system results in the fewest free headers and free runners available, disregarding whether they were successfully exploited or not. This kind of data just isn't going to be available to us as fans who are emotionally watching and all too consumed by the outcomes.

Another cracking post mate. I would've just gone with "Zaba losing his man twice doesn't constitute a shambolic defensive system" - but I like the meat you put on the bones for me!

Your point is equally effective, and I'd add that there isn't a system on the planet that doesn't require your keeper to claim a ball inside his 6 yard box.