The obssession with zonal marking

[jay_mcfc]

every time a goal is conceded is ridiculous. You would think that a goal had never been conceded by man-to-man marking from corners. The commentators and pundits are just embarrassing themselves.

Besides, zonal marking does not mean the defender has to stay flat footed in his exact position. If he reads the flight of the ball then he should go and win it. It was right in Lescott's area last night and he didn't move a muscle. Had he stepped into it and jumped he'd have either won the ball or at least put the attacking player off. Instead he stood there and looked like a wally.

 

[simonmdm]

My thoughts exactly. And whenever a goal is conceded by zonal marking all I think is 'here we go again, another 10 minute discussion about how it never works'. It's like its impossible to concede from man marking. Also you never here 'thats good defending from the zonal marking system'. I think they need to get over themselves. We know it doesn't work all the time, we don't need to be told every time someone scores.

 

[clp1000]

Zonal or man-to-man is irrelevant if the team is stupid enough to leave the posts unguarded!
Having a defender on each post is schoolboy stuff, basic football

 

[AlgarveBlu]

That's exactly what I was thinking last night...their argument is that the opposition player can get more leverage with the hight on the run up but their scorer did actually stop before jumping up for the ball..

I do favour man on the post though..

 

[TheBlueDune]

The defenders zone should be the area that is 2-3 steps in front of them where they can run into and jump if needs be.
For some reason it seems to be the circle of 3-4 yards and the defender is standing at the centre.
Personally think a mixture is best with 3 or 4 defenders zonal on the 6 yard line and then maybe 3 going man to man plus at least somebody on the back stick.
But then who am I to know.

 

[sergiokun]

That's exactly what I was thinking last night...their argument is that the opposition player can get more leverage with the hight on the run up but their scorer did actually stop before jumping up for the ball..

I do favour man on the post though..

Man on the post saves plenty of goals

 

[Tourist since 1971]

Agree with the men on the post arguement, disagree with the defence of zonal.

One of the beneifts of man-to-man is that the attacker has much more to think about and concentrate on.

When its zonal all he has to do is concentrate on the flight of the ball and where best to meet it. With man-to-man he has to think about how to get rid of his marker AND the flight of the ball - its even more difficult if the defender is right in your face, is jostling and barging you (legally of course) and is built like Micah Richards.

Zonal marking has the opposite effect on defenders - they have to look at the ball and also think about who else will be challenging for it and where they are likely to arrive from. In man-to-man - just move with the attacker and if the ball does come go for it, if not, job done - your bloke hasn't headed in the winning goal.

Never understood zonal.

 

[greasedupdeafguy]

I think the annoying thing was that with such a height advantage we still managed to concede from a set piece. If our players man to man marked would they have on the header?

 

[jay_mcfc]

I think the annoying thing was that with such a height advantage we still managed to concede from a set piece. If our players man to man marked would they have on the header?

It's this kind of comment that annoys me. Why would they not have scored? If you go man-to-man even a little guy with a good bit of movement can beat a much taller guy in the air. Zonal marking is defending as a group but in a man-to-man scheme it takes one defender to be done by a bit of movement and it leaves an attacker with a free header.

Thing is though, you will concede goals both ways. It would be impossible to never concede from a corner again.

One thing for certain is that even within zonal marking if the individual players do not defend the ball then you will concede. Lescott's attempt at defending the ball was abysmal.

 

[adr2.8i]

gary neville certainly isnt a fan of it. he must have mentioned it about 300 times last night.

its impossible to never concede a goal from dead ball situations but it was a free header last night which was dissapointing.

for me, i prefer man marking and men on each post for corners.