Zonal marking...

blueinsa said:
Corky said:
We normaly do both zonal and man marking.

We rode our luck on set pieces.

I thought we looked a lot more comfortable today and lets be fair, the game that Stoke play, there is not many sides in world football that wont concede a few chances to them.

i totally agree with youblueinsa, I haven't a clue which game corky was watching. After the last couple of weeks I bet Shay thought he had a day off!!
 
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.
 
Corky said:
blueinsa said:
I thought we looked a lot more comfortable today and lets be fair, the game that Stoke play, there is not many sides in world football that wont concede a few chances to them.

We improved when richards came on, but there were two corners in a row that they could have scored, and it could have ended up like Sunderland.

It doesn't help when they bring Beatie and Huth on.

We didnt concede though mate, that is the difference. Like i said, there is not a side in the world that wont concede chances to a team that plays like Stoke.
 
Always makes me laugh when people go on about Zonal Marking. Whenever teams concede from them it's always Zonal markings fault but you don't hear anyone say it's man marking at fault when teams also concede from set pieces.

I know as a centre half i'd rather have both eyes on the incoming ball that one eye on the ball, the other on the man and running about all over the box.

You'll always get beat at set pieces if the ball is a peach and his timing at jumping is spot on and/or yours isn't.
 
I was interested to see zonal marking done so well. Liverpool normally do a halfway job where they panic and run out of their positions before the ball is played. The secret is keeping your nerve.
 
I prefer man to zonal, and saying that Zonal is a relatively new thing is way off the mark. It was been done over here in the 70's.

Anyway, it's from personal experience really. If I'm playing footy, and we play zonal marking, you can't really point to someone as the blame taker for the goal. That seems a little counter productive to me, but this is probably why I'm not 3 times winner of the Serie A, and he is.
 
Immaculate Pasta said:
Always makes me laugh when people go on about Zonal Marking. Whenever teams concede from them it's always Zonal markings fault but you don't hear anyone say it's man marking at fault when teams also concede from set pieces.

I know as a centre half i'd rather have both eyes on the incoming ball that one eye on the ball, the other on the man and running about all over the box.

You'll always get beat at set pieces if the ball is a peach and his timing at jumping is spot on and/or yours isn't.
That's exactly the point i was trying to make in the OP mate. I've never had a problem with zonal marking. We were awful at defending set pieces against Sunderland whilst man-marking, so i was expecting us to be even worse today against Stoke, who are a much bigger side. Yet we were miles more solid at dealing with them. It's quite clear evidence that what pundits say about zonal marking is absolute bollocks. It works... as long as you're organised. And we were.
 
Damocles said:
I prefer man to zonal, and saying that Zonal is a relatively new thing is way off the mark. It was been done over here in the 70's.

Anyway, it's from personal experience really. If I'm playing footy, and we play zonal marking, you can't really point to someone as the blame taker for the goal. That seems a little counter productive to me, but this is probably why I'm not 3 times winner of the Serie A, and he is.

If the goalscorer scored in you're "zone" it's your "fault".
 
Must agree we did look slightly better at zonal marking, but as already been said, that was because of the delivery. What I didn't like though, surely it doesn't need all 11 players.
Against Stoke and others last year we had three on the half way line, which keeps 4 of their players out of the box. I think zonal with less players would be better - if that's possible.
 
I normally cringe when the opposition have a corner or a free-kick in our half, today we gave a free-kick away after only 30 seconds, i was dreading it, we cleared it well and we defended miles better today then we normally do, the back 4 looked like they had been playing together for years, the organisation was superb and Given didn't really have many saves to make, glad he got a clean sheet to, the lad deserves it.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.