Zonal marking ...

[Jam_Man]

Brown said a while back that we use both dependant on where the set piece is being taken from.

Interesting this whole discussion came up after conceding 5 goals when we fielded a team lacking any height too.

The likes of Leonard and Corr would be sorely missed at set pieces zonal or not.

 

[Beefy]

Unlikely. Evidence of the shortcomings is largely empirical.

Anyway whether it works at the highest level for a small number of clubs is not relevant. It is patently not working at our level and should be ditched forthwith.

It isn't irrelevant though because history suggests that moving from one system to the other is a painful process which involves an increase in goals conceded in the short term. But if the evidence suggests the long term benefits outweigh that short term pain then there's an argument to be made for sticking with it.

I don't automatically buy that top flight players are more suited to these systems than lower league players are. Many Premier League players are Premier League players because of their natural athletic ability. We saw when we were in the Championship last that our players could compete mentally and technically but got bullied all season long by bigger, stronger players. Other players are in the lower league because they lack the mental speed or dedication to make it to the top and those are the players one would suspect would struggle to adapt and therefore it is the manager's job to make sure that his squad doesn't have these characters in it.

People go on and on and on about goals let in from zonal systems but a third of goals in England are from set pieces and almost all of those are because of poor man-to-man marking.

 

[Mick]

Brown said a while back that we use both dependant on where the set piece is being taken from.

Interesting this whole discussion came up after conceding 5 goals when we fielded a team lacking any height too.

The likes of Leonard and Corr would be sorely missed at set pieces zonal or not.

I had thought the system was failing us for some time.

 

[Blue_Wes]

It isn't irrelevant though because history suggests that moving from one system to the other is a painful process which involves an increase in goals conceded in the short term. But if the evidence suggests the long term benefits outweigh that short term pain then there's an argument to be made for sticking with it.

I don't automatically buy that top flight players are more suited to these systems than lower league players are. Many Premier League players are Premier League players because of their natural athletic ability. We saw when we were in the Championship last that our players could compete mentally and technically but got bullied all season long by bigger, stronger players. Other players are in the lower league because they lack the mental speed or dedication to make it to the top and those are the players one would suspect would struggle to adapt and therefore it is the manager's job to make sure that his squad doesn't have these characters in it.

People go on and on and on about goals let in from zonal systems but a third of goals in England are from set pieces and almost all of those are because of poor man-to-man marking.

No but many top league players aren't brought up in this country, but on the continent where the zonal marking system is widely used, so they would have been brought up using this system and thus not needing any adaptation period. Obviously, we don't tend to recruit foreign players too often in league two, so when we look to change to a zonal marking system, our players need time to adapt to a style of play they are not used to.

 

[Mick]

People go on and on and on about goals let in from zonal systems but a third of goals in England are from set pieces and almost all of those are because of poor man-to-man marking.

Do you have any figures to back this up?


Almost all ? Except those that are scored direct from free kicks and those which are penalties and those which are goal keeping errors and those which are actually very well-taken goals. I'd say a reasonable percentage, but "almost all" ? No.

 

[united we stand]

I would like to see us conceed fewer free kicks in the first place

 

[united we stand]

Interesting (or not) to compare two threads. One is about bad behaviour leading to someone being thrown out of the ground and attracts nearly 5,000 viewings and a hundred plus responses. The other is about bad defending leading to us being thrown out of the JPT, attracting a slight fraction of that. This confirms my suspicion that a lot of people are less interested in the football than the periphery.

Or is it because one we may be able to influence and one we can't.
Or that one is simply tactics and the other is about common decency

 

[Beefy]

Do you have any figures to back this up?


Almost all ? Except those that are scored direct from free kicks and those which are penalties and those which are goal keeping errors and those which are actually very well-taken goals. I'd say a reasonable percentage, but "almost all" ? No.

25% in the top flight and I've seen figures of a third covering the lower leagues (the number of teams playing zonal marking in the Premier League would explain the lower figure for the Premier League, IMO) which I'll dig out for your later Mick.

http://basstunedtored.com/2013/03/20/set-piece-setbacks/

Penalties aren't included, by the way.

 

[chapperzUK]

I'm sure this must have been mentioned before, but the lack of height in the team can't be helping either. Take out Phillips and Prosser and I don't think we have many more 6 foot plus players. Hurst and Corr maybe, but most teams now have players who are dominant in the air.

 

[Liam AAS]

I think that zonal marking allows for more flexibility in open play. It means that defenders are dragged out of position less often and restricts the opponents to half chances. It does of course rely on a hardworking midfield which is something we're struggling to acheive w/o Laird.

However I agree that at set-pieces M-2-M makes more sense as there are clearly targets that the attacking team will use.

i.e. when we're attacking we aim for BBBC so the defensive team needs to make sure his threat is nullified rather that "zones that he might occupy"

You clear the ball, everyone then resumes their positions and back to zonal.

 

[dannypav]

Not sure how often we do it , but I would like to see someone always standing 10 yards away ( or closer if we can get away with it ) when someone takes a corner against us.
I think just having someone there makes the attacker less likely to deliver the ball as he would like.
Yes sure he can still deliver the ball into the area , but just think having a defender as close as possible gives him something else to think about , and maybe the cross has to be delivered higher with less pace ??
Not really zonal marking related , but if it's a crap delivery , it decreases the threat.

 

[Liam AAS]

Not sure how often we do it , but I would like to see someone always standing 10 yards away ( or closer if we can get away with it ) when someone takes a corner against us.
I think just having someone there makes the attacker less likely to deliver the ball as he would like.
Yes sure he can still deliver the ball into the area , but just think having a defender as close as possible gives him something else to think about , and maybe the cross has to be delivered higher with less pace ??
Not really zonal marking related , but if it's a crap delivery , it decreases the threat.

That takes a defender out of the box, nothing really outweighs a numerical advantage. Why do you think we never had any players on the halfway line under Sturrock?

Short corners are designed to drag players out of the box before a delivery. You're essentially giving them that advantage straight away

 

[mrsblue]

Phil would be better off putting the 10 outfielders on the goal line thus giving our keeper the freedom of the area,Bentley could attack opponents knowing his goal is well and truly protected :nope:

 

[chapperzUK]

Phil would be better off putting the 10 outfielders on the goal line thus giving our keeper the freedom of the area,Bentley could attack opponents knowing his goal is well and truly protected :nope:

Last time one of our players got that instruction a pair of scissors went missing ...

 

[mrsblue]

Last time one of our players got that instruction a pair of scissors went missing ...

Bil thought he was having his hair cut.

 

[JoshC]

Zonal marking is such an easy target when anything goes wrong from a set peice, when a team concedes marking man to man people/pundits will put the blame on the individual defender or the attacker will get the praise for the goal. If a goal is conceded with zonal marking the entire blame is always placed on the tactics. I'm not saying it's fool proof but there is a reason that a lot of people swear by zonal marking. Similar to to 2 men on the posts argument, just because it's easy to see when I doesn't work does not make it a bad system.

 

[Davros]

Zonal marking is a continental concept, which is probably why it works well in the Prem, as only 33% of the players are home grown.

Continental players have probably grown up with the system.

Home grown players have in general grown up being told to stay close and goal side of that man. He's your players, don't let the b@stard free.

In summary, man marking is ingrained in the English players head from a young age, and that is something natural that is going to be very hard to change, unless kids are taught zonal marking from a young age. The problem with that is, it is a lot easy to teach a young person to simply follow someone, that it is the discipline to take an area.

 

[Jam_Man]

Zonal marking is such an easy target when anything goes wrong from a set peice, when a team concedes marking man to man people/pundits will put the blame on the individual defender or the attacker will get the praise for the goal. If a goal is conceded with zonal marking the entire blame is always placed on the tactics. I'm not saying it's fool proof but there is a reason that a lot of people swear by zonal marking. Similar to to 2 men on the posts argument, just because it's easy to see when I doesn't work does not make it a bad system.

Especially as we dont actually seem to know if and when we do use it.