Interesting that, mate, because from memory the only individual who ever got blamed for us conceeding when "zonal" was Benitez. In fact, he wasn't so much blamed as lampooned.
In the media, yes. It doesn't change the fact that there are individual responsibilities in both systems.
I get what you're saying - ultimately you still have to do your job and attack a ball.
My issue is that, with a strict man to man system, I think it is easier to score cheaply from a corner.
A cheap corner is easy to score in either system. It always comes down to an individual not doing their job. In zonal, if someone doesn't attack the ball coming in and leaves it to the man in the next zone, then that becomes a free ball to attack for the opposition. So neither system in itself offers any concrete advantages, it all comes down to players doing their jobs decisively.
Enrique was flat footed, granted, but given he was starting goal side, and Hernadez came forwards and out, and given Hernandez presumably knew where the corner was supposed to be going, where Enrique was reacting to Hernandez, is it not inevitable that Enrique is second to that ball?
it's not inevitable at all, but it's also not about being first to the ball. Hernandez scored not only because he got free, but because he had no pressure on him when he turned his hips out to direct the ball. If Enrique follows him - even half a yard behind - then Hernandez doesn't have that space to change his body shape, and maybe he tries something else, or maybe the ball deflects off Enrique and out. The point is, without Enrique being there, or anywhere near, Hernandez has all the time in the world to decide his options.
If so, United have emptied out the most dangerous area, dropped a ball in there and had a good finisher beat his man there. Blame Enrique, fine, but for me there are areas that merit defending from a corner even if there is no player there.
The problem is that if you fill those areas, it means players are unmarked and can make free runs, and you are relying on your players being strong enough to withstand a run on them. So ultimately, if an attacker runs into one of the spaces (because they still exist in zonal defending) and gets a header unchallenged and scores, then we're still having the conversation about players getting free in the area. So then the conversation inevitably turns into "So can we not have a mixed system?", which is feasible, but still presents the same problems in both systems. So it's not correct to assume that the goal would have been defended better with a zonal system. Players still get free. The game ultimately comes down to players being effective in their 1v1 match-ups, at and away from the ball, and whether it was zonal or man-marking, the point isn't that Enrique wasn't able to keep up with his man - he didn't even try to in the first place.
You obviously study the game intently - do you not think we leave very inviting spaces from set plays?
I don't worry about "inviting spaces". What worries me is the amount of ball watching that goes on when we defend set-pieces, and the lack of tracking of runs. If we fixed those two things, we wouldn't be talking about giving away easy goals on corners. Ball-watching and lack of marking happen in both defensive systems. The game ultimately always comes down to 1v1. And defensively, we lose too many of those situations on set pieces
