Topic: Zonal Marking

[liverpooll]

Just wanted to know which other teams use it presently , I can think of Barca and anyone else?

Even if there are little teams,it really does not matter as it ultimately depends on the team weakness and strengths,

[slaphead]

I remember him saying that and the motd team swept it under the carpet quick smart

I was listening to Talk Sport Tuesday morning
And Ray Houghton was on the phone with Alan Brazil
Brazil said "Ray what do you make of all this Zonal Marking stuff did you ever hear or use that in your Liverpool days"
Houghton "well yes actually Al we did"

[exiledinyorkshire]

I also think, that zonal marking is o.k., but it is clear that it doesn´t work in our matches.

And if something is wrong, you should try something else that will work. So I would try man-to-man marking for few games and then decide.

Thats the most stupid thing i have ever heard.

[Franck Le Poof]

Conceding from set-pieces is inevitable for a team our size - no matter what the system. I think (the last few dodgy performances aside) its a credit to the system that we have conceded as few as we have from set pieces.

[sinnermichael]

Used properly, zonal marking means elastic positioning by defenders. That is, if an extra man runs into a zone then players from neighbouring zones must close in to help cover.

Once again, it is statistically less likely that you concede a goal on set pieces from zonal marking than man marking, although a hybrid zonal system can be effective in certain circumstances.

People who knock zonal marking probably don't understand it. It's a system we were the first club in the world to use effectively under Bob Paisley and we have won five European Cups using it.

[slaphead]

Used properly, zonal marking means elastic positioning by defenders. That is, if an extra man runs into a zone then players from neighbouring zones must close in to help cover.

Once again, it is statistically less likely that you concede a goal on set pieces from zonal marking than man marking, although a hybrid zonal system can be effective in certain circumstances.

People who knock zonal marking probably don't understand it. It's a system we were the first club in the world to use effectively under Bob Paisley and we have won five European Cups using it.

The one and only thing I dont like about this post if your username :-)

[exiledinyorkshire]

I'd pay money to see a show with, say, Pleat, Hodgson and Taylor sat around with tea and biscuits and a chalkboard just discussing interesting tactical things that caught their eye over the weekend. In fact, Pleat and Taylor could be the main pundits, with, say, Chiles presenting it (because he doesn't know, because he is a fan and a good presenter, it means he asks good questions rather than having a smug opinion, a la Linekar) and a guest coach every week. Maybe today we have Sacchi talking about Liverpool's zonal marking and the finer points of Wigan's new possession style, next week Rijkaard as a guest discussing Arsenal's free flowing football and explaining how Real might go about constructing a tactic to fit there superstars etc etc etc

I would be sky plussing that every week my friend. Unfortunately the powers that be seem to not think there would be a market for it.

Great idea mate - I'd just love a proper tactics show of any sort. Players are so tedious compared to tactics, it boggles the mind how much time is spent on them rather than how the game is actually played.

[exiledinyorkshire]

sorry meant to also add, that that would be the best thing on the telly bar the Wire.

[slaphead]

I think theres a show of that type on a Monday night in Italy

[mooks]

I also think, that zonal marking is o.k., but it is clear that it doesn´t work in our matches.

And if something is wrong, you should try something else that will work. So I would try man-to-man marking for few games and then decide.

We concede goals from set pieces in two games and you would change the system we have used for years?

Is there any reason why you're not a Premier League manager?

[hesbighesred]

Just wanted to know which other teams use it presently , I can think of Barca and anyone else?

Even if there are little teams,it really does not matter as it ultimately depends on the team weakness and strengths,

Most European and international sides use it, as far as I know. It's only Britain where man-to-man from set-plays dominates thinking, every where else Zonal is a completely uncontraversial and commonplace system.

[LIVER]

we've had a history of starting the season poorly from set pieces under Rafa, or definitely having a spell of poor defending, it is frustrating to watch. one thing I don't get is why don't we put a man on the post or both, that gives the goal a bit more protection, look at Ashley Cole saving two goals in two games by standing at the post, and I've seen him do it many times, as well as Evra.


I think a bigger issue though is our failure at taking corners, Rafa is the most defensive minded coach in an attacking situation, it's ridiculous! we see maybe 4 players in the box, what are we meant to do?

[hesbighesred]

we've had a history of starting the season poorly from set pieces under Rafa, or definitely having a spell of poor defending, it is frustrating to watch. one thing I don't get is why don't we put a man on the post or both, that gives the goal a bit more protection, look at Ashley Cole saving two goals in two games by standing at the post, and I've seen him do it many times, as well as Evra.


I think a bigger issue though is our failure at taking corners, Rafa is the most defensive minded coach in an attacking situation, it's ridiculous! we see maybe 4 players in the box, what are we meant to do?

I explained that earlier.

Putting men on the post makes you FAR more vulnerable to the second ball in - how often do you see us concede from a corner, cleared, then a second ball floated in? Almost never, and the reason is that not putting men on the posts allows us to move up very quickly as a team by making that sort of pass back in impossible without a player being offside. It also gives us two fewer players to a) win the header in the first place and b) break up the pitch if we get the ball under control.

[exiledinyorkshire]

That is perfectly fine.  It's your opinion and you haven't expressed it by trying to make anyone look like an idiot or told everyone they must agree with you.  You are a breed of fan that is dying out.  I am not against zonal marking generally myself.  We have one of the best defences in the league, I agree.  It's just that nearly every game I go to now I see us concede a corner and us go to pieces.  In any sport if you consistently do the same thing someone will find a flaw with it.  Man to man marking is hardly perfect either but it seems to me that some teams have a way of attacking zonal marking and for the past season and a bit it has cost us.

Thats clearly not true though is it. Unless of course you only get to 2-3 games a year and are unlucky enough to see the only game where we concede from corners and go to pieces. What you actually mean if you are honest is that the start of htis season out of 3 game s we have conceded from set pieces and gone to pieces. And you have the hump about it, which you are entitled to, and are pointing the finger at Zonal marking as being the fly in the ointment. Other people are also Knee-jerking in this way, and are being corrected with facts. Facts that clearly suggest that actually our marking zonal or otherwise is pretty sound generally, even better than most. Its not calling people idiots, its just suggesting that sometimes what we feel to be the problem, when looked at with a calm and cool head turns out not to be.

[LIVER]

if so...

then why do we use a 'moving zonal system' surely this would be more appropriate? instead of being static we start a couple of yards further towards goal and then take 2/3 steps forward so that we can be in a position to win the header with momentum? and it's frustrating seeing the opposition players run past a defender (who is not allowed to follow) and then score a goal because they have momentum and people don't have eyes on the back of their heads to notice him coming.

[mooks]

I explained that earlier.

Putting men on the post makes you FAR more vulnerable to the second ball in - how often do you see us concede from a corner, cleared, then a second ball floated in? Almost never, and the reason is that not putting men on the posts allows us to move up very quickly as a team by making that sort of pass back in impossible without a player being offside. It also gives us two fewer players to a) win the header in the first place and b) break up the pitch if we get the ball under control.

Good points

I recall Yossi falling asleep at the switch a couple of seasons ago and forgetting to move up leading to Tevez scoring the winner at Anfield

[mooks]

if so...

then why do we use a 'moving zonal system' surely this would be more appropriate? instead of being static we start a couple of yards further towards goal and then take 2/3 steps forward so that we can be in a position to win the header with momentum? and it's frustrating seeing the opposition players run past a defender (who is not allowed to follow) and then score a goal because they have momentum and people don't have eyes on the back of their heads to notice him coming.

Which of our goals conceded this season have been the result of opposition players ghosting into space or otherwise not being seen?

[Oh Yes BisCAN]

As Paul Tomkins has stated in several articles during the Benitez era Zonal Marking doesn't work any more or less successfully than what they other 'top' teams use as Liverpool have always only conceded one or two goals more (or less on several occasions) a season!!

However, at the moment when looking at the team defending corners we do seem to have a very short side!

[bryanod]

Torres is a weakness at the first post zonally, he isn't aggressive enoug in the air.

[ErinMc66]

I think it's fairly simple.  If the players cock up while defending in a zonal system, they're just as likely to cock up while using a man marking system.  It's all about execution.

[hoonin]

I think it's fairly simple.  If the players cock up while defending in a zonal system, they're just as likely to cock up while using a man marking system.  It's all about execution.

I'd add that it's also about what the opposition have worked on themselves in terms of finding a weakness.

A few examples that always spring to mind were consecutive loses against Utd due to set pieces as well as that age old Maldini goal in Istanbul. They just looked like goals that had been worked on to specifically exploit the system.

We used to have a problem with the ball being played to the top of our area / D but eventually sorted that out.

[CHOPPER]

We should have zonal moding Gareth, Don't necessarily keep an eye on the poster, just be aware that he/she maybe be about to post shite and deal with it after it's happened rather than being right next to them while they do it.

Actually, after reading that back, you do zonal mod. When are we gonna get some man-to-man moding FFS!   

 

[Effes]

One of the main reasons why man to man marking is preferred in this country is that the defenders can interfere with the opposing players as the ball comes in.
As they both fight for position, invariably the defender can out muscle the opposing player and take him out the equation.
This is effective because players who aren't great in the air, can have a big impact on defending corners/free-kicks.

What has done us lately is players coming from the blind side to beat defenders at the near post.

Im not sure what the solution is; these players arrive just as the ball comes in and the near post
defenders dont have time to adjust.

[slaphead]

I'm loving that username Effes - even thogh it is spelt wrong 

[hoonin]

We should have zonal moding Gareth, Don't necessarily keep an eye on the poster, just be aware that he/she maybe be about to post shite and deal with it after it's happened rather than being right next to them while they do it.

Actually, after reading that back, you do zonal mod. When are we gonna get some man-to-man moding FFS!   

 

Haha

[Effes]

That's also why we don't put men on the posts - sure they can prevent the odd goal (from clean headers, which zonal is focussed on winning in the first place) but on the other hand putting men on the posts makes it almost impossible to catch people offside when the ball is played back into the box - and catching people offside is a big reason we don't concede from that second ball in.

I liked your post mate - but Im not too sure about this.

I think it is better to have men on both posts.
I think Ive seen on a very regular basis, men on the post clearing off the line at corners.

Re your point about offside, it seems to be flawed.
Surely you are talking about a one yard at best advantage here? Normally you will have an
opposing player right by the goalie anyway, and others about 1 yard from the goal line.

If the ball is cleared, these men on the post should know to get the hell out for the offside
only when the ball is cleared a long way.
But what if the ball is not cleared out of the box? or just to the edge? You dont want to be thinking about
offside then - you want your men to stay at the post in case the ball comes goalwards.

[Effes]

I'm loving that username Effes - even thogh it is spelt wrong 

I know - too pissed to remember how you spelt it.

[todda]

Zonal marking is crap and all who disagree with me on here need there heads read 

some people like it, some don't, I fall into the Don't catagory doesn't make me a bad person or a Rafa hater.  I think people on here will defend the system just because we use it, if we didn't and went man for man, people who can't think for themselves would back the man for man system.

[fangkeqin]

The problem with zonal marking is that the defenders must attack the ball coming into their area.  Except for Sami Hypia (who sadly has left), no one in the team does that.  That's also why we don't score too much from setpieces ourselves.

[slaphead]

Zonal marking is crap and all who disagree with me on here need there heads read 

some people like it, some don't, I fall into the Don't catagory doesn't make me a bad person or a Rafa hater.  I think people on here will defend the system just because we use it, if we didn't and went man for man, people who can't think for themselves would back the man for man system.

And I think you should read a few posts previously in reply to someone who suggsted that people cant think for themselves when it comes to Zonal marking
I would say theres a fairly even split as to who likes Zonal and who doesn't - but while we are one of the most solid defensive units there is, whats the point of abandoning that to go man for man ?
Zonal is the dogs bullox when it comes to defending in my opinion.

[Effes]

Also - Im a firm believer in the phrase "There's more than one way to skin a cat", so I'll concede
that there are strong arguments for either system.

However, one quote that sticks in my mind that I read from before was Wenger's:
"There is no one ideal system, the best one is the one that suits your players".

Has he got something here?
I mean, who's good in the air for us? Carra and Skrtel are our best headers and I wouldn't say
they were great.
Torres showed against Villa, that he doesn't attack the ball coming in.

Looking at how our players are in the air - is Zonal the best system to go with.

My personal opinion is we should employ a hybrid of both zonal and man mark.
I remember Gillespie (I think) saying that was what they used when he played.
Certain players would man mark and a few were told to take positions in the 6 yard box
and NOT to move out of that position.

Is zonal a symptom of the way Rafa thinks? i.e. goes with the best theory and statistics?

[slaphead]

Is zonal a symptom of the way Rafa thinks? i.e. goes with the best theory and statistics?

I think so mate
Because he employed the same system at Valencia
And to be honest its worked successfully for him and he uses it because of its success.
Also, look at Barcelona - everyone thought they were going to get destroyed at set pieces by Chelsea Utd last season but they didnt.
I'm not saying that was purely due to the Zonal system but it was a factor.

[hesbighesred]

I liked your post mate - but Im not too sure about this.

I think it is better to have men on both posts.
I think Ive seen on a very regular basis, men on the post clearing off the line at corners.

Re your point about offside, it seems to be flawed.
Surely you are talking about a one yard at best advantage here? Normally you will have an
opposing player right by the goalie anyway, and others about 1 yard from the goal line.

If the ball is cleared, these men on the post should know to get the hell out for the offside
only when the ball is cleared a long way.
But what if the ball is not cleared out of the box? or just to the edge? You dont want to be thinking about
offside then - you want your men to stay at the post in case the ball comes goalwards.

OK, first things first.

Yes, we see those players clearing the ball regularly. What we DON'T see is how many times that header wouldn't have happened if those players had been attacking the ball instead of stood there on the post. Remember - those post players do absolutely nothing unless the ball actually goes right at them, which yes, it does quite often, but round again and how much less would the ball get to them if they were trying to win the header in the first place?

Then, we also don't see how many breaks that team would have from corners without the man on the post. Sure Cole's cleared a few, but how many goals have Chelsea missed by not hiving him in a position to break at speed when they get the ball back?

As for that second goal - I don't have any figures or whatever to hand, but I've seen it loads of times. Watch MOTD for a couple of weeks with that in mind - you'll see a lot of goal mouth scrambles/balls played back in where it is indeed the men on the post keeping the eventual goalscorer on-side, either because one or both switch off (which happens a lot because also it makes more sense to put non-defenders there, precisely because defenders tend to be needed in a more pro-active role), or because they physically can't make up even that 5 yards of space in the time it takes for the ball to come out and then be played back in - bearing in mind that the defensive line is moving forward at the same rate as the full-backs, so that 5 yard space just shifts up the pitch as the defenders do - again, watch teams on corners and you'll see that decent strikers nearly always occupy exactly that space between the advancing defending line and the full-backs behind them.

So, what if the ball is cleared to the edge of the box?

Again, yes the players on the post can stop that shot when it comes back in, but again that leaves two less players potentially in a position to close down that shot in the first place, or even better get there as the ball is cleared to the edge and set us up for a counter attack, which we do a LOT, especially when the ball is cleared to the exact area you describe.

[kaz1983]

The fact is when a team is man-to-man marking its easy to pick out an individual and say who wasnt doing their job and blame that one person...in zonal marking its harder to blame an individual so they blame the system.

[mybacklight]

I like zonal marking for corners as the ball gets crossed from 2 places, for set-pieces/free kicks it becomes alot harder as the ball in a free-kick can be placed almost anywhere, makes it alot easier for the opposition to manipulate.

Alot of effort is put into the zonal marking system. You need to have alot of focus and work great together as a team.
It will take time for it to become fully operational without any major flaws.
Once the team settles and we have a steady team, it will become more effective.

I hope we stick with it!

The only flaw I can see is it gives the opposition a change to thread the ball into an area were our weakest defensive player is. They can still do this with man marking.

Its like Marmite, You love it or hate it.

You need to take sometime to read up about it, as most people dislike it because they dont understand it.

[slaphead]

I'm off home now my work here is done for the day.
Thoroughly enjoyed this topic though
hesbighesred, Effes, Todda, Fowler, Garteh etc etc etc - great stuff - this is exactly why I like RAWK.

[hesbighesred]

The problem with zonal marking is that the defenders must attack the ball coming into their area.  Except for Sami Hypia (who sadly has left), no one in the team does that.  That's also why we don't score too much from setpieces ourselves.

I agree that is an issue - but how would that situation be improved by going man-to-man? Attacking the ball is absolutely vital in both systems. Man to man doesn't mean you suddenly don't have to attack the ball - because your man will still be leaping for it, so you still have to attack the ball in man to man or zonal. If anything the ability of continental sides filled with technically gifted midgets to still beat British sides stuffed full of burly giants shows that lack of good headers is more of a problem in a man to man system, where if you lack lots of height it's a lot easier to then pull what few tall defenders you do have out positions you don't want them in.

Someone like Torres is a master of that - I don't see that he's scored far more goals from set-pieces against continental opposition (who rarely use man to man) as opposed to British teams (who usually do).

[hesbighesred]

I'm off home now my work here is done for the day.
Thoroughly enjoyed this topic though
hesbighesred, Effes, Todda, Fowler, Garteh etc etc etc - great stuff - this is exactly why I like RAWK.

Tara mate, enjoy your evening!

[Cob from TIA]

By all means, be against Zonal Marking. I'm sure there are some very compelling reasons to use other systems.

However, these are emphatically NOT those reasons.

1) When has space ever scored a goal? WHAT? Just stupid. When has the man ever scored the goal? The BALL scores the goal. The whole point of zonal from set-pieces is to concentrate on the BALL. Win the first ball, be in a position to mop up the second ball.

There's a thing too - most goals from corners are not conceded direct. They're conceded from a scramble, from a flick-on, from a second or even third ball into the box. How often do we let teams have a second bite of the set-piece cherry?

Almost never, and that's because of zonal marking. That's also why we don't put men on the posts - sure they can prevent the odd goal (from clean headers, which zonal is focussed on winning in the first place) but on the other hand putting men on the posts makes it almost impossible to catch people offside when the ball is played back into the box - and catching people offside is a big reason we don't concede from that second ball in.

2) Gives the players a 'get out'. Just sooooo stupid. Screw whether the system works or not - what's important is that it's easy for the manager to find someone to shout at if it goes wrong! It doesn't surprise me that this is the reason Souness bangs on about all the time. That's Greame Souness, most of who's defences have been absolute shite.

Besides which, it's not true anyway. It's no harder to figure out the zone a player was meant to be marking then it is the player they were meant to be marking. I mean seriously, are managers and players so collosally thick that they can't work out that if a zone is empty, and the ball goes in from that zone, that it's the person who was meant to be covering that zone who is at fault?

Look at the 2nd Villa goal. That was Torres' Zone. Carra attacked the ball from a different zone, but it's clearly Torres who was placed on the front post zone, and equally clearly it's also Torres who totally fails to leap for the header. It was obviously Torres' fault, if you're so keen on blaming individuals. How that's so much harder than trying to figure out which man he was to be marking I don't know.

Basically, the majority of the objection(s) to zonal come about from two reasons:

1) This country's shockingly luddite attitude to anything resembling a 'strategy' in football. Zonal looks like someone's actually thought about it. Maybe even written things down on a bit of paper. Perhaps even drawn a diagram. To the average British football mind, that is nigh-on heresy already.

2) Simple ignorance - people don't understand the system. Not because it's really that complicated, they just have never put in the effort/found the incilnation to read up about it. The post I quoted amply shows how little most people know about it - same way that very few people could explain why 5-3-2 and 4-4-2 have largely gone out of fashion as formations.

I think he's covered it all really. Brilliant post that.

[Effes]

As for that second goal - I don't have any figures or whatever to hand, but I've seen it loads of times. Watch MOTD for a couple of weeks with that in mind - you'll see a lot of goal mouth scrambles/balls played back in where it is indeed the men on the post keeping the eventual goalscorer on-side, either because one or both switch off (which happens a lot because also it makes more sense to put non-defenders there, precisely because defenders tend to be needed in a more pro-active role), or because they physically can't make up even that 5 yards of space in the time it takes for the ball to come out and then be played back in - bearing in mind that the defensive line is moving forward at the same rate as the full-backs, so that 5 yard space just shifts up the pitch as the defenders do - again, watch teams on corners and you'll see that decent strikers nearly always occupy exactly that space between the advancing defending line and the full-backs behind them.

OK mate - thanks for coming back on that.
I have no doubt Rafa weighs up these factors - it's just us mere mortals will always have our
own theories/concerns and want to know why certain things are done instead of others.