Can someone obviously more intellectual than me explain the point of it? Does it work? It seems more and more teams are going for this tactic defending corners, ourselves included. We seem to be pretty shit at it. Why is it favoured over the old man to man marking?
Zonal marking
- Thread starter PoTMS
- Start date
I have no clue. We are leaking goals from the corners every match.
The point is to avoid having to make a challenge/duel in a dangerous area and to outnumber the opponent in an area/zone of the pitch where the danger is big.
I think being bad at it is a lot down to attitude. Most teams line up in a similar fashion. It have always felt like ruthless teams with «strong mentality» is good at defending set-pieces. Man Utd under Ferguson. Chelsea during Mourinhos first spell. Liverpool these days. Pogba is a good example too. He is awfull at defending corners despite his size. He has a bit of arrogance about him that dont work. You want the Roy Keane mentality.
I hope that our coaches do understand this? Against Sheffield United we had 5 players where there were no opponents at all while the area/zone where all the opponents where, we had only two defenders. This is why some clubs put the corners where the shortest players are defending and get their tallest players in that area.
I personally think it is a fashion. Just like playing out from the back all the time.
I've never heard man to man marking criticized this much.
You could had just google it 
I am a big fan of zonal marking on open play: the team will be much more compact and organized, and will work more like a block. But it's harder to implement, because man marking is more organic, while zonal marking requires the player to have a lot of awareness.
On set pieces I prefer mixed marking: tall guys being man marked by our team tall fellas and make sure the 6 yard box is well protected and keep a few fellas to make sure that someone will be there to defend the goal if the ball falls between the 6 yard box and the penalty arc.
I am a big fan of zonal marking on open play: the team will be much more compact and organized, and will work more like a block. But it's harder to implement, because man marking is more organic, while zonal marking requires the player to have a lot of awareness.
On set pieces I prefer mixed marking: tall guys being man marked by our team tall fellas and make sure the 6 yard box is well protected and keep a few fellas to make sure that someone will be there to defend the goal if the ball falls between the 6 yard box and the penalty arc.
I remember when Liverpool use to do it under Benitez.
People scored on them nearly every week. I feel we are the same.
People scored on them nearly every week. I feel we are the same.
Can only speak to Chelsea but we've improved immensely this season by switching from a pure zonal scheme to a hybrid one - right now we man mark the most dangerous 3 or 4 opponents with our shorter players with the aim being to put them off, and station our taller players in high traffic areas (e.g. Tammy or Havertz is always on the front post, Zouma is right in the middle of the goal, etc). The results speak for themselves - we've gone from comically bad to the best team in the league on set plays (at both ends). Huge credit to Anthony Barry, the highly-rated coach we brought in from Wigan who has been focusing on this among other things.
It's illogical but apparently coaches have stats that back it up. Don't know why people would mark space and only space in the box when space has scored a grand total of zero goals in football history. These coaches need to have a chat with Tony Pulis on how defend corners.
This!
Because it's really easy to block a runner with the old man-to-man marking. It rarely gets called by the referee because so much is going on and the ball is 30 yards away. Typically you'll have a 3v3 of the big men in both teams - all it takes is 1 of the attacking team to block off the marker of one of his team-mates and you've got a free header.
The advantage with zonal is that you can get a lot of bodies back in to cover a fairly small area, which makes it difficult to score from, as the open space just isn't there. Personally I prefer the hybrid system - that's how Simeone's Atletico have defended corners and used to very rarely concede.
Hybrid is definitely the way to go. For example someone on edge of 6 yard box, is a key area which should not be distracted by man to man marking. Or on the edge of the D.
Maybe teams are moving away with it to avoid man marking and shirt pulling etc with VAR being used, just mark your zone and beat the man to the ball in
They did a brief bit of analysis on it on the MNF and it's a part man to man part zonal and both Neville and Carragher agreed they liked it, the idea being the 6 yard box is zonal and those in the 18 yard box are man to man/blocking runners
I remember Benitez when he brought in zonal marking to the PL how clueless it was and it was comforting how defending set pieces was never an issue for us under Fergie. Somethings aren't broke and don't need fixing, just do man to man with men on the post, why fecking change?
I remember Benitez when he brought in zonal marking to the PL how clueless it was and it was comforting how defending set pieces was never an issue for us under Fergie. Somethings aren't broke and don't need fixing, just do man to man with men on the post, why fecking change?
It’s interesting this is brought up after West Ham conceded their first set piece goal this season tonight. Zero mention when it works well, only when they concede from it. Zonal marking is an effective system that is torn apart as being a systematic failure whenever a goal is conceded. If a goal is conceded from man marking then it’s considered an individual error. Both systems work fine.
Honestly I hate it. In my Sunday league football we only have one player do zonal marking in the middle which our tallest player and honestly it worked very well since the ball keep going into his head every corner or long throw. Having one is perfect but having too many is stupid. To me man mark is the best and most effective way.
The only explanation I can think of is that lot of players nowadays are weak in their man marking ability. For example you look at United players, we got Bissaka, Pogba & Matic who tend to lose their man, forwards who also not good with following their man & Lindelof who will get bullied strength to strength.
The only explanation I can think of is that lot of players nowadays are weak in their man marking ability. For example you look at United players, we got Bissaka, Pogba & Matic who tend to lose their man, forwards who also not good with following their man & Lindelof who will get bullied strength to strength.
As always with these things, nuance comes into it. Leeds employ a strict man marking system, did that work against us? We employ a type of zonal marking at set pieces and we haven't exactly looked impermeable.
In the last seasons in Serie A I've seen teams adopting zonal low blocks more and more defending corners, and, maybe it's just me, but I'm under the impression attacking teams are concurrently resorting more and more on short corners, to induce the defending team to come out a bit before crossing in.
So maybe there's some effectiveness in defending it like that
So maybe there's some effectiveness in defending it like that
Im not a fan, I have always preferred the man on man marking. That way each player is responsable for the opponent assigned to him, of course it has its disadvantages as well since the "basketball blocks" were frequently used to counter the man on man marking leaving players alone. But I feel that way each player gets it responsability instead of zone marking where everyone just look at each other and its "nobodies fault".
Has anyone ever actually done man to man that wasn't hybrid?
Not that I've been counting, but I don't think that if an attacking team put 5 in the box for a set piece that defending teams would just put 5 back to man mark them and nobody else. Defenders have always outnumbered attackers haven't they, or is my memory tricking me? Those defenders would be doing something.
Not that I've been counting, but I don't think that if an attacking team put 5 in the box for a set piece that defending teams would just put 5 back to man mark them and nobody else. Defenders have always outnumbered attackers haven't they, or is my memory tricking me? Those defenders would be doing something.
The Sheffield United corner is how ridiculous the whole thing is going for strictly zonal. we had 5 players in a zone where there was no Sheffield United near or even planning to be. Yes man to man will have blockers too and that will create problems but tall players need to mark tall players.
Leeds conceded because for once we got a good near post corner and near post corners are very difficult to defend and player marking Lindelof went to sleep. We should have players on each post too. How many times had we seen in the past players clearing the ball by the player on the post? Lots.
Leeds conceded because for once we got a good near post corner and near post corners are very difficult to defend and player marking Lindelof went to sleep. We should have players on each post too. How many times had we seen in the past players clearing the ball by the player on the post? Lots.
Sarri's Napoli always conceded a lot from set pieces playing a straight zone. Lost count of the number of times he was asked about it
Honestly, a pure zone in 2020 doesn't work anymore imho. Not just on set pieces. Guardiola has shown everybody and their mothers how to crack a zone, much like how ajax showed everyone how to break man-marking in the 70s...
And with the athletic and technical levels of today's players, everyone can do it, easily. Just look what Leipzig did to United a couple weeks back
Hybrid/man-oriented zone is the most common system these days for a reason