Zonal Marking

[Ads]

For the first Bolton goal, iff Baker competes with Cahill for the header, then we stop the goal. If If we have a man on the post, then we stop the goal.

For the second, if we had a commanding, younger keeper, who firstly parries out a safe distance, then we stop the goal. If he isn’t still sat on his backside, then we stop the goal.

The third, if we’re not all ball watching and getting drawn to the line, then we stop the goal.

Its the personnel not being up to the simplest of tasks. We’re only consistent in our our inability to learn from these fundamental errors. 

[pauliewalnuts]

Forget the debate over whether it is man marking or zonal marking, surely the most debatable word is 'marking'

Sorry paulie. can't see that. They're two totally different ways of organising, both can be good or bad, but you have to do what suits you. The fact is we were, with these players, very good at zonal marking. We saw yesterday how good we are at man-marking.

I think the point he is trying to make is that whether it's Man or Zonal, we are failing with the "marking" aspect of it.

We're failing at man-marking. We're not employing zonal marking, so how can we be failing at any aspect of it? It's like saying we're failing by playing 3-5-2 or something.

My point was that, whether or not zonal is the right word for it, the thing we're failing to do is marking - whatever the form, as VS said.

[peter w]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

[ktvillan]

As far as I can see we line up along the edge of the 6 yard box, regardless of where the opposition players seem to be.  Looks a lot like zonal to me whatever Andy Gray's spaceship says.  If it's meant to be man marking it's the worst attempt at it that I've ever seen.  Not sure what we did under O'Neill, I really didn't care enough to think about it because it worked.

[Percy McCarthy]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.

Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?

[Rip Van We Go Again]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.

I think Houllier and McAllister are employing the Aleister Crowley method of defending
'Do what thou wilt.'

[pauliewalnuts]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.

Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?

Yes, oddly enough I do.

[Ad@m]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.

Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?

Interesting take on zonal marking.

My understanding of zonal marking was that you give people zones to defend and you pick up the man in your zone.  What would be the point in employing a defensive system where players just stand around, making no attempt to pick up any attacking players?

That said, it appears to be exactly the way our defence has been told to go about their job as I've seen very little marking at set pieces recently from our boys!

Joking aside, the issue at Bolton was who was assigned to who.  For both of Cahill's goals he was being marked by Nathan Baker.  If someone can explain the logic are sticking our most inexperienced defender on one of their best headers of a ball they're a better man than me.

[Percy McCarthy]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.

Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?

Interesting take on zonal marking.

My understanding of zonal marking was that you give people zones to defend and you pick up the man in your zone.  What would be the point in employing a defensive system where players just stand around, making no attempt to pick up any attacking players?

That said, it appears to be exactly the way our defence has been told to go about their job as I've seen very little marking at set pieces recently from our boys!

Joking aside, the issue at Bolton was who was assigned to who.  For both of Cahill's goals he was being marked by Nathan Baker.  If someone can explain the logic are sticking our most inexperienced defender on one of their best headers of a ball they're a better man than me.

The way we played zonal marking under MON was that the four best headers lined up along the six-yard line, basically ignoring whatever the other team were doing. Whoever's 'zone' the ball came into headed it away. Simple, and it worked.

[Percy McCarthy]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.

Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?

Yes, oddly enough I do.

Strange then that you think this 'marking' is important, when you are aware that in zonal marking, it is supposed to be non-existant.

[Ad@m]

The way we played zonal marking under MON was that the four best headers lined up along the six-yard line, basically ignoring whatever the other team were doing. Whoever's 'zone' the ball came into headed it away. Simple, and it worked.

Unless we played Stoke...

[pauliewalnuts]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.

Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?

Yes, oddly enough I do.

Strange then that you think this 'marking' is important, when you are aware that in zonal marking, it is supposed to be non-existant.

Im sorry you dont believe me, so I'll try again.

You do know that under zonal marking, you don't mark men, you take responsibility for an area, and clear anything that comes into your 'zone'. I know you're aware of this, in fact, as you've just alluded to it in another post.

My point was that whether we are man marking, or zonal marking (note the presence of the word 'marking' in the term), it isn't working, because we invariably we leave men free (if it is the former) or areas undefended, if it is the latter.

[Percy McCarthy]

The way we played zonal marking under MON was that the four best headers lined up along the six-yard line, basically ignoring whatever the other team were doing. Whoever's 'zone' the ball came into headed it away. Simple, and it worked.

Unless we played Stoke...

Good point. It did work (for us) much better against corners than against set-pieces from further out, or Delap's bloody throw-ins.

[Percy McCarthy]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.

Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?

Yes, oddly enough I do.

Strange then that you think this 'marking' is important, when you are aware that in zonal marking, it is supposed to be non-existant.

My point was that whether we are man marking, or zonal marking (note the presence of the word 'marking' in the term), it isn't working, because we invariably we leave men free (if it is the former) or areas undefended, if it is the latter.

But it's not the latter, so what has the latter got to do with our problems this season? It's like saying John Carew is not scoring enough goals for us at the moment.

I don't get this 'if it's the former'. It is. Or 'if it's the latter'. It isn't.

[pauliewalnuts]

Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.

If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.

Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?

Yes, oddly enough I do.

Strange then that you think this 'marking' is important, when you are aware that in zonal marking, it is supposed to be non-existant.

My point was that whether we are man marking, or zonal marking (note the presence of the word 'marking' in the term), it isn't working, because we invariably we leave men free (if it is the former) or areas undefended, if it is the latter.

But it's not the latter, so what has the latter got to do with our problems this season? It's like saying John Carew is not scoring enough goals for us at the moment.

I don't get this 'if it's the former'. It is. Or 'if it's the latter'. It isn't.

God almighty, Perc. Have the celebrating noses over there got to you or something?

My point is this  - "whichever form of defending we're using (and I didn't say anything about it being zonal marking) we're not very good at it".

If you want an argument, I'll say we are zonal marking, and you can explain how we're not, if that makes it easier? But I'm not. I'm saying we're not very good at defending right now.