Zonal Marking

[TimTheVillain]

The bottom line is, we aren't picking up players in the 'zone' properly.

Call me old fashioned, I couldn't give a fuck whether we 'zonal mark' or 'man on man mark' as long as we fucking 'mark' !

[Percy McCarthy]

By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?

[pauliewalnuts]

By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?

I'll try again.

Because I thought the discussion was about people saying we're marking zonally when we're not - ie that there's some debate about it? That's the point you were making, and which I don't disagree with.

I am implying that our defensive problems are far more crude than that - we are so frail defensively, that I don't think we look like we could mark men or "mark" (note inverted commas) space right now, we're so poor.

[Chris Smith]

With so few players in the side above 6 foot we're going to struggle on set pieces against most teams, irrespective of the system we play.

[Percy McCarthy]

By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?

I'll try again.

Because I thought the discussion was about people saying we're marking zonally when we're not - ie that there's some debate about it? That's the point you were making, and which I don't disagree with.

I am implying that our defensive problems are far more crude than that - we are so frail defensively, that I don't think we look like we could mark men or "mark" (note inverted commas) space right now, we're so poor.

Okay, that's a bit clearer. Your previous comments about 'if it's zonal marking' etc. were a bit more ambiguous I thought. Anybody blaming our defensive deficiencies this season on zonal marking might as well say they think it's because our players are wearing stillettos. To which you might reply 'if it's because they're wearing stillettos, or if it's because they're man-marking, we're shit'. *wink*

Anyway, I think Clarke, Baker et al would be a lot more comfortable with last year's zonal system. I know Dunne, Collins and Cuellar were.

[pauliewalnuts]

By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?

I'll try again.

Because I thought the discussion was about people saying we're marking zonally when we're not - ie that there's some debate about it? That's the point you were making, and which I don't disagree with.

I am implying that our defensive problems are far more crude than that - we are so frail defensively, that I don't think we look like we could mark men or "mark" (note inverted commas) space right now, we're so poor.

Okay, that's a bit clearer. Your previous comments about 'if it's zonal marking' etc. were a bit more ambiguous I thought. Anybody blaming our defensive deficiencies this season on zonal marking might as well say they think it's because our players are wearing stillettos. To which you might reply 'if it's because they're wearing stillettos, or if it's because they're man-marking, we're shit'. *wink*

Anyway, I think Clarke, Baker et al would be a lot more comfortable with last year's zonal system. I know Dunne, Collins and Cuellar were.

No, I was just saying that we look so bereft of confidence at the back right now, I wouldn't really bank on us to tighten things up if we resorted to armed defence, trenches and dogs, let alone zonal marking, man marking, whatever.

I can't help thinking that it might be different had GH managed to persuade Patrice Bergues to come, who was apparently his defensive guru.

Someone mentioned yesterday that he'd said at the time that "the timing isn't right", so I don't know if that will change over the summer. Only problem is i think he was earmarked for the official role of "number two" which would put Gary McAllister in an awkward position

[Percy McCarthy]

By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?

I'll try again.

Because I thought the discussion was about people saying we're marking zonally when we're not - ie that there's some debate about it? That's the point you were making, and which I don't disagree with.

I am implying that our defensive problems are far more crude than that - we are so frail defensively, that I don't think we look like we could mark men or "mark" (note inverted commas) space right now, we're so poor.

Okay, that's a bit clearer. Your previous comments about 'if it's zonal marking' etc. were a bit more ambiguous I thought. Anybody blaming our defensive deficiencies this season on zonal marking might as well say they think it's because our players are wearing stillettos. To which you might reply 'if it's because they're wearing stillettos, or if it's because they're man-marking, we're shit'. *wink*

Anyway, I think Clarke, Baker et al would be a lot more comfortable with last year's zonal system. I know Dunne, Collins and Cuellar were.

No, I was just saying that we look so bereft of confidence at the back right now, I wouldn't really bank on us to tighten things up if we resorted to armed defence, trenches and dogs, let alone zonal marking, man marking, whatever.

I can't help thinking that it might be different had GH managed to persuade Patrice Bergues to come, who was apparently his defensive guru.

Someone mentioned yesterday that he'd said at the time that "the timing isn't right", so I don't know if that will change over the summer. Only problem is i think he was earmarked for the official role of "number two" which would put Gary McAllister in an awkward position

That someone was me. That's what I'm hoping for too, either that or a new manager. Strange that even after the shambles this season (and I've been one of GH's biggest critics) I can still entertain the possibilty that he might do well eventually.

[pauliewalnuts]

That someone was me. That's what I'm hoping for too, either that or a new manager. Strange that even after the shambles this season (and I've been one of GH's biggest critics) I can still entertain the possibilty that he might do well eventually.

I can definitely entertain that possibility.

We play some lovely football at times. I like that. I spent so much time moaning about it under MON that it's not really surprising I like to see us play it around. Houllier has mentioned the way we play himself quite frequently, I think his basic football philosophy is sound.

I have two issues, though. The results, obviously. It annoys me when people talk about those who like tippy tappy football as if it is something bad, as if it means you have to eschew decent results. Our struggles are mainly down to  what we were just talking about, our frailities at the back.

We've given away so many points from a winning position this season, it is unreal. That's not good, but it at least suggests that we're getting into decent positions in the first place. If we were consistently creating zero chances - like, say, Blues do - I would be a lot more worried.

The other is the fact that Gerard is a walking PR disaster waiting to happen. it's easy to say "who cares what the media think" and dismiss it, but the fact is, he's dropped gaffe after gaffe since being here, from the original "it's not a job on the level of Liverpool", through the "typically a 7th-12th place team", the "my objective is survival" (in his first weeks), then the terribly disrespectful stuff at Anfield, then this week's FA Cup surrender, compounded by his "we'd never have beaten them anyway" line, but the fact is that these things chip away at spirits, a spirit we've worked hard to build up lately.

They also mean that, when you're really up against it and need to get people behind you and the club, you find it a bit harder, because over the course of 8 or 9 months, you've soundly pissed people off, and they're less likely to want to back you. And it is all so fucking avoidable, too.





I spent most of the last two years moaning about MON's style of football,

[Percy McCarthy]

That someone was me. That's what I'm hoping for too, either that or a new manager. Strange that even after the shambles this season (and I've been one of GH's biggest critics) I can still entertain the possibilty that he might do well eventually.

I can definitely entertain that possibility.

We play some lovely football at times. I like that. I spent so much time moaning about it under MON that it's not really surprising I like to see us play it around. Houllier has mentioned the way we play himself quite frequently, I think his basic football philosophy is sound.

I have two issues, though. The results, obviously. It annoys me when people talk about those who like tippy tappy football as if it is something bad, as if it means you have to eschew decent results. Our struggles are mainly down to  what we were just talking about, our frailities at the back.

We've given away so many points from a winning position this season, it is unreal. That's not good, but it at least suggests that we're getting into decent positions in the first place. If we were consistently creating zero chances - like, say, Blues do - I would be a lot more worried.

The other is the fact that Gerard is a walking PR disaster waiting to happen. it's easy to say "who cares what the media think" and dismiss it, but the fact is, he's dropped gaffe after gaffe since being here, from the original "it's not a job on the level of Liverpool", through the "typically a 7th-12th place team", the "my objection is survival" (in his first weeks), then the terribly disrespectful stuff at Anfield, then this week's FA Cup surrender, compounded by his "we'd never have beaten them anyway" line, but the fact is that these things chip away at spirits, a spirit we've worked hard to build up lately.

They also mean that, when you're really up against it and need to get people behind you and the club, you find it a bit harder, because over the course of 8 or 9 months, you've soundly pissed people off, and they're less likely to want to back you. And it is all so fucking avoidable, too.

 

Agree on all that too. Looking forward, I think we should always employ managers who like to play good football. If only for the fact that we wouldn't have to completely overhaul the squad every time the manager changed. Oh, and because we'd play good football too, of course.

[pauliewalnuts]

There's not much wrong with most of our players, technically.

MON bought some duffs, and we're paying the (wage bill) price for those, but he also bought some decent players.

We've got players who can pass the ball around pretty well. I know people like saying "there's no point trying to play like Arsenal if you don't have Arsenal level players", but the team we played yesterday are a good example of how you don't have to have absolutely top class players to turn your game around and pass it around a bit.

[Dave Cooper please]

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.

This may be the problem, if they have given Baker a certain zone to patrol, and someone on Bolton's team has noticed this then it doesn't take a genius to tell Cahill to run into that area on set pieces.

[TheSandman]

Percy is right that we zonally marked last season and not only that we were one of the few teams who actually managed to get it right due to our height.

Fuck knows what we are doing this season though as it is one disorganised pile of shit at the back. 

[Percy McCarthy]

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.

This may be the problem, if they have given Baker a certain zone to patrol, and someone on Bolton's team has noticed this then it doesn't take a genius to tell Cahill to run into that area on set pieces.

No, he was man-marking him. Well, running round behind him actually, which is often what man-marking equates to. You tend to give away more penalties too, with all the wrestling.

[hawkeye]

A lot of teams put a player in front of the near post and then a decent header of the ball centrally on the edge of the 6 yard box, the rest then man to man. The idea being that any ball in the 6 yard box should be the goal keepers if it beats the first man.

[Percy McCarthy]

A lot of teams put a player in front of the near post and then a decent header of the ball centrally on the edge of the 6 yard box, the rest then man to man. The idea being that any ball in the 6 yard box should be the goal keepers if it beats the first man.

Our system last year was Carew or Heskey as the one in front of the near post, making a higher delivery from the corner taker essential. These looping crosses are a lot less dangerous than the driven ones such as the one Blackpool scored from at their place. Behind Carew/Heskey we had Dunne, Collins and Cuellar along the six-yard line with instructions that if the ball was coming near whichever one of the three, attack it and clear it. A man on each post, making the goal smaller for Friedel, who stayed on his line purely to save shots/headers, unless they managed to get a cross very near to him (almost impossible with the set-up in front of him). Everybody else in the box, so if a loose ball fell, there was a chance that it would fall to one of ours, or if it fell to the opposition, the box was too crowded to get a decent shot off.

All about percentages, and it worked, by and large.