Unmarked players at the edge of our box

[Aggy 754]

Nobody is marking the attacker next to the keeper. We are marking four players.

In zonal marking, the “zone” isn’t literally just the one place you stand. If an attacker runs from the “back” of your zone to the “front” of your zone you go with them. The idea being that you beat the attacker to any ball within your zone. Zonal marking doesn’t mean standing still and hoping the ball hits you on the forehead.

If we were only marking players we saw as a risk, and we only marked four players, why did we need 11 in the box? 4 defenders, two on the post, one keeper. You’ve suggested one attacker had two men marking. so, by your own reckoning, we needed maximum 8 players back. What are the other three doing? Surely either they man mark the three spare players on the edge, or if those spare attackers aren’t a threat, the spare defenders may as well be up top on the half way line.

The two clear lines of four (in the clip you talked about), one line just inside the six yard box and one just outside suggests each of those players had a specific area they were to marshall.

The difference between man marking and zonal isn’t that attackers are allowed to roam freely with zonal marking. The difference is that if you’re man marking, you get “allocated” a man. If that man runs ten yards out of the box, you follow. If your man scores, it’s your fault regardless of where that player ends up. Zonal marking, if your man leaves your zone, you don’t follow. If there’s a man in your zone - and if that man moves to the edge of your zone - you follow. It’s like how defenders tend to manage things during free play; you pass your man on at a certain point rather than getting dragged across the pitch. If the ball comes into your zone, you attack it. If a man comes into your zone, you make it hard for him.

My point here is that we set up to defend the corner in the clip you showed with each defender being allocated a zone to defend. Some, yes, followed men who “encroached” into their zone. Others stood around largely doing nothing, when there were three men on the edge of the box completely unmarked.

If we are man marking, the spare defenders need to be marking the three spare attackers on the edge. If we’re zonal marking, the zones need to be shifted in certain circumstances - and that requires tactical awareness on the pitch and leaders to organise. As I said, had the lines of four shifted forwards five yards, not only would the four “marked” men have continued to be marked, but we would have been much closer to the unmarked men on the edge too.

I repeat the last paragraph of my last post - if it’s zonal marking and we haven’t shifted, it’s poor coaching or players not wanting/being able to do it. Scrap zonal as a result (or coach it better). If it’s man marking and the players have made an on field decision to leave three players completely unmarked then serious question marks need to be asked over what’s going on in the defender’s heads.

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

Could it be that the team mark those deemed as the biggest threat man to man and then position others zonally based on watching the oppositions previously delivered set pieces? Does it have to be one or the other? I’ve no idea. I wasn’t even very good at subbuteo let alone actually play football but..

[SwindonCanary 455]

A BIG plus to having two men on the line for corners but I can''t agree with all men back

Look at how Barcelona used to defend corners

7 players back two on the edge of the box  ready for a quick break and the other up front

[Bill 1,788]

"Zonal marking, if your man leaves your zone, you don’t follow. If

there’s a man in your zone - and if that man moves to the edge of your

zone - you follow. It’s like how defenders tend to manage things during

free play; you pass your man on at a certain point rather than getting

dragged across the pitch. If the ball comes into your zone, you attack

it. If a man comes into your zone, you make it hard for him.

"

It becomes more ridiculous the more you try to defend it.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]Could it be that the team mark those deemed as the biggest threat man to man and then position others zonally based on watching the oppositions previously delivered set pieces? Does it have to be one or the other? I’ve no idea. I wasn’t even very good at subbuteo let alone actually play football but..[/quote]

Yes. You either play football or imagine you are involved in some sort of game of battleships

.

If the attacking team puts 3 or 4 players at the back post, where then those who are strategically placed in their own seperate box ? 

The idea that defenders have the time at a corner or free kick to work out whether a player has entered their zone, or left it is total nonsense. It''s football, not bl oody formation swimming. It might make sense if you are coegraphing some American football performance but not football... there are far too many variables. If only that your approach will be different depending on the score, the time of the game, how their ''big men'' rate against yours etc.

I know the formation ''fannies'' like to see the game as some kind of table football game  where the numbers to players on each rod are swapped round to give them numbers to get excited about. Watch how both Hanley and Klose were just outside the binners box when close scored the last minute goal... supplied by Maddison from almost his own half. What formation were they in then ?

As to a corner the first threat is the ball in the air. Those nearest can quickly challenge for the ball whereever it then goes. By the simple dint of having more bodies blocking the goal it makes it harder for an attacker to score from outside the 18 yard box.

Watch the game. Players set up and react to other players, not some absurd chess board set up.

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

[quote user="SwindonCanary"]

A BIG plus to having two men on the line for corners but I can''t agree with all men back

Look at how Barcelona used to defend corners

7 players back two on the edge of the box  ready for a quick break and the other up front

[/quote]

That’s great. In truth though, conceding a goal from a corner isn’t a huge worry for a team that could call on Messi, Neymar, Suarez, Ronaldinho, Iniesta, Xavi etc etc going forward at any particular given time.

[hampton canary 24]

Just for once It would be nice to see Farke think "outside the box" and leave 2 of our quicker players up on the halfway line when the opposition have a corner. Ipswich left one up for our corners on Sunday and straight away we kept 2 back to mark him. I am not convinced Farke ever has a plan B so it is always going to be easy for the opposition manager to know exactly how we are going to play.

[king canary 7,599]

One of the issues I have with Farke is how very conservative he is for a supposedly modern thinking coach- the 11 men back for corners is a symptom of that.

[ron obvious 1,502]

My main issue is that we do not anticipate where the ball''s going to be. We too often seem to be in a Gumbyesque "oh look, the ball''s over there" situation compared to other teams - even poor ones, like Ipswich.

But I thought we were generally OK (apart from the above) on Sunday. The quick touches that worked on Tuesday were not coming off, probably because the opposition were more determined than Cardiff.

It''s certainly different to last year''s possession-at-all-coats football though, & much more entertaining. I remain optimistic! :-)

[Taylor324 36]

I am not a fan of having all 11 men back for a corner. Even in extreme situations when the oposition throws every available man into the box, they can only muster 9 (minus the GK and man taking the corner) so already we have a 2 man advantage

At the very least, one of our player should be used as an outlet

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Can we not just agree that regardless of whether we are zonal or man to man marking, something has gone wrong if there are three players in 10 yards of space unmarked on the edge of the area? That cannot be right whatever the system.

Defending is not just about the first ball, but also anticipating where the second ball may go. That''s the problem with our current set up for defending set pieces and its far from the first time this season that defensive headers have gone straight to unmarked opposition players on the edge of our box. i would wager this is something Hurst had identified pre-match given some of their set pieces and we were lucky they were/are not good enough to really make us pay.

[Aggy 754]

Agreed Jim.

I think the only reason it’s useful to discuss which we are doing is to see whether the failing was as a result of a zonal “masterplan” from the manager (which has created a danger) or just that our players really are terrible man markers. Rather than ‘defend’ zonal, I’ve said that looks like what we are doing and it hasn’t worked.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I agree with you for what it’s worth Aggy. I think we generally do defend zonally although I think he changes it for some games.

[Alan 0]

We do not set up well for set pieces.

Its been the case for a long time.

I think a specialist defensive coach is needed.

[Big Vince 318]

The Italians have always been the masters of defending and that is why they have won the World Cup more times than anyone, except Brazil.

Could Delia apply to join the Pozzo Empire, as a first step?

Whenever I have watched the Italians play, it seems to me that whenever they don''t have the ball there is always a man on the player who does have the ball.

Man-marking should therefore apply in open play not just at set-pieces.