Jump to content
unique

Zonal or Man Marking for the PL?

Recommended Posts

I assume we go down the ‘zonal marking’ route because the teams we field are never blessed with above average height.

If this is addressed with a few shrewd signings , would there be an argument to go ‘man for man’ on set pieces next season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unique said:

I assume we go down the ‘zonal marking’ route because the teams we field are never blessed with above average height.

If this is addressed with a few shrewd signings , would there be an argument to go ‘man for man’ on set pieces next season?

Very, very few teams at the top level go man-to-man nowadays, as statistically zonal concedes fewer goals. 

I guess it should be judged based on the individuals at your disposal, but I'd be very surprised if we switched.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

A combination of both, like we have done throughout Farkes tenure. 

That's not quite the case. Half mark zones and they are usually the best headers of the ball. The other half are 'blockers' whose job it is to interrupt the runs of the attacking players.

Zonal marking has seen a huge drop in the number of goals scored from corners so it's unlikely that we'll change now

Edited by dylanisabaddog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

That's not quite the case. Half mark zones and they are usually the best headers of the ball. The other half are 'blockers' whose job it is to interrupt the runs of the attacking players.

You've literally just described a combination of the two 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

You've literally just described a combination of the two 😂

Nooo!  No one uses 10 players to mark zones. The number marking a zone is usually 5 but never more than 6.

And the players who aren't marking a zone aren't there to challenge their player in the air. Their job is to block the opponents run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Nooo!  No one uses 10 players to mark zones. The number marking a zone is usually 5 but never more than 6.

And the players who aren't marking a zone aren't there to challenge their player in the air. Their job is to block the opponents run.

Don't get caught talking like you have read up on things round ere boyo! They'll declare you a witch and burn you at the stake...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Nooo!  No one uses 10 players to mark zones. The number marking a zone is usually 5 but never more than 6.

And the players who aren't marking a zone aren't there to challenge their player in the air. Their job is to block the opponents run.

Are you reading your comments back??? When did I say 10 players are making zones??? That would make what I'm saying that we use a combination of both totally impossible. 

You're literally describing what I am saying we do!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Are you reading your comments back??? When did I say 10 players are making zones??? That would make what I'm saying that we use a combination of both totally impossible. 

You're literally describing what I am saying we do!!!! 

We do not use a combination of both. We use zonal marking as opposed to man to man marking.

Man to man marking is exactly what it sounds like.

Zonal marking involves 5 players covering zones and 5 blocking runs.

No one to my knowledge has ever used all 10 players to mark a zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

 

No one to my knowledge has ever used all 10 players to mark a zone.

I HAVEN'T SAID WE DO!!!!!!!! 

Seriously, are my posts coming across in Arabic or some ****!!

You're giving me a headache with your utter inability to appear to understand what I am saying, whilst then going on to describe EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING as a counter to WHAT I AM SAYING!!!! 

Seriously, please stop replying now 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

I HAVEN'T SAID WE DO!!!!!!!! 

Seriously, are my posts coming across in Arabic or some ****!!

You're giving me a headache with your utter inability to appear to understand what I am saying, whilst then going on to describe EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING as a counter to WHAT I AM SAYING!!!! 

Seriously, please stop replying now 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Dear Ken,

What you've attempted to describe as 'half and half' or 'a combination of the two' is actually just straight up zonal marking. That's all that's being questioned. I hope you find some inner calm.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Petriix said:

Dear Ken,

What you've attempted to describe as 'half and half' or 'a combination of the two' is actually just straight up zonal marking. That's all that's being questioned. I hope you find some inner calm.

Not true, what Dylan is describing, which is exactly what I am saying is a combination of the two, 5 players marking a zone 5 marking pre assigned players, usually those making runs into the box. Out and out zonal you're not paying attention to any particular player aside from those in your set zone. It will usually involve 7 of your players as the benefit of pure zonal is catching the opposition on the counter so 3 of your quicker, attacking players will be paying no heed to the opposition players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ken Hairy said:

A combination of both, like we have done throughout Farkes tenure. 

It's probably best that you sit this one out Ken because you clearly don't understand what zonal marking actually is.

You won't of course................... sigh.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear!

I'm sure Hairy doesn't deserve this so let's create another controversy.

Zonal or otherwise it has been mentioned that we are defensively more sound this season than the last two seasons.

We are are better defensive unit than the last two seasons. The stats prove this. We know it.

So the system hasn't change, apparently What has then? The personnel?

Swapping Ben Godfrey for Ben Gibson seems to be the answer.

As much as a future England star that Godfrey is. As much as a success at Everton that he clearly is. As many a comparisons with Rio Ferdinand that are always made. I prefer a beast at the centre of defence who frightens attackers.  

A Jack Charlton,  a Duncan Forbes. For all his silky skills, for all those cross-field passes and timely interceptions Ben never frightened attackers.

Frightened forwards are less effective. 

Gibson is half way that beast. Hanley the real deal. Zonal or otherwise forwards thrive when not hammered.

OK Hairy? The heat is off you now.

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with most of what you say Broadstairs, but on Friday Ben Godfrey, who as we know is great with the blocks, put in a tackle big enough for the 1970s. Who knows where it came from and fully expected a yellow for whatever flakey reason, but after a couple of shouts, there was a slight pause before everyone just got on with the job. It felt like everyone had a folk memory of what a proper tackle was and realised he executed it perfectly. Not sure what point, if any, I’m trying to make here, it was just great to see and hear the thump. Really pleased for him the way it's gone for him at Goodison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Oh dear!

I'm sure Hairy doesn't deserve this so let's create another controversy.

Zonal or otherwise it has been mentioned that we are defensively more sound this season than the last two seasons.

We are are better defensive unit than the last two seasons. The stats prove this. We know it.

So the system hasn't change, apparently What has then? The personnel?

Swapping Ben Godfrey for Ben Gibson seems to be the answer.

As much as a future England star that Godfrey is. As much as a success at Everton that he clearly is. As many a comparisons with Rio Ferdinand that are always made. I prefer a beast at the centre of defence who frightens attackers.  

A Jack Charlton,  a Duncan Forbes. For all his silky skills, for all those cross-field passes and timely interceptions Ben never frightened attackers.

Frightened forwards are less effective. 

Gibson is half way that beast. Hanley the real deal. Zonal or otherwise forwards thrive when not hammered.

OK Hairy? The heat is off you now.

Agreed. I took a lot of flak for pointing out Godfrey's limitations, (and stating very early on that Gibson is a much better defender) but they haven't changed since he's been at Everton - he just has better players around him. Also interesting that Ben White at Brighton has had a bit of an average season after being touted at £50m and the next England centre back.

As for frightened forwards, that depends on the forward! I don't see Danny Ings, Harry Kane or Chris Wood etc being frightened by anyone, but I suspect Mr Pukki might think twice about going up against Harry Maguire....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go for zonal, as that’s what Farke and the players are used to - it’s just I’m not convinced it would be a great idea to suddenly using start a new tactic when we’re going to be fighting for survival next season. Like Broadstairs has said though, we’ve certainly got better defensively.

In our last promotion season we scored 93 goals, the best in the league. However, we ended up conceding 57 in the process - even Stoke in 16th got better than us with 52. Last season we scored 26 (the least) and conceded 75 (the most), although we did suffer heavily on injuries and not being able to strengthen the squad.

As a result of this I think Farke’s learned that he has no option but to change his style slightly and be a bit more defensive, although he still has an attacking style of play. Our statistics so far for this season show us having scored 69 (2nd best, Bournemouth and Brentford joint with 73) and conceded 33 (only Watford have better with 28).

Despite all the criticism in the past has Farke really got to stop using zonal marking? Are we still awful at defending set pieces? No, I don’t think so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...