Is the zonal marking responsible for our poor defending??

[Alex Harvey-Jones 0]

As it''s been publicised, Hunter is a big fan of zonal marking and has introduced it to Norwich City. I am very sceptical of this form of defending and belive that it isn''t adequate to challenge players who makes long runs into the box from one zone into another. This was demonstrated by the goal Kuqi scored against us for Palace. Kuqi made a strong run and was easily able to outjump our static marker who was patrolling that zone. I was wondering if this form of defending has upset the team and has caused us to ship so many goals recently. I hope Grant reverts to conventional man to man marking!

Any thoughts about the merits of zonal marking?

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Yes, I hate it.

[Yellow Rages 0]

Alex,

We had a post on this a while back, maybe two months ago.

If you look at the goals conceeded this season, not many are as a result of zonal marking. Take the three goals against QPR as an example.

The zonal system is a very effective way of defending corners and deep set plays. The point is to defend an area and attack that area if the ball enters it. This allows for the defending unit to attack the ball whilst always moving away from goal rather than your postion being dictated to by the position of the player you mark. As you can imagine it is more difficult to defend a goal whilst moving towards your own goal. The Angel OG at the weekend being a good example.

It is an extreemly effective way of cancelling out the set play threat and has proved so far this term.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

A lot of coaches prefer zonal defending of set pieces and have done for many years, I posted a link on a thead similar to this yesterday where Alan Hansen explains how Liverpool won championships using it.

He say''s : "Liverpool used to set up their defence of a corner with four players across the six yard box and a further four ahead of them. Between them they were given an area to cover and should the ball reach them it was up to the defender to clear the danger. Hansen added that the three most important areas are your man on the near post, a man in the middle of the six-yard box and a man between those two.

Although it tends to be more popular in European football than in Britain, Hansen is a fan of the system but admits it is down to the players involved. He said: "We always used zonal marking when I won championships with Liverpool. "It was all about winning the first ball and if not, you''ve got to clean up the second ball. The other thing of course was having a goalkeeper (Bruce Grobbelaar) who we knew was going to come for crosses."

So, why are we so poor at it??

Well, I think we are poor at defending set pieces full stop. And the reason I say this is because we don''t have enough other players, apart from defenders, who can defend well. In our promotion side of 2004 we had a very good back four but also we had other players in the side who could defend just as well. If you think back to when Iwan was playing he would win as many balls in his own penalty area as he did in the oppositions. Gary Holt was also very accomplished at defending his own goal at set pieces. The other point that Hansen made was the goalkeeper coming for crosses and ours doesn''t look so strong in that department.

This being the case then I don''t think man marking will solve anything because any club that does their homework can pull our better defenders out of position anyway.

To me it seems ridiculous to bring back a certain players to defend set pieces. Three I can think of right now are McVeigh, Earnshaw and Huckerby. I agree with the poster from yesterday who said they should be left upfield.

I bet the opposition would leave three players back if we left Hux and Earnie up front, and that would mess up their set plays that they had intended to use against us.

 

[Ricko 0]

I couldn''t agree more about keeping Hucks and Earnie up front at corners and other set pieces. This would leave 9 defenders having to cope with a maximum of 6 attackers in the box and would create the opportunity for rapid counterattacks rather than face the ball constantly coming back. This would also make zonal marking more straightforward.

[a1canary 0]

Zonal marking requires a certain amount of footballing intelligence that i just don''t think enough of our team has!

[norfolkchance1 0]

I don''t think Hunter can be blamed for all Norwich''s defensive failings, quite honestly they were awful at the back a long time before he came to Carrow Road. I personally blame Norwich''s defensive woes on selling defenders and not replacing them adequately, both Edworthy and Mackay have never been properly replaced. Also the team as a whole now isn''t big enough so when set pieces are around the area the opposition are always favourites.

[USAcanary 0]

[quote user="norfolkchance1"]I don''t think Hunter can be blamed for all Norwich''s defensive failings, quite honestly they were awful at the back a long time before he came to Carrow Road. I personally blame Norwich''s defensive woes on selling defenders and not replacing them adequately, both Edworthy and Mackay have never been properly replaced. Also the team as a whole now isn''t big enough so when set pieces are around the area the opposition are always favourites.[/quote]

Exactly! In the two previous seasons before hunter came we have been outscored 3 to 1 away from home.

Think of how many goals we conceded from free kicks and corners.

We clearly need better players who can defend better. 

Hopefully the new manager will have a clear out.

Up front we look a threat, we are maybe one target man away from being the best attacking force in this league.

At the back we have weak spots everywhere.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

No apologies for bringing this discussion back up the board because surely it''s better than continual worthy bashing/defending etc.

Anyway... I noticed on Tuesday night that we were still using the zonal marking system and I also noticed that our goalkeeper still didn''t look strong at coming for crosses. I have been watching the way we defend set pieces ever since this was first discussed after the Palace match and in my opinion a big part of our problem is Gallacher is not strong at cutting out crosses. With todays news that a tall keeper has been signed on loan maybe Peter Grant has identified this as a problem. Does anybody else think Jamie Ashdown may start tomorrow?

Please don''t take this as a negative post, I think Gallacher is a good shot stopper and his distribution and vision when releasing the ball is first class too. It''s just that we are not the tallest team so a bigger goalkeeper more competent at collecting crosses would be an asset to us.

 

[Chris Meadows 0]

hucks and earnie should be left up the pitch, this would require 3 maybe 4 defenders to be kept back by the other team meaning we have 8 players to their 6 in the box

[Yellow Rages 0]

Good post Nutty and probably a better post than you think.

I  agree that Gally has not been the best collector of balls from wide positions. What you may also consider is that Grant has the knowledge of Hunter to go by. Hunter has had the privalige of seeing the last few games and would know what the overall picture is. I''m sure this has been discussed and as a result, the new guy has been brought in to help Gally step up to the mark.