Clint 221 Posted February 6, 2014 I''ve only just brought myself to watch MOTD from Saturday and have a question, why was Russell Martin up against Kenwyn Jones at that corner?This is no slur on Martin but he always gets beaten far too easily in the air so had no hope against a player like Jones. So how did this complete mismatch come about? Is it another example of zonal marking being flawed? Hughton surely can''t have asked Martin to pick up Jones at set pieces, can he? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
havemyhowsonit 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Wouldn''t be at all surprisedHis tactical awareness ain''t the best now is it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted February 6, 2014 It was much the same at Newcastle awayYou only have to watch the game to see how the players look lost with this nonsense, likewise Kenwyne Jones was able to clear our corners time and time again as he had the freedom to move as needed, to respond to what is happening, not some robotic formula that should be obvious to all that it is failing.That is also why this buffoonery about 435, 244 and other such nonsense is also ridiculous. One of the main characteristics of the game is that it is fluid, players have to adapt and think on their feet (literally) to counter the opposition both in attack and defense.And that is where Hughton is failing, the players are being constricted by his flawed tactics and we don''t have a captain on the pitch who is making those minute by minute decisions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vlad666 203 Posted February 6, 2014 Really don''t understand why anybody would use zonal marking. 1, the attacker has a running jump against the defenders standing jump. 2, their best (tallest) attacker can just find the smallest defender to challenge with. We also didn''t have anybody on either post for Cardiff''s second goal and never leave anybody upfront for the counter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="vlad666"]Really don''t understand why anybody would use zonal marking. 1, the attacker has a running jump against the defenders standing jump. 2, their best (tallest) attacker can just find the smallest defender to challenge with. We also didn''t have anybody on either post for Cardiff''s second goal and never leave anybody upfront for the counter.[/quote] Well, according to Howard Wilkinson:"Zonal defending is based on the principle that when free-kicks are taken in the attacking third in wide positions or from corners, there is a dangerous space which can be identified. Within this area roughly three out of 100 goals are scored from the first touch. With man-to-man marking, attackers can drag defenders all over the place by taking them away from the danger area. The system attempts to concentrate the best headers of the ball in that space. Your other players are in positions to defend the second ball. It is a collective responsibility whereas man-for-man marking is based on personal responsibility." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="vlad666"]Really don''t understand why anybody would use zonal marking. 1, the attacker has a running jump against the defenders standing jump. 2, their best (tallest) attacker can just find the smallest defender to challenge with. We also didn''t have anybody on either post for Cardiff''s second goal and never leave anybody upfront for the counter.[/quote]Isn''t that technically a form of zonal marking? You''re marking a particularly dangerous area, not a certain individual. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vlad666 203 Posted February 6, 2014 I''d take more notice of Howard the duck....If two people of equal height challenge for a ball in the air, one stationary and one with a running jump, I know who I''d have my money on... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted February 6, 2014 "The system attempts to concentrate the best headers of the ball in that space."and so the ball is placed elsewhereI would have thought that 9 year olds would have twigged that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="vlad666"]I''d take more notice of Howard the duck....If two people of equal height challenge for a ball in the air, one stationary and one with a running jump, I know who I''d have my money on...[/quote] Wilkinson talks about this as well:"Attackers get a run on you whether you are zone defending or man-for-man marking, they always calls the shots. You start from a standing position but once the ball is in flight, you''ve got the distance the ball travels to get yourself moving. Lots of teams in the Premiership mark zones on the wide free-kick, because if you try and mark runners you end up running into each other and you can''t jump anyway." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vlad666 203 Posted February 6, 2014 That''s why you get touch tight with the player you''re marking so you both have the same advantage when attacking the ball. So our best 4 headers of the ball are static on the 6 yard line. The oppositions best headers of the ball are standing just outside the area. The corner floats in to the penalty spot. The attackers are running on to the ball full pelt. Who would you assume wins the header? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted February 6, 2014 And that superbly highlights what is wrong with Hughton and his flawed tactics.7Our players are not able to adapt and do not have any leadership from the manager or a captain as the game progresses.This nonsense that Howard the duck spouts presumes that the opposition is not able to work out where the most vunerable defenders are and hit the ball there ... where their best ''headers'' are.This is why we were seeing the ball being headed away by K Jones corner after corner, without any ability to adapt. Hughton has set his plans and that is it. which explains why last season we struggled when we played teams the second time around.Sadly so many now watch football with little grasp of what is going on beyond some over excitement about meaningless numbers that much of the basic and all to obvious stuff goes unnoticed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="City1st"]"The system attempts to concentrate the best headers of the ball in that space."and so the ball is placed elsewhereI would have thought that 9 year olds would have twigged that[/quote]Exactly, that''s one of the aims of zonal marking. Zonal marking suggests that there is one particular area that is especially dangerous. If you can deter your opponent from even attempting to put the ball in that area, then you have succeeded. They would then argue that other areas are less dangerous and that the positioning of your players allows you to adequately deal with a ball into the less dangerous areas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted February 6, 2014 Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. I don''t see zonal marking as a major problem with the side. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="vlad666"]That''s why you get touch tight with the player you''re marking so you both have the same advantage when attacking the ball. So our best 4 headers of the ball are static on the 6 yard line. The oppositions best headers of the ball are standing just outside the area. The corner floats in to the penalty spot. The attackers are running on to the ball full pelt. Who would you assume wins the header?[/quote]The idea is that during that time when the ball is moving, the defenders have the opportunity to identify the area to which the ball will be played and prepare themselves to either win the initial header or get in a covering position to win the second ball. That''s the major issue with zonal marking, you need players that can quickly identify where the ball is going to go from the initial delivery and respond adequately. The major problem is not with the idea of zonal marking. It''s whether the players are suited to it and the coaches able to coach it properly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 I found an article that is relevant to this discussion: http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/tacticsandanalysis/id/225?cc=5739 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted February 6, 2014 Exactly, that''s one of the aims of zonal marking. Zonal marking suggests that there is one particular area that is especially dangerous. If you can deter your opponent from even attempting to put the ball in that area, then you have succeeded. They would then argue that other areas are less dangerous and that the positioning of your players allows you to adequately deal with a ball into the less dangerous areas. oh dearI would re read that and maybe the glaring flaw might be seen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vlad666 203 Posted February 6, 2014 I understand the point you''re making. How many tall players who are good in the air do we have in our starting 11 though? Our defenders struggle with their concentration in general play let alone in a split second situation like defending corners. Also as we don''t really have anybody who seems to be very vocal organising set pieces I think it''s easier if everybody has their man then you can''t have any excuses. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="vlad666"]I understand the point you''re making. How many tall players who are good in the air do we have in our starting 11 though? Our defenders struggle with their concentration in general play let alone in a split second situation like defending corners. Also as we don''t really have anybody who seems to be very vocal organising set pieces I think it''s easier if everybody has their man then you can''t have any excuses.[/quote]That is a very relevant point. The argument should not be about the relative pros/cons of zonal marking but if we have the players with the correct attributes to succeed in such a system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted February 6, 2014 "the defenders have the opportunity to identify the area to which the ball will be played and prepare themselves to either win the initial header or get in a covering position to win the second ball. That''s the major issue with zonal marking, you need players that can quickly identify where the ball is going to go from the initial delivery and respond adequately. "that is absurdhow the hell can players quickly indentify where the ball is going from a corner - and if they did it negates your previous claim of them defending the dangerous area and protecting itthe real point comes down to whether you give the players the freedom to express themselves (Clough, Lambert) or stick to a rigid pattern (Revie, Lambert)This zonal nonsense is a consequence of Lamberts rigud tactics - not the cause of it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted February 6, 2014 "The argument should not be about the relative pros/cons of zonal marking but if we have the players with the correct attributes to succeed in such a system."WHAT ! ! !ye gods, tell me you are having a laugh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="City1st"]"The argument should not be about the relative pros/cons of zonal marking but if we have the players with the correct attributes to succeed in such a system."WHAT ! ! !ye gods, tell me you are having a laugh[/quote]No. Zonal marking can be very effective in certain teams. Benitez''s Liverpool, for example, often conceded the fewest number of goals from set pieces of any team yet played a very strict zonal marking system. Alan Hansen believes that the Liverpool team he played in also played a very effective zonal marking system. The system is quite effective, but it has to suit the players. If the players cannot perform in such a system then what is the point of adopting it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkngood 1,086 Posted February 6, 2014 I think we do use zonal marking and here is the flaw that happens !a player marks a zone but if two attackers move / run into the same zone you are 2 on one straight away this would not happen if you were man for man as defender would follow there man ! so numbers would also always be equal if a team know you play zonal they should and normally highlight a weak player and set up to have 2 players in that zone when they have a free kick I believe this is why we are sometime yards of a player when he scores as marking a zone instead of the player ...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray 111 Posted February 6, 2014 City 1st,I tend to agree with your point, I posted something similar to the following elsewhere, which sort of makes your point.For the seond goal, Firstly, Q) Where was Bennett, A) Outside of RM, Where should he have been? (rhetorical question) Secondly, Q) Who let Jones run into our box unmarked and unchallenged, A) Not RM or SB The nearest palyer to Jones when he set of on his run was either Elmander or Snoddy, Elmander decided to run out of a defensive position and Snoddy stopped running into the box and stood stock still as they attacked down the wing toward the byline.Consequently Jones could pretty much pick his spot, which he did, in the gap between RM and SB, the ball has to be crossed in that region of course but the winger looking up will see the space that his CF is running into and obviously send it in to that space, and on top of that, if he his running in unchallenged the CF will obviously gain al the height he wants, where he wants, when he wants. What chance the static defender?If that is the standard of defensive play by our midfiled then whether we play zonal or man to man it won''t really make any difference. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted February 6, 2014 Never looked like that when they played in Hansen''s timeIt is not effective ... full stopAnd in trying to defend it you have contradicted yourself. You claimed both that the players defend a designated area or move to a determined area when the ball is moving - you cannot have it both ways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="City1st"]Never looked like that when they played in Hansen''s timeIt is not effective ... full stopAnd in trying to defend it you have contradicted yourself. You claimed both that the players defend a designated area or move to a determined area when the ball is moving - you cannot have it both ways.[/quote]He''d disagree: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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="City1st"]Never looked like that when they played in Hansen''s timeIt is not effective ... full stopAnd in trying to defend it you have contradicted yourself. You claimed both that the players defend a designated area or move to a determined area when the ball is moving - you cannot have it both ways.[/quote]He''d disagree: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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="City1st"]Never looked like that when they played in Hansen''s timeIt is not effective ... full stopAnd in trying to defend it you have contradicted yourself. You claimed both that the players defend a designated area or move to a determined area when the ball is moving - you cannot have it both ways.[/quote]He''d disagree: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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted February 6, 2014 It''s called ball watching - most fatal act that this drummed into you repeatedly in training and during the gameYou still haven''t explained -You claimed both that the players defend a designated area or ..move to a determined area when the ball is moving - you cannot have it both ways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted February 6, 2014 [quote user="City1st"]It''s called ball watching - most fatal act that this drummed into you repeatedly in training and during the gameYou still haven''t explained -You claimed both that the players defend a designated area or ..move to a determined area when the ball is moving - you cannot have it both ways.[/quote]Defenders defend a designated area as their starting point. If the ball is played into their zone, they have to challenge the opponent or win the header if no opponent is located in their zone. Sorry if my explanation wasn''t clear. What I was trying to get at is that how the ball is delivered affects the actions the players will take in their zone. Whether they drop deeper, whether they challenge aggressively etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darth Catbeard The Old 0 Posted February 6, 2014 I''ve got no problem with zonal defending from set pieces. It''s our whole zonal set up from open play that is killing us. Formations aren''t that relevant for most teams but they bloody are for us because our players absolutely must stick to postilion and a certain place on the pitch. Why do you lot think there''s never an option to pass to or why we look so predictable and other teams stop us attacking so easily? I absolutely hate this tactic! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites