Advantages of zonal marking

Dub13

It looks like under Rafa Liverpool are zonal marking,so what are the advantages of zonal marking....?here is my understanding of it.

With Man 2 Man you can lose the player you are marking and as everybody else is makring a set player nobody picks him up. With Zonal it doesnt matter because as the opposition player moves he is picked up by somebody else.In theory a "zone defence" can work very well. Presuming you have adequate numbers in the box, each person is effectively managing quite a small area - so even if two attackers enter the area, one defender by attacking the ball can cover two (because they would be on top of each other ayway).

It does require a lot of discipline and communication for all players to identify threats prioritise them and either deal with them directly or warn their team mates of potential threats. If they directly deal with them let their team mates know that they are vacating their zone so that a team mate can cover the gap that is being left.

The Muppet

It was definitely Advantageous to United last night.

When done properly it should mean there is no free space where players can run into and score but as we saw last night if not done properly it can leave acres of space where even i'd fancy my chances of scoring.

Draupnir

from my experience, in any team ive ever played with, the only time zonal marking really ever works is with a 3-5-2 system or a sweeper system, whereby the sweeper can dictate orders to the defenders and basically manage them system.

in a 4-4-2 formation, the lack of players and the fact that everybody has a man to match up to means that man to man is really the way to go I believe.

Big Ears

Draupnir wrote:

from my experience, in any team ive ever played with, the only time zonal marking really ever works is with a 3-5-2 .

Very true , my club play that formation with zonal .

smemon

im a fan of zonal marking myself,it gives more organisation to the defence and the players know what they're at.

BUT a major thing is if you play that, you must have defenders or 'chasers' (2 usually) running off the goal line to attack the ball (front and back posts). those 2 players must get a head on the ball at all costs if it's delivered into the box therefore have no real position but they are the most important.

if your marking zonally your static and have no chance if an attacker is running in towards you hence the importance of the 2 'chasers'.

mike65

Zonal marking did'nt spot a mobil Silvestre...who's job was that (I say this not have seen the goals) to pick up?

Mike.

smemon

risse's job as far as i could see, he was closest man 2 him. liverpool had no chasers and therefore had a static 6 forming 2 walls of 3, even if they had a man on silvestre they wouldnt have stopped him as he was running in and just had to make any sort of connection.

dirkey_wynne

The most obvious advantage of using the zonal system is that you gift Man Utd two soft goals.

smemon

dirkey_wynne wrote:

The most obvious advantage of using the zonal system is that you gift Man Utd two soft goals.

i agree, well put

mr_angry

As Alan Hansen often says:

"A space never scored a goal."

Zonal marking generally sucks.

Big Ears

mr_angry wrote:

Zonal marking generally sucks.

For those that can't play it right .
Once you have good communication you should have no problems .

Draupnir

basically, zonal marking isnt exactly much different from man to man marking, i think the whole Championship Manager thing has made it seem a lot more disparate to some people.

the only thing, as ive said before is that it cant be played very well without a sweeper or in a 352. i dont LIverpool have the players to play zonal marking as Hyppia and Carragher wouldnt be the fastest centre halves ever and to be trying to pick up wingers and pacey forwards moving between the central zones only meant they had to accept even more pressure

Villain

Zonal marking in relation to open play is fine unless theres a player in a free role that is causing major problems. Zonal marking in relation to dead ball situations a whole different ball game. Zonal marking for corners is just plain stupid, theres no-way a defender making a standing jump is going to beat a good striker making a running jump to a header.

KdjaCL

Zonal as has been tried by pool doesnt work unless your players act as a unit.
To counter zonal marking ,stick all your players ont he 18 yard line and let them run in when the ball is crossed, a decent cross is a goal.

Oh look what man Utd did , they did this before when they 3-1 years ago nearly all headers from corners irc.

kdjac

Big Nelly

There is one advantage of the zonal marking system and that is to your opponent! haha

Big Ears

I didn't see the game ( fuking brother of mine was watching tv ) , were Liverpool defending corners and frees zonally?, because they would be the first team ever to do that and they would be the stupidest team ever to do that .

I am in support of the zonal system in general though .

smemon

Big Ears wrote:

I didn't see the game ( fuking brother of mine was watching tv ) , were Liverpool defending corners and frees zonally?, because they would be the first team ever to do that and they would be the stupidest team ever to do that .

I am in support of the zonal system in general though .

yes, they did defend zonally all the time.

aberdeen i think it is have a clever policy on corners were all their attacking players bunch together on the edge of the area and they all charge in when the ball is whiped in. liverpool would be killed if the opposition played like that.

surely benitez wont be stubborn and keep using it. or if he does, he'll have to use it right.