KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Another false LFC myth resurrected by the media

Whether it is player rotation, Steven Gerrard’s best position or how much was spent on transfers, there has always been press criticism of Rafa Benitez´s decisions. And with Liverpool conceding a number of goals from set-pieces this season, the tiresome ´zonal marking´ myth has been resurrected yet again.

ESPN’s recent coverage of the West Ham - Liverpool game has made it crystal clear that the zonal marking myth is alive and well. The media report this apparent ´problem´ as if it is fact, with the compelling statistic this season being that Liverpool have conceded nine goals so far, all from set pieces.

This is clearly a statistic aimed at backing up the old English argument that man-marking is best, and it influences other members of the media to agree and regurgitate this as fact – when in reality the statistic, as always, is much more a complicated than it appears.

Let’s run through the nine goals that Liverpool have conceded so far this term. Two were penalties, scored by Ashley Young and (overhyped) newcomer Alessandro Diamante There is no way that zonal marking has anything to do with penalties.

The other goals:

* An unfortunate deflection off Lucas from a free-kick

* A deflected free kick against Tottenham, which rebounded to the boot of Benoit Assou-Ekotto

* A wonder-goal from Assou-Ekotto

* a punt from inside the Bolton half

* A free kick

* Three corners.

Taking into account that the punt at the Reebok was allowed to drop and the second ball was not won, only the free kick at Tottenham and the corners against West Ham, Bolton and Aston Villa can be criticised on the methods used when they were defended.

So it is typical of the press in this country that this is used as a statistic to criticise zonal marking, despite nobody analysing the situation properly.

However, these two ESPN pundits proved to be no different, and the method of moving around players on a screen showing us where they could have been standing is just ludicrous.

It is all well and good doing that with zonal marking, but what about the times it works? And could you not show where players could have been standing when any goal from a set piece is conceded? Of course you could, it was stupid and pointless, and, as always, missed the point in marking by zone.

Even worse was Kevin Keegan’s insight that Jamie Carragher dislikes the zonal marking system, and would prefer to mark man-for-man. King Kev may have been a great player but to claim that Carragher kicking an advertisement hoarding after Liverpool conceded from a corner means that he dislikes the tactic is putting two and two together and getting five.

Ever thought that Carragher may have just been frustrated that Liverpool had conceded a goal? Also, why would Carragher, after five years under Benitez decide now that he dislikes the tactic? It is lazy and presumptuous and I expected more out of an ex-Premier League manager.

It is no coincidence that English managers are not thriving in the modern day; it might have something to do with the reluctance to accept new ideas and methods, and the over-reliance on man-marking and the 442 formation. Change is not encouraged and (apparently) we learn nothing from overseas managers and their ‘strange’ methods.

The West Ham game was a perfect example of media bias and this love for man-marking. Two goals were scored from set pieces; Liverpool’s was blamed on zonal marking, although one of three players could have headed the ball away.

The credit should have gone to Carlton Cole for the way he attacked the ball, just like the credit went to Steven Gerrard when he arrived - shock horror - unmarked to head the ball into the back on the net.

Gerrard’s header exposed the frailties of the man-marking system. If West Ham had been using zonal marking, there would have been a defender attacking the ball instead of being left in Gerrard’s wake.

In truth, both systems have their merits, and this should be acknowledged by the press. In reality Liverpool are having a little trouble with the system at the moment, but that doesn’t mean the system is flawed and it is certainly not an extreme problem.

Liverpool have always struggled when new players arrive, as they take time to adjust to the system and bed in with the rest of the defence, especially a full back as attacking as Glen Johnson.

Furthermore, neither Carragher or Martin Skrtel have hit top form and we´ve also had an 18 year old and a new signing playing at the heart of defence. All this unrest is never explained as a possible reason Liverpool could be having some problems with corners and free kicks.

The zonal marking debate is a media myth that completely irks me, just a touch more than the claims that if you took Gerrard and Fernando Torres out of the team we wouldn’t be nearly as good, that would seem obvious to me, but then again that is another debate entirely.

http://www.liverpool-kop.com/2009/09/great-another-false-liverpool-fc-myth.html

I agree about the press makin more out of it , but lets be honest its a sh1t system that no other prem team uses and it has cost us goals in some important games and more importantly points.

I think the zonal marking thing is not going to last for very long, for sure, i hope someone can see and come to the realisation that the weaknesses are being exposed more and more by teams who study us.

Unless we can get a hold of it as before, we didnt leak that many goals. yea.

*sighs* zonal is not the problem, just like man marking is not a problem .... the problem is playing the system chosen well - and whether the opposition spend much time working on how to defeat it or not ..... zonal is a good simple solution to the marking problem that lessens the impact of an individual error or loss of concentration BUT it can be beaten just like man to man can be

people should stop whining about it because it is an irrelevance - its more of a worry that we aren't playing well as a team and allowing opponents to get so many dead ball situations in dangerous areas

I think this part sums it up very well...

"The credit should have gone to Carlton Cole for the way he attacked the ball, just like the credit went to Steven Gerrard when he arrived - shock horror - unmarked to head the ball into the back on the net.

Gerrard’s header exposed the frailties of the man-marking system. If West Ham had been using zonal marking, there would have been a defender attacking the ball instead of being left in Gerrard’s wake.

In truth, both systems have their merits, and this should be acknowledged by the press. In reality Liverpool are having a little trouble with the system at the moment, but that doesn’t mean the system is flawed and it is certainly not an extreme problem."

they both have there faults and each team does set pieces slightly different we haven't started well with them at all this season you can just hope that we sort whatever is wrong out before long because it is a huge whole in our team at the minute

irrespective of what system we're using, we're conceding far too many goals. teams will be looking at our defence and be thinking that they can exploit it. that's bad. we need teams to be scared against us.

good point:)

It doesn't matter which one we use as it is down to an individual player to make sure he does his job at a corner. If your marking a man you have to make sure you beat him to the ball or foul him & hope you don't concede a penalty. If your zonal marking you mark a space & make sure your first to the ball when it comes over, plus less chance of conceding a penalty as not a deliberate foul.

I believe we should stick to one or the other & get on with it, but neither one is worse than the other.

Incidentally if you look on Google to see who does zonal marking, apparently 15 out of the last 16 of the Champions League in 2004 used zonal marking. In Europe it is more common place than in England, which is probably the reason why so many people are opposed to it.

rubbish emp - putting a man on the posts is a choice on rafas part nothing to do with zonal or man to man marking - in fact it is essentially a zonal marking job that the two men are doing on the posts ...... unless you are going to tell me that they are marking the posts???