|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 806
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 806 |
Man to Man The strategy is one that has been supposedly dying out in football over the past decade or so despite Greece's success with it in the 2004 European Championships. It is however often used by lower-tier teams, as well as teams defending themselves from much stronger opponents. Zonal The biggest advantage of zonal marking is its flexibility. When WE regains possession of the ball, players are still in their positions and can start an attack more quickly. Communication is very important when zonal marking is used, to ensure that no gaps are left in the defensive coverage. I personally think that we should train both ways and adapt out game based on video evidence and homework of the team we are playing. Being able to do both provides more flexibility and makes the team more comfotbable in defending against any situation. For instance if we are playing stoke, or west ham which we will be soon, we have to look at the danger men, the way they make the runs and whats the best way to combat in them sort of matches. Ultimately the reason why i have brought the subjsect up is i feel we have conceded too many goals from crosses/ set peices this season and feel if we hade more emphasis on stopping goals in these situations we would have wone a lot more games. Whad do you prefer and whats your reason
Last edited by JP1892; 12/11/12 02:22 PM.
Read between my lines.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307 |
Are we talking about set piece defending or general play?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 806
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 806 |
Read between my lines.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,307 |
I would be in favour of a blend of both. I would have our centre backs marking their 2 main threats but I would also have 2 banks of players around the 6 yard box. I'd go for 3&3 or 4&2 in those banks to try and be told to be aggressive to the ball. I think man marking concedes as many goals as zonal but it is just that pundits jump on the change and new tactic and perceive it as a bad way of doing it
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 206
Under 16 Player
|
|
Under 16 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 206 |
Statistically speaking, zonal is actually more effective. It's just usually that when a goal is conceded against a zonal defense, it usually looks pretty comical. Ala the two goals City conceeded the other night in the CL.
IMO, blend of both is the way to go. Ie, Skrtle and Agger, or Agger and Wisdom touch tight to the biggest aerial threats, then the rest of the players marking their respective zones, whatever they may be.
Oh, and ALWAYS a man on the post!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Divide et Impera
Unregistered
|
|
Divide et Impera
Unregistered
|
Yes I'd rather see a mix of both, playing to the strength of the two different systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
Man to Man The strategy is one that has been supposedly dying out in football over the past decade or so despite Greece's success with it in the 2004 European Championships. It is however often used by lower-tier teams, as well as teams defending themselves from much stronger opponents. Zonal The biggest advantage of zonal marking is its flexibility. When WE regains possession of the ball, players are still in their positions and can start an attack more quickly. Communication is very important when zonal marking is used, to ensure that no gaps are left in the defensive coverage. I personally think that we should train both ways and adapt out game based on video evidence and homework of the team we are playing. Being able to do both provides more flexibility and makes the team more comfotbable in defending against any situation. For instance if we are playing stoke, or west ham which we will be soon, we have to look at the danger men, the way they make the runs and whats the best way to combat in them sort of matches. Ultimately the reason why i have brought the subjsect up is i feel we have conceded too many goals from crosses/ set peices this season and feel if we hade more emphasis on stopping goals in these situations we would have wone a lot more games. Whad do you prefer and whats your reason
Whatever you do, you have to do it well and the opposition also might have a plan against any system. It also depends on how good the cross is. However, looks like zonal marking is better but you need to attack the ball before the opposition.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,650
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,650 |
zonal is a joke ,always has been.
i don't mind sticking a crouch type near the front post,but everyone else should be marking a player or else a post.that way u can blame a player when u concede...like agger yesterday. thank god we don't use zonal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,605 |
Isn't it better to be able to clear the ball instead of being able to blame a player for a conceded goal then? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,650
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 9,650 |
if u mark tight and compete for the ball its very unlikely u will concede..its all about odds..if u don't mark anyone u look clueless and people get free headers and score. fairly simple .numbskulls zonal defend..managers that don't know about defending use zonal. city barca and us are the more recent teams i know have used it and all 3 are crap at defending corners.not rocket science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
