Liverpool FC Forum

[Fo Dne]

Lets do it.

What do you like about it?

What don't you like?

What don't you agree with?

Is man to man better?

What don't you understand about it?

[bigmick]

It's a fiunny one this, as it seems to me that the bloke who talks most about it (Andy Gray by all accounts) spent his whole career playing against people who were trying to stop him scoring a goal, without actually realising how they were trying to do it. Zonal marking as well know is far from new, most teams have employed it to a degree since the year dot. In actual fact the concept of zonal marking in it's most basic sense, is putting a man on the front post. He isn't usually picking anybody up, he is simply standing in a spot where experience tells us he might come into play. He therefore is marking the area around the front post, and is marking a zone, ie zonally. As I understand it, Mr Gray favours this and understands the concept, but not the irony of his stance.

The growth of the system in popularity over here has been led by Rafa though, of that there is no doubt. The roots of the "need" for such a system lie in refereeing interpretation I think. On the continent, they wrestle, defending without regard to the football and take man marking to almost its literal sense. In this country (or in England should I say), this is the one area of the game where the referees are much more strict that their European counterparts. If you do that in the Premiership, it's a penalty.

Equally, more balls are played into the area and contested as headers I think in England than elsewhere, and as such most teams have at least one towering centre half. If you are man marked by John Terry you simply wander off to the edge of the box, taking him with you and let your team-mate head it in. The classic way to counter that was to "pass him on" when your striker went a wandering, but it leads to comunication breakdowns and inevitably people get lost.

The other big plus for zonal marking as far as our particular manager is concerned is that is a fully transportable, self contained system in many ways. Teach a left back to pick up the front zone when corners come in from the right, and he should be able to do it just as well for the reserves as he does for the first team. Equally, it shouldn't make too much difference who he is defending alongside, or even in most cases defending against.

It is in this aspect of the defensive prowess of the team that the anti rotationers have had the most trouble believing their eyes. The efficiency of the defensive unit from set-pieces despite the rotation flies in the face of convention, and no amount of eye rubbing can disguise the face that it is the result of exceptional defensive coaching.

All in all I like the system. I have learnt much from watching Liverpool defend set-pieces over the last five years. When we look back at this period in the history of English football, it is this area which wil leave the longest legacy I think.

[tubby]

It works well as long as everyone does their job properly. But as soon as one individual stops looking after his patch things get and then we end up conceding a silly goal at which point people slag of the whole system. I think it's good and as a result we have had one of the best defensive records in the premiership over the last few years.

[aCe']

It's a fiunny one this, as it seems to me that the bloke who talks most about it (Andy Gray by all accounts) spent his whole career playing against people who were trying to stop him scoring a goal, without actually realising how they were trying to do it. Zonal marking as well know is far from new, most teams have employed it to a degree since the year dot. In actual fact the concept of zonal marking in it's most basic sense, is putting a man on the front post. He isn't usually picking anybody up, he is simply standing in a spot where experience tells us he might come into play. He therefore is marking the area around the front post, and is marking a zone, ie zonally. As I understand it, Mr Gray favours this and understands the concept, but not the irony of his stance.

The growth of the system in popularity over here has been led by Rafa though, of that there is no doubt. The roots of the "need" for such a system lie in refereeing interpretation I think. On the continent, they wrestle, defending without regard to the football and take man marking to almost its literal sense. In this country (or in England should I say), this is the one area of the game where the referees are much more strict that their European counterparts. If you do that in the Premiership, it's a penalty.

Equally, more balls are played into the area and contested as headers I think in England than elsewhere, and as such most teams have at least one towering centre half. If you are man marked by John Terry you simply wander off to the edge of the box, taking him with you and let your team-mate head it in. The classic way to counter that was to "pass him on" when your striker went a wandering, but it leads to comunication breakdowns and inevitably people get lost.

The other big plus for zonal marking as far as our particular manager is concerned is that is a fully transportable, self contained system in many ways. Teach a left back to pick up the front zone when corners come in from the right, and he should be able to do it just as well for the reserves as he does for the first team. Equally, it shouldn't make too much difference who he is defending alongside, or even in most cases defending against.

It is in this aspect of the defensive prowess of the team that the anti rotationers have had the most trouble believing their eyes. The efficiency of the defensive unit from set-pieces despite the rotation flies in the face of convention, and no amount of eye rubbing can disguise the face that it is the result of exceptional defensive coaching.

All in all I like the system. I have learnt much from watching Liverpool defend set-pieces over the last five years. When we look back at this period in the history of English football, it is this area which wil leave the longest legacy I think.

you should end your posts by signing your name.... i mean your posts mate ...feels like reading a college term paper sometimes     

[account deleted by request]

I don't think its the concept of Zonal marking that is questioned, but the idea of Zonal marking from set plays that is under scrutiny. Even in the seventies and eighties Liverpool Zonal marked from open play but man marked set plays. The obvious problem then was the transitional stage back from man marking  to Zonal marking once the original ball had been dealt with.

My only real question about it is :- If you place your best headers in the most dangerous areas at set plays. ie Hyypia central, your opponent can place their best headers against your poorer headers in a less dangerous area, but still have an excellent chance of winning the ball. As we saw on numerous occasions when Riise was targeted,  and while they will have a more difficult chance of scoring directly ,they can create chances.

I also think there is a problem centrally with Zonal marking, when the ball is played inbetween the CB'S ( similar to the problem in doubles tennis when the ball is played between the players) both players are often unsure who should take the ball.

Having said all that I still prefer Zonal marking, as long as you have defenders who attack the ball rather than standing still.

[bigmick]

It's a good point s@int and I think it's where people go wrong when they say that it "took the players a while to get the hang of it". I think that statement is wrong on two counts. Firstly it implies the players are stupid which in most cases isn't true, and secondly I think it downplays the excellence of the defensive coaching.

It seems fairly clear to me (although I'd be very interested to see what someone like sabre thinks) that we've adapted the system considerably as time has gone on. It used to be the case that the oppoosition would get a clear run and jump against our headers who were going from a standing start. This seems to have been negated by pushing on the smaller guys, as much as anything to disrupt runs as they are there to win headers. Blokes such Alonso and Arbeloa are regularly used for this. Our American basketball friend is no doubt familiar with the concept of screening, whereby an attacker stands close enough to a defensive blocker so as to enable his ball carrying friend to manoevre the defender into a stationary block and in so doing make himself space. This is beginning to creep in and will porobnably the next way such tactics are negated. It's something they are no doubt aware of and will take steps to counter, but for now we largely seem to have it sorted.

Also, consideration seems to be taken these days for the oppositions best headers. If John Terry goes near post for example, Hyppia may not pick him up but Carragher almost certainly would. It's about having a system in mind before the game takes place, with two or three defensive set ups which can be switched between. To get to a point though which we seem to have, where you can switch between the patterns seamlessly during a match can only be done with exceptional coaching and plenty of practice.

[account deleted by request]

Yeah Mick , I think even Rafa's sternest critic (Heimdall ) would have to admit that he's brilliant at the defensive side of the game.

I would think that Rafa has had to amend his original system slightly to cope with the much higher ratio of aerial balls in the prem than he would have seen in Spain. Especially since Reina appears to have stopped coming for high balls as much as he used to. (Although that pretty much goes for most goalkeepers now)

[bigmick]

I've never been sure whether (and once again Sabre could help here) Rafa imported his particular brand of zonal defending from Valencia, or whether he looked at the way set-pieces were refereed in England and brought in a system to fit it. Man to man was fairly obviously on it's way out as teams had got very good at knocking defenders into one another to cause confusion and find space. We couldn't defend like the Italians and most of the Spanish teams do, so we adopted our version of a zonal set-up which after a few teething problems looks to me to have been copied verbatim by at the very least Chelsea and Man Utd.

Like I say though, i've no idea whether it's totally unique (or it was when we first started it) or whther it's the same system from Valencia.

[burjennio]

the only time we seem to concede from set pieces now is when were a couple of goals ahead and someone switches off from a set play, bar that defensivley the side is formidable and I believe Liverpool has become the most difficult side in the world to beat when coupling this with their never say die attitude

[account deleted by request]

One more question I have :- Why do we bring EVERYONE back at corners and freeckicks? Surely it would be better to leave say 2 players up front if only to ensure that the opposition have to leave players back to watch them.

I understand that it does allow us to break quickly, but when we are infront and grimly hanging on surely we could risk leaving Torres up to ensure they have to leave a few defenders back.

[LegBarnes]

Man marking simple mark that man don't let him out of your sight not much brains needed.

Zonal you need smart players who know when to stick or twist that for me is a massive difference in the 2.

[Leonmc0708]

When it was intoriduced it was weird.

It made us the best team defensively for the last few years.

Discussion over.

[slickrick]

i think we do a pretty good job with the zonal system, only thing i'd criticise is that against newcastle for the goal mascherano was too small as the first man, need someone a bit taller there to cut out that ball whipped into the front post

[milou]

Firstly, I am humble enough to admit I am less knowledgeable in football than many of the posters here..   

So I have a simple (hopefully not SO naive ) question to ask:

How does zonal-marking work when we have players of different heights being scattered all around "statically" (Of cos I don't mean totally static but you get my point) but your attackers (likely to be the taller ones) are free to run about and attack "weaker" areas covered by shorter players or less defensive players?

Say if Liverpool is playing Portsmouth.. Crouch can always move away from the taller & more defensive players (hyypia, carra) and attack spaces guarded by Insua (shorter) or Reira (more attacking than defensive) right?

Doesn't that make certain areas more "vulnerable"?

[milou]

Firstly, I am humble enough to admit I am less knowledgeable in football than many of the posters here..   

So I have a simple (hopefully not SO naive ) question to ask:

How does zonal-marking work when we have players of different heights being scattered all around "statically" (Of cos I don't mean totally static but you get my point) but your attackers (likely to be the taller ones) are free to run about and attack "weaker" areas covered by shorter players or less defensive players?

Say if Liverpool is playing Portsmouth.. Crouch can always move away from the taller & more defensive players (hyypia, carra) and attack spaces guarded by Insua (shorter) or Reira (more attacking than defensive) right?

Doesn't that make certain areas more "vulnerable"?

Hmmm.. I posted before I finished reading all the previous posted.

After reading, I think I got the answer now:

I guess the most dangerous areas are guarded by the more defensive players, while less dangerous areas are guarded by the rest. It is just a matter of priority.

But would still appreciate if anyone still have more points to add.. Thanks.