Liverpool FC Forum

by **Scottbot** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:06 pm

Bad Bob wrote:So zonal marking is to blame when we conceed from a penalty or when our keeper spills it now? Great analysis...I'm convinced.

I think you will find Reina zonally marks his goal line for penalties

by **Rush Job** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:27 pm

I`ll tell ya what p!sses me off with our set plays, why do we have to bring everyone back? It just brings more presure on us imo because theres no out ball, even if we clear it its coming straight back plus the oppo can pile forward not having to worry about Torres or Babbel because their in our box.

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:31 pm

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:Newcastle (2-1) defeat. Martins and Solano (pen...set peice because it's not open play)
.
.
.
United (1-0) loss. O'Shea pouncing from a spilled ball by Reina off a FREE KICK shot. (8 in 20)

So zonal marking is to blame when we conceed from a penalty or when our keeper spills it now? Great analysis...I'm convinced.

as I said, the penalty is still a set peice because it's not from open play. Maybe it's unfair to blame zonal marking for that, but it's still a goal from a set piece is it not?

As for O'Shea goal then it is down to zonal marking because none of the players were watching O'Shea. Nor where they ready to clear the ball when Reina spilled it. It's not like 20 mins have gone on and I'm blaming zonal marking, it's a simple error again (reina) and because of zonal marking nobody has picked O'Shea up and were all on their heels to turn and clear the ball. Sorry if this proves your belief that zonal marking works but lets face facts, it doesn't work and you know that you can't prove otherwise now.

Bottom line, John, if you're going to include a penalty in your analysis to show the fault of zonal marking than I'm not prepared to accept any of your other so-called facts. After all, you were also trying to convince us that Ronaldo's scored 14 penalties this season so your credibility when it comes to even the most basic of statistics is suspect. I'm afraid it will take someone a lot more reliable than you to convince me that zonal marking doesn't work. :;):

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:43 pm

well bob, you'll see how well it works when we conceed to another set peice against Arsenal on Saturday.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:45 pm

Scottbot wrote:Didn't Hansen say the Liverpool side he played in for several seasons used zonal marking at set-plays?

where and when, because I don't remember seeing Jocky in a zonal marking side. I remember him attacking the ball, not marking a zone.

by **stmichael** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:05 am

Bad Bob wrote:With the goal last night I think it was a combination of things:

1) Clever movement from Adebayor, who started on the line and then stepped out in between the centre halves to meet the cross.

2) Poor communication from our lads--no one gave Sami a shout to alert him that Adebayor was stepping out

3) No one on our side attacking the ball. Sami didn't make a play for the ball and neither did Skrtel (can't recall if he was the other in the immediate area). Everyone acted like it was someone else's responsibility.

To me, that's an instance of poor execution within an otherwise effective system.

Watching that goal is horrible. You can say whatever you like about zonal and man-to-man marking, but it seriously needs to be looked at because it's not the first time we've conceded a stupid goal when a player has been unmarked.

Remember Arsenal away last season when Gallas scored? Gerrard and Riise were arguing amongst themselves about it and this game was the same. In such massive games, we shouldn't be gifting opponents a goal like that and it's something that needs addressing.

I just think man-to-man marking is easier because if you get beat by your man, then you know whose fault it is.

by **Scottbot** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:07 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
Scottbot wrote:Didn't Hansen say the Liverpool side he played in for several seasons used zonal marking at set-plays?

where and when, because I don't remember seeing Jocky in a zonal marking side. I remember him attacking the ball, not marking a zone.

Sure i can remember him saying it on MOTD. I could be wrong. Anyone else shed any light? Don't think i'm making it up.

by **LFC2007** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:09 am

Your wish is my command:

Link

""We always used zonal marking when I won championships with Liverpool."

Wilkinson's analysis is spot on by the way[/IMO].

by **Kharhaz** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:13 am

stmichael wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:With the goal last night I think it was a combination of things:

1) Clever movement from Adebayor, who started on the line and then stepped out in between the centre halves to meet the cross.

2) Poor communication from our lads--no one gave Sami a shout to alert him that Adebayor was stepping out

3) No one on our side attacking the ball. Sami didn't make a play for the ball and neither did Skrtel (can't recall if he was the other in the immediate area). Everyone acted like it was someone else's responsibility.

To me, that's an instance of poor execution within an otherwise effective system.

Watching that goal is horrible. You can say whatever you like about zonal and man-to-man marking, but it seriously needs to be looked at because it's not the first time we've conceded a stupid goal when a player has been unmarked.

Remember Arsenal away last season when Gallas scored? Gerrard and Riise were arguing amongst themselves about it and this game was the same. In such massive games, we shouldn't be gifting opponents a goal like that and it's something that needs addressing.

I just think man-to-man marking is easier because if you get beat by your man, then you know whose fault it is.

It wouldnt solve the problem it just gives us someone to blame. How many times through each and every game do players (individually or collectively) lose concentration during a match? The goals conceded from set pieces is being picked up on but if you include liverpool then surely you have to include every other team in the premiership.

by **Rush Job** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:17 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
Scottbot wrote:Didn't Hansen say the Liverpool side he played in for several seasons used zonal marking at set-plays?

where and when, because I don't remember seeing Jocky in a zonal marking side. I remember him attacking the ball, not marking a zone.

Are you sure its liverpool youve been watching? break out some vids and have a look.

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 12:53 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:well bob, you'll see how well it works when we conceed to another set peice against Arsenal on Saturday.

Right, and we'll see how well man-marking works when teams up and down the country concede to set pieces on Saturday.

by **Sabre** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:07 am

Teams up there know well what they're doing and probably their reasons to man mark are well based.

Down here we left man marking in set pieces for several reasons.

1.- You have the danger that some of your players are dragged on purpose to a zone, leaving a gap somewhere else. That, with the annoying ability top division crossers had to put the ball in the gap, made it extremely inpopular back in 1987 or something.

2. Is about unnecesary runs in normal defending (not set pieces). It's proved that zonal defending saves energies, players have to run less to defend effectively (a long chase is unnecesary if the mate of the next zone covers it and you instead cover your mate)

Of course, zonal defending has other pros and known cons too (requires top concentration, requires lots of training, requires being done properly, what happens when 2 players invade your zone?), but those above reasons were mentioned a lot in the debates of 20 years ago.

I guess that in a league that more contact is allowed, maybe man marking has an extra point in it's favour, but still, I preffer the zonal one

by **stmichael** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:07 am

Sky presenters in general have a problem grasping some aspects of football. In their obsession with zonal marking they don't realise that goals are conceded by teams who man to man mark as well. The way Gray and Keys go on you'd think that man marking is the absolute solution and they if we marked that way we'd never concede from a set piece again. It doesn't work that way though. Both systems have their benefits but the key is carrying out the system correctly, if this is done well (no matter what system is used) then the fewer goals will be conceded at set pieces.

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:22 am

Back before he lost the plot, this Tomkins lad made some sense. Here's his defense of zonal marking from Feb. 2006:

"No system in football is 100% perfect, but I do find it tiresome that there has to be an inquest into zonal marking every time a goal is conceded. I feel zealously compelled to defend zonal marking as it's something I was initially against, mostly from failing to fully understand how it worked, but to which I have become a convert. The more you analyse it, the more it makes sense.

For a start, the alternative - man-to-man marking - is deeply flawed. Against Chelsea, Jamie Carragher, Sami Hyypia and Peter Crouch all had good chances from set plays, and yet in such situations it was not Chelsea's man-to-man marking that was seen to be at fault. Why?

I watch a lot of football, and every week I see players dragged out of position when using man-to-man marking. What's more, the amount of blocking off that takes place is incredible. Watch how frequently you see one player end up totally unmarked because a) he has lost his marker with a clever run, or b) his marker has been totally taken out of the equation by a collision, accidental or otherwise. It is incredible.

With man-to-man, you can often find the players defending the corner or free-kick forced to run towards their own goal when the ball is delivered. If the opposition lines up on the edge of the area, then they must be marked there. A ball aimed between the penalty spot and six-yard line would see both sides attacking the ball when running towards the goal, and as such, someone trying to score will have more conviction in what he's doing than someone who can only head it at his own goal or out for another corner. It only takes one block or momentary lapse, and that's it - the race to the ball is lost.With zonal marking, the players are aligned to attack the ball and send it upfield. If the ball comes within the six yard box, defenders are there to start with, and the goalkeeper will always be favourite. If the ball is flighted near the penalty spot, the defenders on the six-yard line have ample time and space to run out and attack the ball, as do those who take their starting positions in this part of the box. And if the ball is delivered to the edge of the area, there is less immediate danger from the first header and it's then down to the second ball - unfortunately, where a lapse allowed Chelsea to score the opener on Sunday.

The point of zonal marking is that the ball cannot be put into any dangerous area of the 18-yard box and it be unmanned.

"Space doesn't score goals" is the mantra of the man-to-man marker. But if you have a defender in every zone, then an attacker has to enter one of those zones to score. With man-to-man, you could quite feasibly see 15 players in one part of the area, dragged by decoy runs, and the ball go into another - where an attacker has lost his marker. The goal Sami Hyypia scored against Juventus, for example, would never have happened with zonal marking.

With zonal marking, there is a danger you can be caught on your heels as an opponent runs into your zone to attack the ball; but the ball is in the air long enough for you to judge where it's going to land, and to adjust accordingly. You don't stand like a statue in a zone waiting for the ball to obligingly plop on your head. But even with man-to-man marking, attackers can still get a run on their marker, especially as they are more likely to know where the ball will be delivered, and as such, anticipate and make the first move.

As with any system, if a player doesn't do his job correctly, zonal marking will not be as effective as it should be. You cannot legislate for players making errors and being drawn to the ball,but this has not been a regular occurrence in the last 18 months.

The goals Manchester United and Portsmouth recently scored were more down to perfect delivery than any great flaw with the system, although I'm sure Rafa has feelings about what might have been done better. Sometimes the opposition will win the header; the law of averages says as much. Sometimes it will then go on target. And sometimes it will go in. You just have to implement the safest system, and not expect a fail-safe system.

I've used it as an example before, but in January 2005, the game at Carrow Road between Norwich and Middlesborough ended 4-4. Both teams used man-to-man marking, and no less than five goals came as a result of players losing their marker from set pieces.

It's always easy in football to say something isn't working and that the team needs to try the alternative approach. It's a natural reaction, but that's why managers tend to be strong people who stick to their principles, as they see the bigger picture. The Reds have conceded just a handful of goals from set-pieces all season; mark a different way, and who knows, it could have been five times that amount."

LINK

by **Sabre** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 1:32 am

Well spoken Tomkins. As usual.

I forgot to mention another bad side of zonal marking. If you you reach to a team who's a mess defending, probably it's wiser to use man marking at the beginning as zonal one needs time and training. Man Mark is easier to implement, zonal one is worse than man mark if not trained properly. So the transtitions from man marking to zonal defending were not debateless and painful for many teams. But at the end, man marking wasn't used at least in the Spanish league.

Liverpool FC Forum

The new system, - Where did it all go wrong?

Who is online