BFTG Bristol

[krapmle]

Thing is, from my incredibly poor 5 a side standard, and watching professional football for a quarter of a century I kinda see what he probably means and it's good. He's just taken it way too far.

You can't just try to man mark because that will pull your shape all over the place and create space to allow people to burst into. You have to mark certain areas of space and you have to have hand overs, but equally you can't just ignore the players and stick to the space.

It has to be a blend of the two, which is obviously hard, we're just way too far down one extreme.

another porkie, you are still in shorts at school

[John Smith]

Thing is, from my incredibly poor 5 a side standard, and watching professional football for a quarter of a century I kinda see what he probably means and it's good. He's just taken it way too far.

You can't just try to man mark because that will pull your shape all over the place and create space to allow people to burst into. You have to mark certain areas of space and you have to have hand overs, but equally you can't just ignore the players and stick to the space.

It has to be a blend of the two, which is obviously hard, we're just way too far down one extreme.

Why are you trying to talk about a subject you clearly (and have just confessed to) have no experience in? You are embarrassing yourself.

[Millsy]

Let's look at extremes:

If every outfield player marks every outfield player very tightly, it will be very hard for them to score.

If every outfield player picks one separate area of the pitch (let's say covering their own half only to make things easier) then youonly need literally two players to pretty much walk it into the net.

Zonal marking is something I've never understood, never agreed with, never been coached in (at university college level). As acceleration was always my strength I'd always majorly piss opposition players off just man marking like a bad smell when they had the ball then shoot away in a flash once we got it back. Would often get the opposition swearing at me/ trying to hack me, intimidate me, haha. Clearly ruffled some feathers, because it works.

Of course I'm not a pro manager so it kind of doesn't matter what I think.

Interesting though. There's clearly a role for taking care of a zone, in certain situations I imagine.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Let's look at extremes:

If every outfield player marks every outfield player very tightly, it will be very hard for them to score.

If every outfield player picks one separate area of the pitch (let's say covering their own half only to make things easier) then youonly need literally two players to pretty much walk it into the net.

Zonal marking is something I've never understood, never agreed with, never been coached in (at university college level). As acceleration was always my strength I'd always majorly piss opposition players off just man marking like a bad smell when they had the ball then shoot away in a flash once we got it back. Would often get the opposition swearing at me/ trying to hack me, intimidate me, haha. Clearly ruffled some feathers, because it works.

Of course I'm not a pro manager so it kind of doesn't matter what I think.

Interesting though. There's clearly a role for taking care of a zone, in certain situations I imagine.

I do get frustrated with English irrational hatred of zonal marking. Done well it is very effective and allows teams to keep their shape better. The issue is not that we're using zonal marking, the issue is that we're not doing it well.

Put it another way; when a striker moves well and loses his man, or creates space with a decoy run, we don't all lament the weaknesses of man to man marking. But when a goal is conceded due to poor execution of zonal marking, it seems pundits and fans alike are quick to jump on this funny foreign system. "Let's just get back to good old school 442 with a decent target man and none of this zonal marking fancy business."

[Hound]

Zonal marking is one of those things that football fans just don't like because they've seen it done badly on tv or whatever. Often there are as many examples of bad man-marking leading to a goal, but because its what we were brought up with, we let that go.

Marking space is presumably a form of zonal marking, where the defender is trying to cut down on the angles and not get dragged out of position. I'm sure if done well, and no doubts some teams are doing it well, it probably succeeds.

Problem is, like us with playing out from the back, we're either not good enough to do it, or the players don't quite understand how to do it effectively

[Hound]

Ha, you got in before me WestYorks...

[URZZZZ]

Zonal marking usually means defenders are competing for a header from a standing position whereas the attacker is coming from a moving position so they have the momentum. What’s wrong with just picking up a man and following them. It’s a much simpler concept

[WestYorksRoyal]

Zonal marking usually means defenders are competing for a header from a standing position whereas the attacker is coming from a moving position so they have the momentum. What’s wrong with just picking up a man and following them. It’s a much simpler concept

What if your man runs out wide and an on rushing midfielder is free to take the space you've vacated in order to follow him? Ideally he's being marked too, but it only takes one failure as a team for it to fall apart and we see it all the time.

In terms of your original problem, it's a legitimate criticism but the counter is that effective zonal marking makes is harder to find space to put a cross into a decent area.

I'm not saying zonal marking is better, I'm saying that the cause of our problems is that we're not doing it properly. For a team low on confidence, man to man does seem like a simpler principal which is rooted in hard work. But even then it's not simple; not many teams play with set, rigid, attacking formations these days. A strict man marking system could lead to our backline being dragged all over the place, so I think there needs to be a bit of a zonal mindset where you trust your teammates to pick a player up if they stray. Communication and understanding are key.

[Snowflake Royal]

Zonal marking is one of those things that football fans just don't like because they've seen it done badly on tv or whatever. Often there are as many examples of bad man-marking leading to a goal, but because its what we were brought up with, we let that go.

Marking space is presumably a form of zonal marking, where the defender is trying to cut down on the angles and not get dragged out of position. I'm sure if done well, and no doubts some teams are doing it well, it probably succeeds.

Problem is, like us with playing out from the back, we're either not good enough to do it, or the players don't quite understand how to do it effectively

I don't have a problem with zonal per se. If it works great. It isn't working though and it's because the emphasis and shape is all wrong.

Our players aren't in their zones half the time anyway. Full backs too high, CBs and midfielders covering full backs and CBs. Zonal will no more work if youre5 not in your zone half the time than man marking will if you're not marking.

Even when they are in their zones they're more interested in being in the right base position than covering the opponents in the zone.

Look at Brizzle's goal. Miazga is in the middle of his zonal position. But he's static looking at his man stood 10 feet in front of him on the edge of Moore's zone. Whilst Moore is marking someone tight in his own zone.

Meanwhile Yiadom is also broadly in his own zone. But standing wrong side and 10 feet away from his man.

You can't ignore the player and give him space. They aren't zonal marking, because they aren't marking. Their zonal positioning and nothing more.

[Hound]

Yep that was the point I was trying to make basically. Whatever system you play, if you play it badly it’s rubbish

[John Smith]

Zonal marking is one of those things that football fans just don't like because they've seen it done badly on tv or whatever. Often there are as many examples of bad man-marking leading to a goal, but because its what we were brought up with, we let that go.

Marking space is presumably a form of zonal marking, where the defender is trying to cut down on the angles and not get dragged out of position. I'm sure if done well, and no doubts some teams are doing it well, it probably succeeds.

Problem is, like us with playing out from the back, we're either not good enough to do it, or the players don't quite understand how to do it effectively

I don't have a problem with zonal per se. If it works great. It isn't working though and it's because the emphasis and shape is all wrong.

Our players aren't in their zones half the time anyway. Full backs too high, CBs and midfielders covering full backs and CBs. Zonal will no more work if youre5 not in your zone half the time than man marking will if you're not marking.

Even when they are in their zones they're more interested in being in the right base position than covering the opponents in the zone.

Look at Brizzle's goal. Miazga is in the middle of his zonal position. But he's static looking at his man stood 10 feet in front of him on the edge of Moore's zone. Whilst Moore is marking someone tight in his own zone.

Meanwhile Yiadom is also broadly in his own zone. But standing wrong side and 10 feet away from his man.

You can't ignore the player and give him space. They aren't zonal marking, because they aren't marking. Their zonal positioning and nothing more.

Stop it Ian, you're making me cringe here

[stealthpapes]

Teams simply wouldn't do zonal marking if there was no advantage.

Where man-to-man marking does have a massive advantage is in the lower leagues - teams have less preparation time of a less focused nature, they have less able or less fit players, and its an easier job to communicate.

Set pieces all in the gap. The success rate of your common or garden corner is actually rather small. So when a goal is scored from it, there's usually either been a bit of shenanigans, an exceptionally well-judged run or a defender has turned off. I actually don't think the scoring rates at corners for different marking regimes would be significantly different. It still boils down to someone doing their job well or someone not doing their job at all. However, if someone has the data, yeah, let's have a look.

[RoyalBlue]

I think it was just rustiness on Miazga's part tbh. Must take the big portion of the blame. Not played for a while and received a whack in the chops ten minutes or so before. Richards just allowed the crosser to take his time and pick the pass as well.

At first I thought the goal was down to Miazga but having watched the video a few times it looks like Morrison was marking Diedhiou moments earlier. He then moved further to our left to pick up a player that side but in doing so left Diedhiou unmarked and didn't ensure Miazga was aware and picked him up. Poor communication/awareness.

On a more positive note, I though Boye looked really good when he came on. He demonstrated why they call him The Tank and The Bull but also showed some great skill. Only that fantastic save from Bentley denied him a very well created and taken goal.

[Snowflake Royal]

It was a pretty comfortable save really. Looked good at the time because you weren't expecting the shot. But replays it's just routine.

[URZZZZ]

Teams simply wouldn't do zonal marking if there was no advantage.

Where man-to-man marking does have a massive advantage is in the lower leagues - teams have less preparation time of a less focused nature, they have less able or less fit players, and its an easier job to communicate.

Set pieces all in the gap. The success rate of your common or garden corner is actually rather small. So when a goal is scored from it, there's usually either been a bit of shenanigans, an exceptionally well-judged run or a defender has turned off. I actually don't think the scoring rates at corners for different marking regimes would be significantly different. It still boils down to someone doing their job well or someone not doing their job at all. However, if someone has the data, yeah, let's have a look.

Good post. I’d argue that for zonal marking to work, you need the following:

- Commanding goalie. If you’ve got a goalkeeper who is hesitant at coming out of his area, it’s probably not the greatest idea

Good communication - as WYR said on a previous post, your defenders need to be able to communicate effectively with one another. Ours, clearly aren’t, judging by the goals we’re conceding. People need to know who is responsible for which zone

Positioning - obviously each area needs to be covered. Put your best defenders into the zone which is most dangerous. For example, someone like Yann always covered the front area when defending corners because he was good at it

[Millsy]

Let's look at extremes:

If every outfield player marks every outfield player very tightly, it will be very hard for them to score.

If every outfield player picks one separate area of the pitch (let's say covering their own half only to make things easier) then youonly need literally two players to pretty much walk it into the net.

Zonal marking is something I've never understood, never agreed with, never been coached in (at university college level). As acceleration was always my strength I'd always majorly piss opposition players off just man marking like a bad smell when they had the ball then shoot away in a flash once we got it back. Would often get the opposition swearing at me/ trying to hack me, intimidate me, haha. Clearly ruffled some feathers, because it works.

Of course I'm not a pro manager so it kind of doesn't matter what I think.

Interesting though. There's clearly a role for taking care of a zone, in certain situations I imagine.

I do get frustrated with English irrational hatred of zonal marking. Done well it is very effective and allows teams to keep their shape better. The issue is not that we're using zonal marking, the issue is that we're not doing it well.

Put it another way; when a striker moves well and loses his man, or creates space with a decoy run, we don't all lament the weaknesses of man to man marking. But when a goal is conceded due to poor execution of zonal marking, it seems pundits and fans alike are quick to jump on this funny foreign system. "Let's just get back to good old school 442 with a decent target man and none of this zonal marking fancy business."

I'm not sure how irrational it is given my description above taken to extremes. Fair enough perhaps you know more about it or have more experience with it than I do. But it takes a great striker with a good move to lose his man to beat man-marking but it takes my grandma to hobble in with her Zimmer frame while the 3Ms stand their picking their noses to beat zonal.

You're right I'm sure everything works when done well, even playing it out the back does. We're not Brazil though.

[Millsy]

On a more positive note, I though Boye looked really good when he came on. He demonstrated why they call him The Tank and The Bull but also showed some great skill. Only that fantastic save from Bentley denied him a very well created and taken goal.

I agree he did well there. One of the first/only times I have seen his clever skills end up with some sort of a positive end point (even if it was an easyish save in the end). Long may it continue!