BFIFollow

[NewCorkSeth]

3) Zonal marking. If talking about their equaliser then I would normally have agreed with you but when I genuinely posed the question here a few months back to those more in the know the response from SCIAG et al were educational for me i.e. zonal marking is the norm at this level for set pieces. I don't agree/fully get it but if a non-pro like me doesn't agree then it probably means it's the right thing for pros to do! I'm not happy that they fell asleep though.

Just to clarify as I’ve been namechecked:

- Zonal marking is the norm outside of set pieces. During set pieces is by far the most likely time that you’ll see elements of man marking.

- The evidence doesn’t show a difference between the effectiveness of man and zonal marking at set pieces.

Personally I think man marking is probably a better bet because players are more familiar with it, so you can spend more time focusing on other aspects - but you do have to decide who marks who every week.

If the opposition put three men in one zone then you only need one man to deal with all of them, it’s not like all three of them can head then all at the same time. Also means that they don’t have players in other zones, so the ball in has to be very targeted.

Don’t really mind which system we use but the mindless bashing of zonal marking every time a team concedes a goal while using it got old about 12 years ago.

Power post.

[Millsy]

why would you blame zonal marking for that goal out of interest?

Its not like we lost the ball because we were outnumbered in an area. Don't you think the players just didn't make their zones correctly?

Ok so I'm far from pretending to be a coach so I make my observations with the necessary humility... but it does seem to me when the ball was sent in from the corner they had a free header in acres of space which they knocked across for the goal. I say acres of space, but that's a lie - TWO Stoke players were vying for the same ball. They were spoiled for choice. They managed to get two players into that space whereas not a single Reading player thought he should be there even though everyone could see that's where the ball was going, presumably because of zone confusion or laziness or Godknowswhat.

There was so much unprotected space that two unmarked players were able to have a picnic and a mother's meeting and decide where to send that ball.

We can't fault the final header, at least there was a man there trying to win it but their striker got the better of us and that's just being being in the zone - that's fine. Happens with man-marking too otherwise no goals would ever be scored from corners ever.

[Hound]

Fair enough. I think the whole point of zonal is that there should never be players left in that kind of space and it’s just a failure of playing the system properly rather than the system itself - which is just as possible with man marking

Think we can all agree it was crap anyway

[Millsy]

Fair enough. I think the whole point of zonal is that there should never be players left in that kind of space and it’s just a failure of playing the system properly rather than the system itself - which is just as possible with man marking

Think we can all agree it was crap anyway

Yeah mate, agreed. Zonal marking as a system may not be bad. As I say I'm no pro and if SCIAG's summary is correct then it seems the evidence suggests it's as effective as man-markingn for set pieces, so that's fine as a system.

But my issue is, could it be that the system is just not right *for us* i.e. if we don't have the players for ti then clearly it's not zonal marking as a concept that's bad but it's just not suitable for us. Like Stamball etc.

I do appreciate it's slightly more complex than just that though, because perhaps what we lose in a zonal system si less than what we gain by having free players able to hit on the break. Or it could simply just be tired players being shit. And they might be equally shit at man marking. Would I blame them for being shit man-markers? Would I then suggest zonal because individuals were shit at man marking? No of course not, but partly because man-marking is easier.

My opinion, having only ever played in a strict man-marking system for set pieces (which is why I say I'm woefully underqualified to comment so am opening it to the board to help out) is that A) at best it's just an easier system to manage for substandard or tired players. You have one job to do and you just do it and B) it's much clearer to see who cocked up. There isn't this lack of responsibility where everyone can stand around blamign everyone else like the three players around the Stoke guys for that first header. If you cock up everyone knows it's your fault. The management can then help develop that player further. And that then feeds into point A because you're less likely to then stand around picking your nose while the game happens around you like we did on Saturday if your job is more clear cut and the blame is too.

So many weeks of not being able to talk shit after a game. This is my chance!

[Hound]

Yeah likewise my football playing days were very much in the man-marking era so I’m not massively up on the rights or wrongs of it

[Snowflake Royal]

A simple look at our goals conceded stats should tell you whether it's much of an issue.

23% of our goals are conceded from all set piece situations and 6% of our goals are conceded from within the 6 yard box.

We're bottom half on goals conceded from set pieces. And we've also got one of the meanest defences in the division.

So I don't see how it can be a problem for us.

[Westwood52]

At the other end of the pitch;it often seems to me that we are crap at scoring from corners.Anybody got any idea how many we have scored from corners this season ?I seem to remember Miazga scored at Birmingham from a corner;but I think he got a deflection?Some teams like Pulis’s Stoke and Allardyces Bolton depended on set pieces generally to keep them in the Prem;as they had bugger all else going for them.
I seem to recall Swifts corners being particularly bad.He seemed to continually try to hit the first man;which invariably failed.Whether he was specifically told to try for this or was just inept;I don’t know.Obita seems to aim at the center of the goal,which tends to have more going for it.
I am probably talking rubbish.But we just don’t seem to achieve a reasonable level of success from our corners.

[Hendo]

At the other end of the pitch;it often seems to me that we are crap at scoring from corners.Anybody got any idea how many we have scored from corners this season ?I seem to remember Miazga scored at Birmingham from a corner;but I think he got a deflection?Some teams like Pulis’s Stoke and Allardyces Bolton depended on set pieces generally to keep them in the Prem;as they had bugger all else going for them.
I seem to recall Swifts corners being particularly bad.He seemed to continually try to hit the first man;which invariably failed.Whether he was specifically told to try for this or was just inept;I don’t know.Obita seems to aim at the center of the goal,which tends to have more going for it.
I am probably talking rubbish.But we just don’t seem to achieve a reasonable level of success from our corners.

This has been a problem since I have started watching Reading. We have also been poor at throw-ins since the multi-ball system was scrapped.

[Snowflake Royal]

I seem to recall some stats posted up many years ago that on average a team scores 4 goals from corners a season.

I believe snowstat then went on a massive rant about it meaning
you should avoid corners at all costs and if you get one just pass straight back to halfway and start again.