Man markers patrol the areas of the 18-yard box not picked up by the zonal markers (i.e. All with zonal-marking. It's more defensive than zonal, but downside is that you that your players might be out of positions. The exact opposite of what you say is true. Ok. Jürgen Klopp’s Liverpool are on the up. One thing, that I really was afraid of that, I thought he might bring to Barca is the man-marking in corners, which has been his style. (Chapters with timeframes are in the thumbnail and listed below) Zonal v man marking: Jamie Carragher and Gary Neville on why both can work perfectly "I've never seen a zone score a goal," they all say, but can it work if done correctly? MAN MARKING. Discussion in 'Arsenal Talk' started by a_fourteen, Sep 14, 2014. There are two main types of marking; zonal and man. DC's should always be on man-marking if their marking is realtively high (in 90% of cases), but I would suggest easy tackling and low closing down, because in that way you prevent them to go out of position. If you are man marking you are putting the attacking player off even before the ball is crossed. Teams playing 4–4–2 usually operate a zonal marking system, but teams playing a sweeper do not. Two or three defenders man mark the most dangerous attackers and prevent their free runs to powerful headers. No-one was screaming in the 1990s, "let’s play man-to-man marking". Ed Ames, former columnist on this very site, wrote this last season:. Reina wouldn't have been able to keep 18+ clean sheets in a season if The formation used by a team may dictate whether or not to use zonal marking. Don't get me wrong, I still think Burn was a bit slow reacting to their big centre-forward for at least his first two goals, the third being one of those awkward crosses close to the byline that's hard to deal with. Zonal marking is more difficult when defending set pieces such as free kicks and corners, and most teams change to man marking in these situations. Zonal Marking versus Man to Man Marking at corners, or in Liverpool’s case, a bit of both. Don’t get me wrong though: Cantona was an excellent player. Results showed that 22 goals (3.7% of all corners kicks) were conceded from corner kicks. A big advantage of man marking over zonal defence is that being told to stay with a player is easier for children to understand than being told ‘I want you to defend this zone’. The advantages are a combination of pure zonal and man marking … The whole point of zonal marking is that if the ball comes anywhere near your zone you attack it. from 6 … Surely, against a team who possess such a big threat from corners – and that was their 13th and 14th goals from corners this season – a man-marking system may well have been a better option? All eight Bolton corners reviewed Written by Dan on March 7, 2011. Bar last season for a while, we've been absolutely dire in both attacking and defending during corners and even if you switch from man marking to zonal, unless your players have consistently practised defending/attacking them, the application is not going to be there. Of course, zonal marking at corners does go wrong and it can be embarrassing for fans to see their team concede a goal as a striker rises to head home in a completely open space and unchallenged. This is an effective tactic for teams that are well trained, know each other, and are coordinated as a unit. Zonal Marking vs Man Marking Does a system which uses both zonal marking and man marking work? How can you do that if you are marking a space. Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next > a_fourteen Well-Known Member. It happens and it looks unprofessional but much the same can be said when man marking is employed and a goal is conceded. Barca have used always zonal marking since Pep came in 2008. This leaves your zonal markers to be free to attack the ball with 100% concentration. The debate surrounding the pros and cons of zonal marking versus man marking at set pieces will doubtless rage on, but most of the big teams will continue to use a combination regardless. Their primary focus should be on attacking the ball. Idiot. It takes a lot of practice. Teams conceded more goals using a zonal marking strategy (6.0%) compared to a mixed marking strategy (3.7%). Man-marking assumes that if every man can win their individual battle, the team won’t concede. I see it as similar to short vs regular corners. would likely use this system, as they are likely to win their individual battles. No, zonal marking is far better in open play, and the system needed tweaking. Rafa Benitez is known for zonal marking, and applied it fairly successfully at both Liverpool and Newcastle. Zonal Marking is often criticised, but people rarely praise it for all the occasions the first man just belts it to safety as they anticipate where it's being crossed to. With examples from Liverpool, Man City, Barcelona and more explored, this tactical class offers real insight into the constant debate of which defensive system is best. Defenders should also be goalside of their opponent. The zonal block team look after the sixyard box and are responsible for drilled crosses into the key zone in front of the goal. Zonal Vs Man-to-man Marking. In this video Jack considers the pros and cons of both zonal defending and man to man marking when defending corners. With every set piece we concede this argument surfaces. Whether it’s man marking or zonal marking from set-pieces, there is always plenty of debate over which system is the best. West Brom, who may have 4 or 5 natural centre-backs playing who are adept at marking, heading etc. Zonal marking is one way of defending corners, but another soccer tactic to coach is man-to-man, which involves your defenders selecting an attacking player and following them closely.. Defenders must each pick an opponent according to their size and heading ability, and be in a position to see both the player and the ball. You're just demonstrating your eye-watering ignorance on the topic I'm afraid. That's 4 in 31 games, and one of those was an o.g, and one was just an individual miscue (Masch vs. PSV). Many people just assumes that short corners are shit and are useless, but when actually looked into they can provide options that regular corners can't. Man marking is the traditional method of defending corners. Yet we've conceded so many goals because of it this season? ZONAL BLOCK. Your man markers are very important as they bare the duty of directly challenging the opposition players. Just as Celtic tend to lord it over their rivals in Scotland, the man-marking lobby used to be quick to shout down those in favor of zonal marking. Yes, it can work, if you have the players for it. In nearly all aspects of play, they have clearly improved in their tactical ideas and … Zonal marking or man marking? What's right for us? Where is it going wrong? I just feel with zonal marking you are giving the attackers, space and time. I use man mark only for most dangerous players (strikers, AMC). It was, and if Cantona played now, in his prime of course, against a 90s side versed in modern tactics, he would be far less effective. So you see there's nothing wrong with zonal-marking or with man-marking. Zonal marking can work if coached well. There was a significant association between types of corner kicks and defensive outcomes (χ 2 = 111.30,V = 0.57). If done correctly, both can be hugely effective. Why? The defenders job is to get in that attackers face put them off and to prevent them from scoring.