[Albion] Zonal Marking

[ShandyH]

From someone who didn’t play at a very high level, how do you make zonal marking work from corners and free kicks?

If you’re static, guarding space, you can’t get the jumping height. So do you drift with the attackers? Do you stand back 3 or 4 yards (at corners) and launch away from the goal? I know when it’s done well it works but we look anchored and scared because it’s new. How do we cut out the marking errors? Is it just subtle blocking? Isn’t that man marking?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Well on recent evidence we seem to be marking neither the zone, nor the player.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

If it has worked for others, maybe? But we don’t seem to make it work do we?
Old fashioned man marking please

 

[Swansman]

From someone who didn’t play at a very high level, how do you make zonal marking work from corners and free kicks?

If you’re static, guarding space, you can’t get the jumping height. So do you drift with the attackers? Do you stand back 3 or 4 yards (at corners) and launch away from the goal? I know when it’s done well it works but we look anchored and scared because it’s new. How do we cut out the marking errors? Is it just subtle blocking? Isn’t that man marking?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Its not supposed to be static, zonal marking doesnt mean you are glued to the ground. You should still be on your toes. The argument that zonal marking somehow prevented Dunk from jumping last night is just a very poor attempt of whitewashing his performance on the corner, it was a poorly timed jump from him, simple as that. Shit happens, unfortunately this is one of his few weaknesses so shit happens quite a lot.

Most teams today use a mix of zonal and man marking on set pieces. Straight up man marking died with data that said that man marking the players on the edge of the area making runs as the ball goes in is useless: their attacking player will be facing the goal when making his run, the defender will be running backwards and the result is that the attacking player will lose his marker.

The solution that pretty much every half-decent team found is that if you dont "man mark" these players and instead mark the zone where they are running, you have a better chance of getting rid of the ball than if you are running backwards (or have to turn around which loses you 1,5 seconds you cant afford). The players in the zone got a better chance to stop a) the ball and b) the player.

Predominantely man marking only works if your players are athletically superior to the opposition, which is rarely the case with Brighton.

There is nothing wrong the marking. Its fairly standard and doesnt differ from what most teams do in most games on set pieces. The difference is in the execution - the team is inexperienced and physically modest. If you look at Vestergaards goal when Brighton lost to Saints, no one had the physical capacity of stopping or even disturbing him. If you look at the goal yesterday several players could have stopped his running path but didnt, which is a sign of inexperience. This along with Dunks poor timing caused the goal. Not the pretty much obsolete decision between man or zonal marking.

 

[Loadicus Trux]

I just don't get why anyone uses this zonal system. It's flawed, and it seems so easy to get around. How bad do the stats have to get before it's ditched?

 

[Swansman]

I just don't get why anyone uses this zonal system. It's flawed, and it seems so easy to get around. How bad do the stats have to get before it's ditched?

Its not more flawed than man marking.

There are advantages and disadvantages with both ways. The difference is:

If someone makes a mistake while man-marking, no one blames the system, just the individual - despite the individual trying to carry out a man-marking system.

If someone makes a mistake while zone marking, no one blames the individual, just the system - despite the system being carried out by individuals.

And as we know its funnier and more so easier to blame individuals than to blame systems that are complex to understand.

But rest assured that the blame game would continue with man marking. While Brighton got a few tall players, most of them arent, and its one of the youngest teams in the league and a 25 year old player is usually a lot more physically developed than a 20 or 21 year old. Alzate trying to man mark Oriol Romeu or Aaron Connolly being entirely responisble with the task of preventing some old dirty sluggish CB/CM/CF might sound great in theory but most likely wouldnt be as fantastic as you imagine. The only difference would probably be that the blame game would be about individuals rather than the system.

 

[Guinness Boy]

But rest assured that the blame game would continue with man marking. While Brighton got a few tall players, most of them arent, and its one of the youngest teams in the league and a 25 year old player is usually a lot more physically developed than a 20 or 21 year old. Alzate trying to man mark Oriol Romeu or Aaron Connolly being entirely responisble with the task of preventing some old dirty sluggish CB/CM/CF might sound great in theory but most likely wouldnt be as fantastic as you imagine. The only difference would probably be that the blame game would be about individuals rather than the system.

I do think your earlier post about why man marking is largely dead is a good one an explains well why the modern game uses "zone". There is also the Brighton/England "love train" or equivalent that breaks from a line or groups up in a dangerous area such as penalty spot, front or far post or edge of area. You have to be very disciplined indeed for four defenders to follow the correct four attackers AND win the ball first in that situation, which is why it worked for England against lesser opposition in WC 2018. But, in the Premier League we ARE the lesser opposition.

Nevertheless the club has to take responsibility for the points in your post above. Firstly, yesterday, you are playing West Ham who we know are good at set pieces so we start with four centre backs on the pitch including a 6ft 7 one, and still we get done, despite Potter stating before the game that is why he made the change. You have to be physically strong to play centre back. We have about seven decent centre backs at the club and an international one out on loan. The one place we should not be conceding is set pieces.

Ditto with the point about Connolly. Opposition coaches simply have to study which zone is picked up by our smaller players and send their Romeus (and the ball) into that area to capatalize on zone. We've also chosen as a club to have smaller, quicker strikers. That suits the possession and chance creating game but it causes a problem at set pieces at both ends. Not only could you very often rely on Glenn Murray to score you a goal from a set piece, he could defend them as well. Watch back yesterday and Welbeck strays and puts Dunk off for that poor header while White is completely static. We have two of our four centre backs in key zones switched off and an attacker who isn't really helping.

In the same way everyone likes to berate the ref / VAR and our finishing for the defeat at home to Man U when we should have won, yet we have a corner in the last minute of the game when you have Maupay defending the zone Maguire is in. United have switched on to the end but we've ended up with a mismatch in our own area at the point of the last kick of the game.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I do think your earlier post about why man marking is largely dead is a good one an explains well why the modern game uses "zone". There is also the Brighton/England "love train" or equivalent that breaks from a line or groups up in a dangerous area such as penalty spot, front or far post or edge of area. You have to be very disciplined indeed for four defenders to follow the correct four attackers AND win the ball first in that situation, which is why it worked for England against lesser opposition in WC 2018. But, in the Premier League we ARE the lesser opposition.

Nevertheless the club has to take responsibility for the points in your post above. Firstly, yesterday, you are playing West Ham who we know are good at set pieces so we start with four centre backs on the pitch including a 6ft 7 one, and still we get done, despite Potter stating before the game that is why he made the change. You have to be physically strong to play centre back. We have about seven decent centre backs at the club and an international one out on loan. The one place we should not be conceding is set pieces.

Ditto with the point about Connolly. Opposition coaches simply have to study which zone is picked up by our smaller players and send their Romeus (and the ball) into that area to capatalize on zone. We've also chosen as a club to have smaller, quicker strikers. That suits the possession and chance creating game but it causes a problem at set pieces at both ends. Not only could you very often rely on Glenn Murray to score you a goal from a set piece, he could defend them as well. Watch back yesterday and Welbeck strays and puts Dunk off for that poor header while White is completely static. We have two of our four centre backs in key zones switched off and an attacker who isn't really helping.

In the same way everyone likes to berate the ref / VAR and our finishing for the defeat at home to Man U when we should have won, yet we have a corner in the last minute of the game when you have Maupay defending the zone Maguire is in. United have switched on to the end but we've ended up with a mismatch in our own area at the point of the last kick of the game.

So many good points however, the big thing with the zonal system is the inability to attack the ball, effectively it’s a standing jump which puts you at a disadvantage against on rushing opponent.

You simply have to have a combination of the two but Dunk and Webster should be man marking and Burn and Welbeck should remain zonal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

So many good points however, the big thing with the zonal system is the inability to attack the ball, effectively it’s a standing jump which puts you at a disadvantage against on rushing opponent.

You simply have to have a combination of the two but Dunk and Webster should be man marking and Burn and Welbeck should remain zonal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, I think that sounds about right to me.

 

[Johnny RoastBeef]

Its not supposed to be static, zonal marking doesnt mean you are glued to the ground. You should still be on your toes. The argument that zonal marking somehow prevented Dunk from jumping last night is just a very poor attempt of whitewashing his performance on the corner, it was a poorly timed jump from him, simple as that. Shit happens, unfortunately this is one of his few weaknesses so shit happens quite a lot.

Most teams today use a mix of zonal and man marking on set pieces. Straight up man marking died with data that said that man marking the players on the edge of the area making runs as the ball goes in is useless: their attacking player will be facing the goal when making his run, the defender will be running backwards and the result is that the attacking player will lose his marker.

The solution that pretty much every half-decent team found is that if you dont "man mark" these players and instead mark the zone where they are running, you have a better chance of getting rid of the ball than if you are running backwards (or have to turn around which loses you 1,5 seconds you cant afford). The players in the zone got a better chance to stop a) the ball and b) the player.

Predominantely man marking only works if your players are athletically superior to the opposition, which is rarely the case with Brighton.

There is nothing wrong the marking. Its fairly standard and doesnt differ from what most teams do in most games on set pieces. The difference is in the execution - the team is inexperienced and physically modest. If you look at Vestergaards goal when Brighton lost to Saints, no one had the physical capacity of stopping or even disturbing him. If you look at the goal yesterday several players could have stopped his running path but didnt, which is a sign of inexperience. This along with Dunks poor timing caused the goal. Not the pretty much obsolete decision between man or zonal marking.

You are correct, and I'd go further by suggesting we are also less aggressive when attacking the ball in the air. This goes for both defending and attacking corners.

Last season we had Duffy who would really throw his head into areas where he would risk getting smashed.

This season Dunk and Webster don't attack the ball in the air with anywhere near the same determination.

 

[amexer]

Whatever system seems common sense against West Ham to instruct one player to make sure Suscak doesnt get a free header

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

Whatever system seems common sense against West Ham to instruct one player to make sure Suscak doesnt get a free header

That responsibility fell to Ben White, he dropped a clanger.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

We had a similar problem in our first season didn't we? We kept conceding from corners/set pieces. I seem to remember Hughton mostly solved it by having most of the players marking/blocking runs while Duffy was left free to go attack the ball. And head it into the opposition keeper's penalty box.

I miss that magnificent heading version of Duffy. What a sight it was to see him steam roller through an opposition striker and head the ball further than most of us can kick it. Simple but beautiful.

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

Its not supposed to be static, zonal marking doesnt mean you are glued to the ground. You should still be on your toes. The argument that zonal marking somehow prevented Dunk from jumping last night is just a very poor attempt of whitewashing his performance on the corner, it was a poorly timed jump from him, simple as that. Shit happens, unfortunately this is one of his few weaknesses so shit happens quite a lot.

Most teams today use a mix of zonal and man marking on set pieces. Straight up man marking died with data that said that man marking the players on the edge of the area making runs as the ball goes in is useless: their attacking player will be facing the goal when making his run, the defender will be running backwards and the result is that the attacking player will lose his marker.

The solution that pretty much every half-decent team found is that if you dont "man mark" these players and instead mark the zone where they are running, you have a better chance of getting rid of the ball than if you are running backwards (or have to turn around which loses you 1,5 seconds you cant afford). The players in the zone got a better chance to stop a) the ball and b) the player.

Predominantely man marking only works if your players are athletically superior to the opposition, which is rarely the case with Brighton.

There is nothing wrong the marking. Its fairly standard and doesnt differ from what most teams do in most games on set pieces. The difference is in the execution - the team is inexperienced and physically modest. If you look at Vestergaards goal when Brighton lost to Saints, no one had the physical capacity of stopping or even disturbing him. If you look at the goal yesterday several players could have stopped his running path but didnt, which is a sign of inexperience. This along with Dunks poor timing caused the goal. Not the pretty much obsolete decision between man or zonal marking.

Spot on. Saved me typing.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Its not supposed to be static, zonal marking doesnt mean you are glued to the ground. You should still be on your toes. The argument that zonal marking somehow prevented Dunk from jumping last night is just a very poor attempt of whitewashing his performance on the corner, it was a poorly timed jump from him, simple as that. Shit happens, unfortunately this is one of his few weaknesses so shit happens quite a lot.

Most teams today use a mix of zonal and man marking on set pieces. Straight up man marking died with data that said that man marking the players on the edge of the area making runs as the ball goes in is useless: their attacking player will be facing the goal when making his run, the defender will be running backwards and the result is that the attacking player will lose his marker.

The solution that pretty much every half-decent team found is that if you dont "man mark" these players and instead mark the zone where they are running, you have a better chance of getting rid of the ball than if you are running backwards (or have to turn around which loses you 1,5 seconds you cant afford). The players in the zone got a better chance to stop a) the ball and b) the player.

Predominantely man marking only works if your players are athletically superior to the opposition, which is rarely the case with Brighton.
.

You are at a distinct disadvantage to an onrushing player if you are in a stationery position, regardless of whether you are on your toes.

In terms of being athletically superior, the type of player Ashworth/GP appear to go for/select does not fit that description.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WATFORD zero]

It seems to me that often their most dangerous players at set pieces are making runs from quite far back at a zonal defence. Surely it's not beyond some of our smaller players (Maupay, Bissouma, March) to make a physical attempt to block that that run further out, so that they are not coming at full speed from some distance. I accept that the player may get beyond them, but I would expect professional athletes to be physically capable of disrupting the run, at the very least.

It's the lack of any significant blocking on their danger players at the start of their runs, rather than the system which is frustrating me. It's really not that complicated

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

So many good points however, the big thing with the zonal system is the inability to attack the ball, effectively it’s a standing jump which puts you at a disadvantage against on rushing opponent.

You simply have to have a combination of the two but Dunk and Webster should be man marking and Burn and Welbeck should remain zonal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with this and the main ability lacking is the blocking off. We are useless at it. Very rarely do we see our players blocking the main target. White yesterday was far too slow to cut the run off and block. Forget Dunk's error it's the blocks that stop the player from getting in the danger areas. It's appears to me to be the main fault of our team, our club, our manager, our coaches too ****ing nice. Blocking is part of the dark arts all of which we are poor at.

 

[beorhthelm]

major problem with zonal, especially if players are not full of confidence, is that they dont have to take responsibility for much. just motion towards the incoming ball and their job is done. far more sensible for the major threats to be man marked, and zonal for coverage.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Its not supposed to be static, zonal marking doesnt mean you are glued to the ground. You should still be on your toes. The argument that zonal marking somehow prevented Dunk from jumping last night is just a very poor attempt of whitewashing his performance on the corner, it was a poorly timed jump from him, simple as that. Shit happens, unfortunately this is one of his few weaknesses so shit happens quite a lot.

Most teams today use a mix of zonal and man marking on set pieces. Straight up man marking died with data that said that man marking the players on the edge of the area making runs as the ball goes in is useless: their attacking player will be facing the goal when making his run, the defender will be running backwards and the result is that the attacking player will lose his marker.

The solution that pretty much every half-decent team found is that if you dont "man mark" these players and instead mark the zone where they are running, you have a better chance of getting rid of the ball than if you are running backwards (or have to turn around which loses you 1,5 seconds you cant afford). The players in the zone got a better chance to stop a) the ball and b) the player.

Predominantely man marking only works if your players are athletically superior to the opposition, which is rarely* the case with Brighton.

There is nothing wrong the marking. Its fairly standard and doesnt differ from what most teams do in most games on set pieces. The difference is in the execution - the team is inexperienced and physically modest. If you look at Vestergaards goal when Brighton lost to Saints, no one had the physical capacity of stopping or even disturbing him. If you look at the goal yesterday several players could have stopped his running path but didnt, which is a sign of inexperience. This along with Dunks poor timing caused the goal. Not the pretty much obsolete decision between man or zonal marking.

This. All of it. I'd add that we often have three very big lads in the back three, yet the quality of their headed clearances from corners is matched only by the number of goals they nut in at the other end.

Perhaps, Brighton being a very progressive club, they are piloting the soon-to-be-introduced protocols for minimising head injuries and the risk of Alzheimer's among footballers?

Apart from this: *

How very dare you.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Surely a combination of blocking runs, 1 or 2 of our tallest players whose sole job is to attack the ball and the rest zonal would be better. The problem with man marking is that to do it effectively you have to foul attackers (holding them, grabbing shirts etc) which VAR will pick up on.

There was also some very good analysis on MOTD yesterday of our inability to block crosses in open play - there were 2 half arsed efforts by Biss and 1 from March which were highlighted (our goals conceded from crosses stats are crap too). We are not getting tight enough essentially, which should be easily fixed.