Zonal marking
- Thread starter AFCBilbo
- Start date
northstandmark
UTC Legend
Most teams use some form of zonal marking these days because number crunchers have determined that statistically it is better.
But I'd argue the definition of insanity is sticking with something that isn't working.
I know Willo wants us to man mark and keep it simple, and I know he gets labeled a bit of a dinosaur. Both points maybe valid to some extent.
At least in the SoD days we were crap defending set pieces because we were a small team, as the only technical players we could afford. These days we have plenty of tall lads, it's going to be more an organisation or concentration issue.
Ken Baileys Ghost
Plastic
What beggars belief is how many goals we have conceded to players unmarked on the far post
DJ
Moderator
It’s also easier to coach and drill, which enables players of a certain ability to purely concentrate on themselves rather than the duel with the opposition. You cover the key areas (although KBG’s post would dispute that) and you can also set yourself up better for a counter attack.
But of course you’re never the one attacking the ball with momentum so most of the time you’ll lose that one on one battle.
A mix of zonal and man marking was what Howe went with, probably difficult to coach, every week you’ve got to look at something different… it takes up a lot of time and intelligence. If you don’t have the players to make it work, why make the effort?
Is my guess. Could easily be wrong and would much rather the Howe approach (which wasn’t always perfect either).
But of course you’re never the one attacking the ball with momentum so most of the time you’ll lose that one on one battle.
A mix of zonal and man marking was what Howe went with, probably difficult to coach, every week you’ve got to look at something different… it takes up a lot of time and intelligence. If you don’t have the players to make it work, why make the effort?
Is my guess. Could easily be wrong and would much rather the Howe approach (which wasn’t always perfect either).
DJ
Moderator
Someone who understands it better than I might give this go.
I wouldn’t say either are as soft as what we’ve seen this season. So many players in our own six yard box for the first, sure, never have any chance of winning the second ball like that. But with that many numbers back and we still can’t win the second ball in to the box you’d wonder how we’d get on with fewer bodies trying it…
Third goal, I don’t think you’d have Nelson covered, if he was more central maybe, but you couldn’t cover all of them on the edge of the box?
Last edited:
EfanEchoCool
Reserves
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting, although the "coach" characters were a direct copy of Bobby Hill from King of the Hill.
Seems a long way from just putting your biggest lump on the opponents biggest lump and hoping for the best. I guess we are playing some sort of hybrid system, but it looks like our "zonal" players are the issue - I can't remember many goals coming off a direct corner - it always seems the 2nd or 3rd "play, where you would think the zonal players are more involved.
Matt Stevenson
First Team
Just to add to this debate. Arsenal were using a hybrid system (I think) with Partey marking Senesi, That didn’t work out too well and it was our only corner. We faced 17 corners. I’m not sure that per corner we were that bad, it is just if we face that many (because Arsenal are a very good side) something is likely to give
Kicks_On_66
First Team
It seems like some of the zones need to account for opponents on the edge of the box. One thing I did notice yesterday was that when Arsenal had a second player out near the corner taker (which was every time or nearly so, I think) Rothwell (and later Cook) went out to cover him, and Smith was behind him (regardless of right or left). So we had a system for that aspect of their corners, which maybe was successful as far as it went. On the death blow, our guys just did not quite get out there quick enough, which leads me to wonder if we don't need to pack the 6-yard box so heavily and have one or two guys cheat a little higher up.
Kudos
UTC Legend
Well said, there's a natural cognitive bias towards focusing on significant events. Not sure if it would be considered "overweighting outliers" or "cherry-picking" ...like it matters.
Basically, the average team in the average game wins about 10 corners a game. Every round of games normally results in 0-2 goals from corners. That's 20 teams taking 10 corners to achieve on average 1 goal give or take. So about 0.5% chance to score from a corner.
Corners also account typically for around 10% of all goals scored.
Sources:
Premier League corner stats (soccerstats.com)
football - What percent of corner kicks turn into goals? - Sports Stack Exchange (over a decade old but well explained)
statistics - What percentage of football goals originate from corner kicks? - Sports Stack Exchange
Kudos
UTC Legend
In overly simplistic terms the more people between the ball and the goal, the less chance there is of you conceding and the numbers seem to back that up. The benefit of a counterattack is less than the benefit of the added defence unless you've got nothing to lose.
