Back post - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Back post


er yir macaroon

Recommended Posts

There's nothing wrong with zonal marking. Like anything, it has to be coached and carried out correctly though. Zonal marking should actually give an advantage at it'll let a defending player get a run on the ball (players don't just stand still and cover the 2 square meters they are standing in...) and out jump a more static opponent. 

Whether Strachan can't coach or whether our players can't play it, who knows? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, girvanTA said:

everyone knows their job

Everyone knows their job in zonal marking too :lol: 

And you should actually benefit by having multiple players covering areas, rather than one player covering one man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they?

3 headers lost in the box at Wembley suggests that they don't know their job.

3 goals lost in Slovakia.

Ok 1st goal was on the counter but Scotland had a total of 9 men defending in the box and 7 in front of the ball! Second goal lost in Slovakia our defending was terrible almost like they were taking part of the mannequin challange. 3rd goal lost in Slovakia was another header, this time in between 2 defenders

So tell me again about the benefits of Scotland using zonal marking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, er yir macaroon said:

I believe our players are getting out jumped because zonal marking can leave them flat footed.

No setup leaves a man flat footed, they might get out jumped because someone has a run on them and they get up early and have the momentum running towards the goal but the defender should be bouncing on his toes regardless. That's down to being lazy which comes from being tired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, girvanTA said:

Do they?

3 headers lost in the box at Wembley suggests that they don't know their job.

3 goals lost in Slovakia.

Ok 1st goal was on the counter but Scotland had a total of 9 men defending in the box and 7 in front of the ball! Second goal lost in Slovakia our defending was terrible almost like they were taking part of the mannequin challange. 3rd goal lost in Slovakia was another header, this time in between 2 defenders

So tell me again about the benefits of Scotland using zonal marking?

Not sure he said anything about Scotland using zonal marking.

 

Just that there was nothing wrong with it (presumably when not performed by dummies).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, er yir macaroon said:

the problem is if an attacking player runs into a different zone full of static defenders...

Nope. Defenders will attack zones in front of them. They won't stand still and mark the 3 square meters around them... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sbcmfc said:

I think a better 3rd word in your sentence would be SHOULD

Aye, just like defenders should track their man and beat him to the ball in man-marking... 

It's a system that can be very effective when employed correctly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter which system you use if the defender doesn't get off the ground like Hanley against Slovakia. 

The zonal versus man to man marking argument will always be skewed because when a team loses a set piece goal when they're marking zonal people say "wouldn't have happened if they marked man to man". However a team loses a set piece goal when they're marking man to man and nobody ever says "wouldn't have happened if they marked zonal", they say "it was his fault for losing his man".

As has been said elsewhere they can both work well as long as the players are good and they're coached well. Not sure either is the case with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Dodger said:

Doesn't matter which system you use if the defender doesn't get off the ground like Hanley against Slovakia. 

The zonal versus man to man marking argument will always be skewed because when a team loses a set piece goal when they're marking zonal people say "wouldn't have happened if they marked man to man". However a team loses a set piece goal when they're marking man to man and nobody ever says "wouldn't have happened if they marked zonal", they say "it was his fault for losing his man".

As has been said elsewhere they can both work well as long as the players are good and they're coached well. Not sure either is the case with us.

Yes, but which is the easiest to get right if they only have 4 days training?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...