er yir macaroon Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Should there have been someone on the back post for the corner at England's third goal? Also, I believe our players are getting out jumped because zonal marking can leave them flat footed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Should always cover the posts and Zonal markng is awful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girvanTA Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Zonal marking is terrible, I hate seeing it and I hate losing goals because it's used. It should be man for man and then everyone knows their job Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Just now, girvanTA said: everyone knows their job Everyone knows their job in zonal marking too And you should actually benefit by having multiple players covering areas, rather than one player covering one man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
er yir macaroon Posted November 16, 2016 Author Share Posted November 16, 2016 the problem is if an attacking player runs into a different zone full of static defenders... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
girvanTA Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McTeeko Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 Man-for-man marking every time for me. Match up height for height. There's your man, do whatever you can (fairly) that stops him getting his head to the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calmc92 Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marky Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
er yir macaroon Posted November 16, 2016 Author Share Posted November 16, 2016 29 minutes ago, Parklife said: Nope. Defenders will attack zones in front of them. They won't stand still and mark the 3 square meters around them... It's easier to get wrong, especially with only a few days on the training pitch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 35 minutes ago, Parklife said: Nope. Defenders will attack zones in front of them. They won't stand still and mark the 3 square meters around them... I think a better 3rd word in your sentence would be SHOULD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
er yir macaroon Posted November 16, 2016 Author Share Posted November 16, 2016 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 15 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said: Yes, but which is the easiest to get right if they only have 4 days training? That would depend entirely on the players and coaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.