Already been discussed, and the forum has mixed opinions regarding what we think of it
NYCFC Players Wanted Thread
- Thread starter NYCFC_Dan
- Start date
I’m not going to go look for the stats, but I’m pretty sure zonal marking on corners is worse than man marking. Almost none of the top clubs in Europe employ the tactic. The last few seasons NYCFC was gashed using it especially when teams overloaded a single area.
I think this last part goes for just about everything here, hahaAlready been discussed, and the forum has mixed opinions regarding what we think of it
Already been discussed, and the forum has mixed opinions regarding what we think of it
Haha thanks. Getting back in the swing of things over here after lurking for a while. Dome disillusioned me but I’m back
It's the old joke: two soccer fans, 10 opinions. ...wait, that's not how it goes...
It's okay! Just wanted you to be aware that there's probably three pages worth of back and forth about him
I'll look for stats when I get a minute. For now, I wonder if this is an availability heuristic.
For any who don't know, availability heuristic is when you overestimate the prevalence of something because specific examples are easy to think of.
In this case I suspect zonal appears worse because when it fails, the cause is blamed on zonal marking. When man to man fails, no one blames the strategy. Commentators instead blame the specific player who lost their man. So we hear about zonal failing all the time but never the same for man.
I've always wondered this as well. Mostly because when a goal is conceded while zonal marking, every time the announcers harp against zonal marking as if it is the most terrible idea. But it's used fairly often enough that there has to be a particular reason why it is.
I did a very quick Google search and unfortunately did not find a particular good answer in regards to stats on this. The paper at the following link noted this: "Myth 8: When defending a corner, zonal marking is the least effective method o Busted: A hybrid defense concedes most dangerous shots (12% conversion, p < 0.05)".
However, they don't provide all the results, so all we know is hybrid is the worst (and don't know where man or zonal stands). This is also only based on data from the 16-17 PL season, so that could also have an effect on sample size, style of play, etc.
http://www.sloansportsconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2007.pdf
I don’t know, maybe.
Zonal defending of set pieces is a system that has systemic flaws that doesn’t allow players to immediately be in a position to contest the ball. That’s not to say that there are times when a player is in the correct position and still has an opportunity to contest and is beaten. Whereas man-marking set pieces always accounts for each attacker being defended/contested (unless the players miscommunicate and leave somebody free which obviously happens). A player may be beaten but that down to individual performance and not a failure in the system. I like playing knowing that as many loose variables have been eliminated and success comes down to player vs player. If theirs beats ours because of a great play, it is what it is. If theirs beat ours because the tactics didn’t give us a chance to contest, well that’s on us.
Basically true of zone defense failures in any sport. And not to disagree, but perhaps, I hope, clarify or push the idea a bit further, I think spectators are making an understandable distinction between execution failure and design failure.
In most sports, man covers are probably more prone to execution failure than zone is. But zone defense is more likely subject to design failure when a well executed overload puts the defenders in an impossible situation. Man marking/cover/defense might have more failures overall, but zone failure is much more likely to be due to a design flaw ("did we even have anyone who was supposed to handle that guy?!?!") than man is. I think that's what people pick up on.
Now, being more susceptible to execution failure is a sort of meta-level design flaw, but that's, well, meta.
Mgar, the whole time I read your post I was muttering to myself that if players can lose their marks that's a flaw in the system. Then you went meta. Very nice.
Whether the flaw is inherent or meta I'll take the system that yields fewer goals. I found this about Benitez employing zonal:
Zonal marking and the attached ‘criticism’ is however, one of those things that only gets highlighted when it goes wrong and therefore gives the perception that it is indeed an unworkable and vulnerable tactic that isn’t to be trusted or relied upon, whether it be the first minute or the 117th minute of the Champions League final. However, as Rafa Benitez rightly points out on his own website (rafabenitez.com), Liverpool were twice best at preventing goals from set pieces in the Premier League during his time and they were consistently inside the top four teams at defending set pieces, with the exception of just one season.
Of course, that's anecdotal and proves nothing. Then there's this:
The aim of this study was to explore tactical behaviour when defending corner kicks within the English Premier League. Specifically, the types of marking and defensive players positioned at the goalposts were investigated. A total of 436 corner kicks from 50 English Premier League games were analysed. The most commonly used marking system was one-to-one marking (90.1% of total corners), with zonal marking being used less often (9.9% of total corners). There was no significant association between the marking set-up and the number of attempts at goal conceded when defending corner kicks (p>0.05). However, teams who applied zonal marking conceded fewer goals and fewer attempts at goal than teams who used one-to-one marking. The most common set-up for defenders positioned at the goalposts was having a defender positioned only on the far post (47.3% of total corners). There was no significant association between the positioning of defensive players at goalposts and the number of attempts at goal conceded when defending corner kicks. A further detailed analysis of defending corner kicks is still required and suggestions have been made for future studies.
The rest seems to be behind a firewall, and I'm not paying $43. Seems like a small sample since fewer than 50 zonal kicks were analyzed. But if we did take it as accurate, then of interest to me would be that the first article suggests zonal is a stronger counter-attack system while the second article says zonal and man are equally effective defensively. Given that, even if it feels worse from a fan psychology perspective, I'll take the zonal. Of course, I'd still like to see more data.
I’d like to know if zonal marking is better or worse for a team of ‘limited’ height.
I'll throw this name out for a DP. Odion Ighalo. His club in China got relegated. Dude was a beast with Watford
Andre Schurrle. I know he’s on an 18 month lon deal. But there’s no way he’s headed to the Championship.
Jr. has an Ighalo Watford shirt, so I'm all in. I think he rips it up.
We can wish all we want if the club doesn't spend the necessary amount it's all moot.
(Narrator voice): It was all moot
Similar threads
