Can someone smarter than me explain why it is that a coach would prefer zonal coverage over man coverage on a set piece?
Why Zone Coverage instead of Man Coverage?
Can someone smarter than me explain why it is that a coach would prefer zonal coverage over man coverage on a set piece?
WE DID IT!
Aren't defenses generally always in a state of flux between Zonal and Man Marking ?
a ha ha heh he hoo.. ha
Have we given up a goal on a set piece this year? I seem to remember TFC has always had a problem with that but not this year. What's wrong with mixing that tactics up?
Houston and Dallas.Originally Posted by Richard
Its a talking point for pundits.They read discussions of it in the UK media and thing, "Hey, I can discuss that when TFC comes around."
For me, zonal is easier to teach when people are unsure. Stick to this area and look around.
If you play man to man, you have to not only watch your guy but be ready to cover if somebody loses their guy and he comes near to you. You also need decent athletes, who trust each other.
Oh god that Balboa guy was a pain to listen to on the last game feed. He kept saying that during corner kicks and while yes, it is preferable to mark your man; he failed to point out that as soon as the ball was in the air the "zone" collapsed as defenders went to pick up some of the moving pieces of the Colorado attack.
Honestly, he just wanted to hear the sound of his own voice.
he is also a massive tool, like most US commentators
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
He reminded me of the fat guy from Penn and Teller (forget which one's which)
No experts here, my view:
Man to man: works well against teams lack creativity, it's the simplest one to instruct but against creative teams, movements will drag the formation out of shape and cause confusion on the coverage due to tracking and traffic, it will result in spaces being exploited by the opposition.
Zonal: works well against all types of teams, but it calls for greater quality of players to effectively cover the designated zone and know when to shift the zone if one zone is being overrun by multiple opposition players, lack of football IQ or split decision making qualities of defending players would also create space between zones for the opposition to exploit
A mix of zonal plus limited man to man marking of specific key players will be more effective and i think that's more evident these days,
however, doesn't matter which approach it is, smarter players/teams can always create chances against teams that has little cohesion or familiarity of each other (or just outright lacks quality)
so there, i said a bunch of nothing, lol
Have a read through this - Benetiz on why he used Zonal Marking. Read the comments as well - he answers a lot of them. A key point he keeps making is picking the right system based on the players at hand.
http://www.rafabenitez.com/web/index...ag=3&idioma=in
Penn. Teller doesn't talk.
Between them and the ex-brit "my accent means I know what I'm saying" contingent, there just isn't much quality content period.
There's a few good ones out there (on both sides of the fence) but generally we've got a long way to go before anyone renders something that could be mistaken for insight.
Well think about it, if you were any good as a football commentator, you'd be making money somewhere in England, where there are 2 commentator sets for many EPL games and sometimes 3. And every game above the Conference has a radio set covering. Plus, any team with its own TV station (quite a few) have their own coverage team as well.
What we need is a TV football commentator loan system, where up and comers who have done radio but lack experience can come over and get some games in before they head back to the big team.
This...depends on situation.
On set pieces it's usually best to use man-man coverage. Too close quarters to have to figure out who's in what zone and then cover them.
The Rapids were playing the corner where all their big guys start on the edge of the penalty box and run in all together - that's really hard to defend marking man on man. If you man mark, it means that all your own players end up running backwards towards their own goal. It's much easier to have zonal marking in that case - I saw the zonal in the Rapids game more than any of the other TFC games so far, so it may have been designed to counteract the Rapids corner routine.
zonal marking means your jumping without moving vs an attacking players who has had the ability to run and jump; tell me who gets up higher for the ball if all other things are equal
But even then you have a combination of sorts. Anyone who looks like they're going to be directly in the play (ie, in and around the 6 yard box / penalty spot on a corner) will likely be picked up with a marker, but those around the periphery won't - unless they encroach too near the danger area.
It's pretty standard in North America to teach man-marking in the box for set pieces and zonal outside of the box (and I know, I've taught it that way too). Just because it's standard doesn't mean that other ways can't and haven't worked well. It's lazy criticism for pundits to say that the standard way is the only way one should do things. If there is anything I trust Nelsen on (and he's still unproven to me) it will be having an effective defense.
MLS is a tough, physical league, that emphasizes speed, and features plastic fields, grueling travel, extreme weather, and incompetent refs. - NK Toronto
Zone marking especially on set pieces/in the box seems pretty dangerous at first glance. I would love to know how they plan & train for that in detail.
However, an obvious problem with man-marking in these situations: attackers can do a bunch of things to get free such as start altogether in a bunch; run crossing paths into their final positions; and even set basketball-style picks (which you can't blatantly do in open play, but which are impossible to police when there are a bunch of bodies standing & flying around in the box). As a result, a couple of people can easily get free. The better teams, with accurate free kicks and smart movement, can usually get a couple of key players open in pre-planned dangerous spots for a good look at goal.
Ya I mean there will always be a free player or two to pick up the odd man out on man-man coverage. It's never really 100% either way.
For example - You put a guy on the back post and he has a good view of who is left open and should be able to pick up the unmarked man if close by
pure zonal marking also has the disadvantage of potential mismatch for 1v1 defending, ie a small defender is forced to defend against a tall attacker. if I was a tall attacker, I'd be running into area where a small defender is defending. so, zonal marking is better when the average height is pretty tall
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote