Zonal marking

[MikeH72]

That's exactly how I see it.

The theory is great. Get a player to mark a zone as their responsibility. But, the player has to understand that the game actually moves and they have to react. Their 'zone' isn't a 3m x 3m square on the pitch, it is subject to a bit of movement.

Our players are just a bit thick.

You can see them all look at each other confused when a goal goes in. One of them is like “he scored in your zone” and someone else is like “well he was in your zone originally” and no one seems to know whose responsibility it is to stop that player from scoring. As you said these players are actually thick, stop over complicating things for them.

 

[siddharth]

The problem is that our players are coached to believe that by simply occupying their “zone” then they’ve done their job. They are so thick that they don’t factor in a travelling ball and opposition players actually making movements in the box so that they move from one “zone” into another.

This is what irks me greatly, I am not sure by seeing our players if there are very strict rules for positional play considering defense and very fluid positioning rules when we are on offense. It feels very much like a 'mind your own business' style, which I don't know if it's imparted or inborn.

 

[MikeH72]

I actually don’t mind Dyche however zonal has never worked for anyone has it?

There is no inherently right or wrong system, it’s all about coaching. Man to man has its disadvantages too because you’re relying on that individual player winning his individual dual against his man, and obviously the “man” varies week to week. Tarkowski scored against Brentford who strictly man to man marked, because he simply bullied his marker off the ball. In a zonal system there might’ve been someone stood on the six yard line that’s just head that away, or that’d be the keeper’s “zone” and he’d have come and collected it.

It’s lazy to simply blame zonal marking as a concept. It’s all about coaching. That can’t be stressed enough. Whatever we’re doing on the training ground isn’t working and that is a Dyche issue.

 

[siddharth]

I actually don’t mind Dyche however zonal has never worked for anyone has it?

There is evidence that a hybrid works the same way the argument for man-marking is Park-Ji-Sung for Utd on Messi at Barca, the hybrid one is Mourinho's Tactics for Inter on Messi at Barca. We just seem to be very bad at identifying opposition key players and conveying the necessary tactics for effective zonal or hybrid marking tactics.

 

[Lob]

We have always been very bad at it so change the 'narrative' and do something different that works.

 

[Parker]

Zonal ain't the issue but I do agree Dyche is lazy.

We have 1 offensive corner set up and 1 defensive corner set up.

If any manager with a brain has nearly an entire week to plan against that then it is easy work for them. Just look at the Arsenal game.

But yeah, Dyche is just the latest in a line of stubborn, crap managers.

 

[Davideeyore]

Zones don’t score , players do . Mark a bloody player . Not hard , is it

We have always been very bad at it so change the 'narrative' and do something different that works.

Why do we have managers that seem to persist with things that clearly don't work?

Most of the managers that have come and gone have persisted with something or other and if it hadn't led to their downfall it led to problems. Remember Martinez pass pass pass pass around at the back?

Are we some kind of experimental ground for managers?

 

[siddharth]

Why do we have managers that seem to persist with things that clearly don't work?

Most of the managers that have come and gone have persisted with something or other and if it hadn't led to their downfall it led to problems. Remember Martinez pass pass pass pass around at the back?

Are we some kind of experimental ground for managers?

Think the word you are looking for is a 'learning experience'.

 

[ultra]

Set-piece defending is embarrassing, whatever label is given to it. It’s a coaching issue

 

[degsy]

This just screams out as lazy coaching. It's a very easy way to get away without doing research on the opposition. Instead of working hard all week discussing who is marking who during which scenarios, the coaches can get early nights and put their feet up during training by coaching this one size fits all tactic.

It doesn't work, it's lazy management and every goal we concede is due to it.This just only works when it's done very, very, well by well coached very good players

1) we don't do Anything very, very well - except coque-up
2) we're Not well coached
3) we don't have very good players.

Solution; Attack the 'kin ball - Not mark a space where the ball 'might' land

 

[windymiller]

Mate we have heard the it’s not zonal marking but how we do it from Silva and he persisted with it and we literally looked like we would concede from every set piece.

It looked like the oppositions could score whenever a goal was needed.

Same with bobby too

Yes, we have had a lot of poor coaches.

 

[cronullasharks]

It also doesn't help when you've got a keeper that's never coming to collect the ball and stays rooted to the line. Easier to score from 6 yards than 12 yards.

 

[pfim]

It only works when it's done very, very, well by well coached very good players

1) we don't do Anything very, very well - except coque-up
2) we're Not well coached
3) we don't have very good players.

Solution; Attack the 'kin ball - Not mark a space where the ball 'might' land

It's not that difficult. I can't say I'd trust our players to man mark either.

The defenders are more likely to attack the ball in a zonal system (that's why they're "free") than man marking.

The zonal players on Saturday were too deep for an outswinger. There were plenty of warning signs before the goal on the corner but they still sat back deep. On the goal, Tarkowski got closer to the first header than they had previously, but still didn't put up much resistance. The rest was luck in it hitting Pickford off the crossbar, and then a lack of luck/quickness by Young to get the ball off the line.

 

[degsy]

It's not that difficult.

It appears it is though

I can't say I'd trust our players to man mark either.

The (2) CBs Attack the ball, we've enough other 'big' guys to 'mark' players

The defenders are more likely to attack the ball in a zonal system (that's why they're "free") than man marking.

Apart from they're doing neither.

The zonal players on Saturday were too deep for an outswinger.

thats because they have to stay in their zones - mark the space...just in case.
Which is why Zonal done badly ( like we do) is way too 1 dimensional
We only need to mark / attack 1 space - the space where the ball IS

There were plenty of warning signs before the goal on the corner but they still sat back deep. On the goal, Tarkowski got closer to the first header than they had previously, but still didn't put up much resistance. The rest was luck in it hitting Pickford off the crossbar, and then a lack of luck/quickness by Young to get the ball off the line.

 

[pfim]

It appears it is though

The (2) CBs Attack the ball, we've enough other 'big' guys to 'mark' players

Apart from they're doing neither.

thats because they have to stay in their zones - mark the space...just in case.
Which is why Zonal done badly ( like we do) is way too 1 dimensional
We only need to mark / attack 1 space - the space where the ball IS

2 CBs free to attack the ball is a form of zonal marking.

On an outswinger the zones need to be pushed up because the ball will obviously swing outwards. Our guys stayed in the 6 yard box.

It's planning and coaching, it isn't the system we're using.

We need to mark more than one space...it would be even easier to score against us if we ball-watched?