Liverpool FC Forum

dawson99 wrote:So you stick with the zone, not the man?
It must work, as we have a great record, but it does seem complex

Fo Dne wrote:

I'm happy to read that everyone around here seems to understand the zonal defence both in set pieces and open play, so this is an excellent opportunity to discuss deeper the zonal defence, as there are aspects of it that I don't recall to have discussed in newkit ever (I'll mention them at the end of the post).

I would first admit that I don't have that much knowledge on this topic but would comment based on my observation and logic:

I cannot see/think of how we use or have been using "zonal defence" in open-play cos I don't see how we play differently compared to other teams TBH. In open-play, everyone is constantly REACTING to the situation.. while trying to keep some kind of formation.

Sometimes you just have to leave your zone (if there is one) to close attackers down urgently... often bcos someone has left a void behind (say Dossena is still panting in the other half ). That's why we occasionally see Carra/Hyypia are being forced to step-up and defend way higher or to the left/right.. leaving another void behind for someone else (hopefully Arbeloa is still lurking nearby).

You just cannot stick to your zone (if there is one) under "emergency" situation, bcos you are inviting trouble by allowing free shots at goal!

In my mind, I would think EVERY team plays a combination of "man-mark" & "zonal" marking in OPEN-PLAY.. throughout the match.

So if there is such a concept of zonal marking in OPEN-PLAY and someone knows how it works (esp how it differs from what I described above), then I would appreciate some explanation.

Yes, you stick with the zone rather than the man. I personally think its a great system and by far the best way of defending set peices.

I think if you look at the ability (or lack of) that Liverpool have in the air then I think this proves it by [/B] our defensive record from these situations.

I think we need some statistics (from owzat?  ) before we can really conclude that we really do concede less from set-pieces.

This will settle the argument once and for all.

Sabre wrote:

So if there is such a concept of zonal marking in OPEN-PLAY and someone knows how it works (esp how it differs from what I described above), then I would appreciate some explanation.

I don't know how the other teams play well (only watch them 2-3 times a year, against us), so I don't know well if they use the same defence pattern as ours.

But yes, the zonal defence concept exists in open play, and at least us, we use it all the time.

And yes, you're right, there are urgency situations. And yes, there will be times in which the CB will have to follow the striker's movements, and other times in which they will not. There are a lot of things to be discussed.

Sabre.. I probably missed a lot of the previous discussion on zonal marking but I can't see how we play any differently from others, to be really really honest.

EVERY team starts with a formation for the 10 outfield players, each having a unique position and role to play. So yes, you can say there is a "zone" for everyone.

So unless really necessary, you rarely see a defender in the opponent's box or an attacker defending in front of your own goal. Such situations sometimes do happen bcos there is suddenly a need to "man-mark" a certain player or there is a unqiue space to exploit, otherwise not possible by someone else.. so you are forced to move out of your "zone".

My point?

I think EVERY team plays with a "zonal" system, interspersed with & "man-marking" in open-play. It is a given so I don't think it is something unique to Liverpool.

For set-pieces, I would say Liverpool clearly deploys "zonal defence" method which are significantly different from other teams who use "man-marking" method.

But, I think Milou I have written enough for new year day, and I preffer reading a bit to others.

Anyway, take your time to reply. Happy new year!   

milou wrote:

Sabre wrote:

So if there is such a concept of zonal marking in OPEN-PLAY and someone knows how it works (esp how it differs from what I described above), then I would appreciate some explanation.

I don't know how the other teams play well (only watch them 2-3 times a year, against us), so I don't know well if they use the same defence pattern as ours.

But yes, the zonal defence concept exists in open play, and at least us, we use it all the time.

And yes, you're right, there are urgency situations. And yes, there will be times in which the CB will have to follow the striker's movements, and other times in which they will not. There are a lot of things to be discussed.

Sabre.. I probably missed a lot of the previous discussion on zonal marking but I can't see how we play any differently from others, to be really really honest.

EVERY team starts with a formation for the 10 outfield players, each having a unique position and role to play. So yes, you can say there is a "zone" for everyone.

So unless really necessary, you rarely see a defender in the opponent's box or an attacker defending in front of your own goal. Such situations sometimes do happen bcos there is suddenly a need to "man-mark" a certain player or there is a unqiue space to exploit, otherwise not possible by someone else.. so you are forced to move out of your "zone".

My point?

I think EVERY team plays with a "zonal" system, interspersed with & "man-marking" in open-play. It is a given so I don't think it is something unique to Liverpool.

For set-pieces, I would say Liverpool clearly deploys "zonal defence" method which are significantly different from other teams who use "man-marking" method.

But, I think Milou I have written enough for new year day, and I preffer reading a bit to others.

Anyway, take your time to reply. Happy new year!   

dawson99 wrote:Zonal marking is a copout. It takes the responsibility away from the player who just ends up saying "I was marking my patch of grass"
there needs to be flexibility and we need certain people marking certain people, not certain patches. Is that how it works? So what if our smallest lad is marking one zone, where the best attacker is...
needs to be mroe man to man in my opinion for what it's worth.

kazza wrote:

bigmick wrote:

kazza wrote:

Leonmc0708 wrote:When it was intoriduced it was weird.

It made us the best team defensively for the last few years.

Discussion over.

And if you go back to check those old threads you will find most saying how it will never work and we don't have the players for it etc etc. Raffa then brought in Pellegrino and everyone said he was , useless. Now he is our defensive coach, obviously he was brought in to teach the players how to play the system. Someone should bump those old threads to see the gems some came up with.

Some things never change.

This is getting quite worrying (probably for both of us) as once again I agree with you. Those threads from four or five years ago should be interesting reading, and you're right some things never do change.

I'm probaly talking about rotation in those threads but also saying I agree with the move towards zonal marking (as I did at the time as I recall), while some other posters will be talking about anything and everything as long as it doesn't include football.

I think you should do some digging though, you never know what you might find. You might even find the odd poster who liked the signing of Pelligrino and thought he would come good. Total nonsense as it turned out, but i do remember the odd poster saying it  .

Did actually find a thread called "Zonal defence, will it work?" and you were the author and another by me defending it (those were the good old days when I talked football)    . Most seemed to attack the system in the match threads.

Ah so you did look then, good man  I wonder, in the thread which was entitled "zonal defence, will it work" what was my conclusion as you omitted to put it up 

Thought so.



To come back to Sabre's absolutely excellent post, I found it educational and I'll be watching carefully from now on the open play part of his analysis.

I would say though that when the vast majority of people (including me) are discussing "zonal" marking, they are talking about set-pieces. Zonal marking in open play takes place almost by definition and accident, in the sense that most teams play a left back regardless of whether the opposition plays a right winger, simply because they take the view that you really ought to have somebody there filling the space. That fella is marking that zone so once again by definition is defending zonally.

His points about pressing the ball and his diagoinal lines were the bit which made me sit up, not because I disagreee and hopefully not because I don't understand what he's on about, just because I haven't seen it described as such. The one area in which I would probably differ is that I think in games where we looking to suck the life out of proceedings, we actively encourage teams to play into the centre of the pitch and then run out of options. We might find this "diagoinal line" or Christmas tree thing then is inverted into a funnel shape  (and I smile here because I get the impresion having read that bit back that there is the distinct impression I am talking b0ll0cks).

On the question of us being one of the hardest teams in World football to play and score against, I don't agree with that and think that is people getting a bit carried away. For sure if we set ourselves up to defend, go for a 0-0 and all that I'd take us over most teams to succeed, but Owzat's stats in this case are irrefutable, we concede our share of goals, particularly for a team who has for much of Rafa's tenure played with two sitters. From set-pieces we are excellent, elsewhere defensively we are merely very good IMHO.

As far as Kuyt is concerned with his "steals" and his harrying for 90 minutes, I stick to my point on the other thread. Of course we are in agreement that you have to defend from the front, and that if you are as defensively minded as we are you couldn't carry a Berbatov poncing around checking his fingernails up front. Effective defense and control of football matches though doesn't and never has required on bloke running around like a lunatic, flying from one side of the pitch to the other. Play against Man Utd and you'd rather Vidic bring it out of defence than Ferdinand. If Ferdinand does bring it out you might try and pick his pocket, but he is the better footballer of the two. Play against Liverpool and you'd rather Hyppia bring it out than Agger, infact you'd positively encourage Sami to advance with the ball knowing he had no way of getting back. People used to talk about Riise hoofing it without noticing how many times the opposition corner him and give him no options. They know in such a situation he will hoof it, and that's effective team play.

All in all though, it's an interesting subject and unsurprisingly everyone has their individual take on it. Running around like a loony though is just about as effective going forwards as it is going backwards. Kuyt's endeavour is vital to the team as it sets the tempo, gives us a rhythm. I do find though when he's playing cetrally he too many "options" (or even possibilities) in which to channel his perpetual motion, and it can be detrimental. When he's on the right, it's just the poor left back who has to put up with his "annoying drunk at a party" routine.

milou wrote:

Yes, you stick with the zone rather than the man. I personally think its a great system and by far the best way of defending set peices.

I think if you look at the ability (or lack of) that Liverpool have in the air then I think this proves it by [/B] our defensive record from these situations.

I think we need some statistics (from owzat?  ) before we can really conclude that we really do concede less from set-pieces.

This will settle the argument once and for all.