Liverpool FC Forum

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:28 am

we all dream... wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
alanricouk wrote:Because most don't exploit it like that.

Well, case closed then. We're very, very good at zonal marking (as our record reflects) and,as you admit, most teams don't have the nous to exploit it's weaknesses anyway so why would we contemplate binning it? Just because Riera failed to do his basic job on Monday doesn't mean the system's fatally flawed and teams can score for fun on set pieces. Like all systems, it has it's strengths and weaknesses (watch MOTD every week to see the weaknesses of man-to-man marking exploited) so it comes down to being well drilled (which we are) and minimizing the opportunities for teams to exploit weaknesses (which we do). No, our primarily problems are very much at the other end of the pitch and the last thing we need to concern ourselves with is fixing a system that isn't broken.

I couldn't agree more, well said

Yes and the point people only voice their concerns of zonal marking when it goes wrong. Which in Liverpool's case is very rarely.

by **Owzat** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:18 pm

SouthCoastShankly wrote:Yes and the point people only voice their concerns of zonal marking when it goes wrong. Which in Liverpool's case is very rarely.

Is that measuring it's success by goals conceded or by chances it opens up that don't get converted as well as those that do?

Or put another way, are you saying it "very rarely" goes wrong because we don't concede that many goals, are you (conveniently) overlooking the near and not so near misses that we get away with?

by **DanAn** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:56 pm

Owzat wrote:
SouthCoastShankly wrote:Yes and the point people only voice their concerns of zonal marking when it goes wrong. Which in Liverpool's case is very rarely.

Is that measuring it's success by goals conceded or by chances it opens up that don't get converted as well as those that do?

Or put another way, are you saying it "very rarely" goes wrong because we don't concede that many goals, are you (conveniently) overlooking the near and not so near misses that we get away with?

Surely the best way to work it out is % of corners/free kicks converted.

For example if 1 in 40 corners is converted against us while 1 in 30 is converted against other top clubs then there is something to be said about zonal marking.

Then you can go further and look at the corner conversion ratio against top clubs. But then we are starting to look like the NFL where it seems there is a stat for everything up to which side a players willy hangs.

by **alanricouk** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 1:58 pm

A third of our goals conceded last year where from set pieces.

by **Judge** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:10 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
alanricouk wrote:Because most don't exploit it like that.

Well, case closed then. We're very, very good at zonal marking (as our record reflects)

no good if we only have a one goal lead

by **Owzat** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:12 pm

Judge wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
alanricouk wrote:Because most don't exploit it like that.

Well, case closed then. We're very, very good at zonal marking (as our record reflects)

no good if we only have a one goal lead

Precisely.

Our 'record' also doesn't state how many chances were created by failings from zonal marking

by **milou** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:12 pm

DanAn wrote:
Owzat wrote:
SouthCoastShankly wrote:Yes and the point people only voice their concerns of zonal marking when it goes wrong. Which in Liverpool's case is very rarely.

Is that measuring it's success by goals conceded or by chances it opens up that don't get converted as well as those that do?

Or put another way, are you saying it "very rarely" goes wrong because we don't concede that many goals, are you (conveniently) overlooking the near and not so near misses that we get away with?

Surely the best way to work it out is % of corners/free kicks converted.

For example if 1 in 40 corners is converted against us while 1 in 30 is converted against other top clubs then there is something to be said about zonal marking.

Then you can go further and look at the corner conversion ratio against top clubs. But then we are starting to look like the NFL where it seems there is a stat for everything up to which side a players willy hangs.

I have been crying out for a direct comparison of "goals conceded from set-pieces" between Liverpool (who uses zonal marking) and other top teams (who use man-marking).

I think it will tell the story better than gut feeling or hear-say.

Unfortunately, I am not as good in data mining and statistic as some of the posters here..

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:34 pm

Owzat wrote:
SouthCoastShankly wrote:Yes and the point people only voice their concerns of zonal marking when it goes wrong. Which in Liverpool's case is very rarely.

Is that measuring it's success by goals conceded or by chances it opens up that don't get converted as well as those that do?

Or put another way, are you saying it "very rarely" goes wrong because we don't concede that many goals, are you (conveniently) overlooking the near and not so near misses that we get away with?

That we concede the odd good chance from set pieces (in addition to the occasional goal) shouldn't be all that surprising because set pieces tend to generate chances for the opposition. If they didn't, fans wouldn't applaud the winning of corners, free kicks or throw ins at Stoke and certain teams wouldn't rely on them to generate their only goal scoring opportunities in most matches. No matter how well drilled a side is and no matter what system they employ, set pieces will always lead to decent chances because that's their nature. So, the question is, can we meaningfully compare chances spurned from man marking vs. chances spurned from zonal marking then? Surely, man-marking at set pieces leads to just as many chances as zonal marking if not more? At least that's what my eyes tell me when I watch other teams play who man-mark in those situations.

Look, I've said it already, it's a system and like all systems it has strengths and weaknesses. We have adopted it, it largely works for us and there's no guarantee that abandoning it and returning to man marking would make us stronger. In the short term, IMO, it would severely weaken us because all of the drilling our lads do in the zonal system would mean that much would need to be unlearned before we really came to grips with a man marking system. While that was happening, we'd be leaking goals as people had to grow accustomed to their new defensive duties. Eventually, though, I'm sure we'd refine it to something really effective because, as lots of people like to remind us, Rafa really focuses on the defensive side of things. In a few weeks, I'd wager, we'd have one of the finest man-marking systems for defending set pieces in the league, such is the manager's skill on the defensive side of the ledger. But, here's the rub, would it be appreciably more effective than our current zonal system? And would making the switch be worth the teething problems that would undoubtedly insue? IMO, the answer to both questions is no.

So let's be practical about this. We're not going to change the way we defend set pieces mid-season nor is their compelling evidence to suggest that we need to change the system at all. It's a red herring, a straw man, a usual suspect, nothing more. We've got far bigger concerns than this.

by **stmichael** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:51 pm

Ordinarily, it proper pi$$es me off when we concede a corner and we bring back both strikers (Torres would take out 2 opposition players if he stood on the halfway line). I defy anyone on earth to convince me that defending a corner 10 vs 10 is better than having 9 vs 8).

That's the problem with defending zonally. As a result it's never 10 players vs 8 or whatever, it 10 players vs 10 zones in the box. Take out one or two of those players and you leave one or two zones free for an opposing player.

by **GRAHAM01** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:42 pm

good point, just think if they did push 10 against 9 and pepe gets the ball 1 long throw and a goal for torres job done

by **we all dream...** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:52 pm

stmichael wrote:Ordinarily, it proper pi$$es me off when we concede a corner and we bring back both strikers (Torres would take out 2 opposition players if he stood on the halfway line). I defy anyone on earth to convince me that defending a corner 10 vs 10 is better than having 9 vs 8).

That's the problem with defending zonally. As a result it's never 10 players vs 8 or whatever, it 10 players vs 10 zones in the box. Take out one or two of those players and you leave one or two zones free for an opposing player.

But Rafa could decide we are always going to have a player on the halfway line and then have 9 players and nine zones each zone a little bigger than before...

by **dawson99** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:04 pm

we all dream... wrote:
stmichael wrote:Ordinarily, it proper pi$$es me off when we concede a corner and we bring back both strikers (Torres would take out 2 opposition players if he stood on the halfway line). I defy anyone on earth to convince me that defending a corner 10 vs 10 is better than having 9 vs 8).

That's the problem with defending zonally. As a result it's never 10 players vs 8 or whatever, it 10 players vs 10 zones in the box. Take out one or two of those players and you leave one or two zones free for an opposing player.

But Rafa could decide we are always going to have a player on the halfway line and then have 9 players and nine zones each zone a little bigger than before...

the man has a point!

by **we all dream...** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:23 pm

dawson99 wrote:
we all dream... wrote:
stmichael wrote:Ordinarily, it proper pi$$es me off when we concede a corner and we bring back both strikers (Torres would take out 2 opposition players if he stood on the halfway line). I defy anyone on earth to convince me that defending a corner 10 vs 10 is better than having 9 vs 8).

That's the problem with defending zonally. As a result it's never 10 players vs 8 or whatever, it 10 players vs 10 zones in the box. Take out one or two of those players and you leave one or two zones free for an opposing player.

But Rafa could decide we are always going to have a player on the halfway line and then have 9 players and nine zones each zone a little bigger than before...

the man has a point!

Most teams only send 8 up anyway dont they??? which would mean we would have 9 men marking a zone with 8 people.. instead of 10men marking a 8man zone.

Torres should always be on the half way line. 4defenders. 4 midfielders and 1 striker should be able to deal with 8 attacking players in the box, from a freekick/corner with the same efficiency as if Torres was back there.

This is something I will never understand and/or agree with.

The loss of losing a goal has become a lot more important than scoring one for LFc and many other clubs.

by **Dundalk** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:19 pm

Both Gabriele Marcotti in the Times and a Man Utd blog called stretford-end.com examine the zonal marking system we employ and discover that the myth doesn't match the facts. Andy Gray and co could do with reading these articles. Here's an extract.Quite frankly, that Liverpool are poor at defending set pieces has become the biggest falsehood since it was claimed that Chesney Hawkes was the future of music.

The truth is that Liverpool only conceded from two corners all last season, both coming in Premiership games (Chelsea away and Everton at home). In total the Reds faced 137 corners in the league, meaning Benítez's men conceded on just 1.5 per cent of them. Only one team, Chelsea, were able to come even close to that, allowing three goals from 127 (2.4 per cent).n terms of goals conceded from free-kicks delivered into the box, Liverpool also allowed only two in the Premiership all season, again one less than Chelsea. So the Reds conceded one-third fewer league goals than the next-best team when defending set-pieces.

by **Sabre** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:15 pm

I was doubting to comment this in the match thread.

In games like yesterday some pundits will say that Manchester weren't what they normally are. They'll say that Ronaldo and Rooney had a day off.

What they won't explain, don't ask why, is that's the consequence of a superbly executed zonal marking over those players. Fabio Aurelio dealt with Ronaldo succesfully, because the team did a perfect work in the "helpings", and you could see Leiva and Mascherano on those tasks all the time.

Yesterday game was a master example of zonal marking in open play.

Liverpool FC Forum

Zonal marking... - The discussion thread!

Who is online