Liverpool FC Forum

tonyeh wrote:

GYBS wrote:Doesnt set peices come under overall defensive record and strength then ? defensive record since zonal marking was introduced is one of the best around .

p.s. Arsenal just conceded from a set peice using drum roll ............................................ man marking

Sometimes I think you are deliberately being a fucking ejit GYBS.

The "overall defensive record" will not show up deficiencies in a single area. Therefore, using as a retort to the very obvious problems Liverpool have in defending SET PIECES is redundant.

Also, NOBODY IS SAYING THAT MAN MARKING WILL NEVER LET A GOAL IN. So that's also a redundant point.

Liverpool have a very, very serious problem in the way they are defending from corners and the like. That problem is that they are not picking up their opposite numbers as they are told to mark a zone and not a man. This leaves opposition players free to roam around the box and gives corner kickers the edge.

agreeeeeeeed


but if it (ZM) overall reduces the amount of goals you concede then overall your results will probably be better...

of course the overall numbers matter 

tonyeh wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:Look, for the millionth time--both systems have their inherent strengths and weaknesses.  One is not "obviously" better than the other, though many proponents of man marking make it sound that way.  Moaning about the system almost always misses the point anyway.  Most set piece goals are the result of poor execution by the players working the system rather than the system itself.  We conceded a goal from a corner today using zonal marking and Bolton conceded two goals from corners using man marking.  All three goals, though, were down to poor execution.

On paper Bob, the "zonal marking" system sounds fine. But in practice it has proven to be a liability.

On the pitch, it is the poor cousin to man marking, at least for Liverpool.

I'm talking specificaly about set pieces here, not general defence.

tonyeh wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:Look, for the millionth time--both systems have their inherent strengths and weaknesses.  One is not "obviously" better than the other, though many proponents of man marking make it sound that way.  Moaning about the system almost always misses the point anyway.  Most set piece goals are the result of poor execution by the players working the system rather than the system itself.  We conceded a goal from a corner today using zonal marking and Bolton conceded two goals from corners using man marking.  All three goals, though, were down to poor execution.

On paper Bob, the "zonal marking" system sounds fine. But in practice it has proven to be a liability.

On the pitch, it is the poor cousin to man marking, at least for Liverpool.

I'm talking specificaly about set pieces here, not general defence.

JoeTerp wrote:doesn't matter what system you use if you don't have players that are aggressive and good at heading

Bang on!!

Bad Bob wrote:

tonyeh wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:Look, for the millionth time--both systems have their inherent strengths and weaknesses.  One is not "obviously" better than the other, though many proponents of man marking make it sound that way.  Moaning about the system almost always misses the point anyway.  Most set piece goals are the result of poor execution by the players working the system rather than the system itself.  We conceded a goal from a corner today using zonal marking and Bolton conceded two goals from corners using man marking.  All three goals, though, were down to poor execution.

On paper Bob, the "zonal marking" system sounds fine. But in practice it has proven to be a liability.

On the pitch, it is the poor cousin to man marking, at least for Liverpool.

I'm talking specificaly about set pieces here, not general defence.

Nonsense.  If zonal marking were as much of a problem as you make it out we'd be leaking goals right left and centre.  Yet, our keeper has played his entire Liverpool career under this system, facing multiple set pieces virtually every game, and yet still managed to be the fastest keeper to reach 50 clean sheets with the club, while winning the Premiership Golden Gloves award three seasons running for most clean sheets in the league.  Simply put, the numbers do not and never have supported the misconception that the zonal marking system is broken.

Effes wrote:I think where you are coming from Tony is this:

A defensive record which may be good doesn't reflect your defensive record against
crosses into the box from set pieces like corners or free kicks

And I agree.

The argument for me is - even though the theory of zonal marking
may be a good one.....

Is it the system that we should be using?

tonyeh wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:

tonyeh wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:Look, for the millionth time--both systems have their inherent strengths and weaknesses.  One is not "obviously" better than the other, though many proponents of man marking make it sound that way.  Moaning about the system almost always misses the point anyway.  Most set piece goals are the result of poor execution by the players working the system rather than the system itself.  We conceded a goal from a corner today using zonal marking and Bolton conceded two goals from corners using man marking.  All three goals, though, were down to poor execution.

On paper Bob, the "zonal marking" system sounds fine. But in practice it has proven to be a liability.

On the pitch, it is the poor cousin to man marking, at least for Liverpool.

I'm talking specificaly about set pieces here, not general defence.

Nonsense.  If zonal marking were as much of a problem as you make it out we'd be leaking goals right left and centre.  Yet, our keeper has played his entire Liverpool career under this system, facing multiple set pieces virtually every game, and yet still managed to be the fastest keeper to reach 50 clean sheets with the club, while winning the Premiership Golden Gloves award three seasons running for most clean sheets in the league.  Simply put, the numbers do not and never have supported the misconception that the zonal marking system is broken.

Take a look at the goal that Bolton got today.

That's tells me that the system is NOT working for Liverpool.

The number of Bolton players left completely to their own devices, while red shirts marked their zone.

Effes wrote:I think where you are coming from Tony is this:

A defensive record which may be good doesn't reflect your defensive record against
crosses into the box from set pieces like corners or free kicks

And I agree.

The argument for me is - even though the theory of zonal marking
may be a good one.....

Is it the system that we should be using?

Okay, perhaps the overall defensive record does not afford a straightforward correlation to the success of zonal marking (although they surely must be related?).  But, what do you make of Reina's clean sheet numbers?  Surely, not conceding a goal is a measure of success when it comes to evaluating our zonal system since we undoubtedly face several corners or free kicks per game?  If the system were flawed, surely he'd have a much harder time keeping clean sheets?  And yet, his numbers are revealing:

2005-2006...20 clean sheets*
2006-2007...19 clean sheets*
2007-2008...18 clean sheets*
2008-2009...20 clean sheets

* = most in the league

Plus, he's the fastest keeper in club history to get to both 50 clean sheets and 100 clean sheets.

Surely, zonal marking can't be that flawed a system if our keeper is keeping that many clean sheets season after season? 

GYBS wrote:

tonyeh wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:

tonyeh wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:Look, for the millionth time--both systems have their inherent strengths and weaknesses.  One is not "obviously" better than the other, though many proponents of man marking make it sound that way.  Moaning about the system almost always misses the point anyway.  Most set piece goals are the result of poor execution by the players working the system rather than the system itself.  We conceded a goal from a corner today using zonal marking and Bolton conceded two goals from corners using man marking.  All three goals, though, were down to poor execution.

On paper Bob, the "zonal marking" system sounds fine. But in practice it has proven to be a liability.

On the pitch, it is the poor cousin to man marking, at least for Liverpool.

I'm talking specificaly about set pieces here, not general defence.

Nonsense.  If zonal marking were as much of a problem as you make it out we'd be leaking goals right left and centre.  Yet, our keeper has played his entire Liverpool career under this system, facing multiple set pieces virtually every game, and yet still managed to be the fastest keeper to reach 50 clean sheets with the club, while winning the Premiership Golden Gloves award three seasons running for most clean sheets in the league.  Simply put, the numbers do not and never have supported the misconception that the zonal marking system is broken.

Take a look at the goal that Bolton got today.

That's tells me that the system is NOT working for Liverpool.

The number of Bolton players left completely to their own devices, while red shirts marked their zone.

thats means the players fecked up as the system doesnt allow any zones to be left empty and the players fecked up poorely defensively as opposed to the system .

Jesus fucking Christ 

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THE PLAYERS "FECKED UP". THE SYSTEM CLEARLY ISN'T WORKING FOR LIVERPOOL IN SET PIECES.

Bad Bob wrote:

Effes wrote:I think where you are coming from Tony is this:

A defensive record which may be good doesn't reflect your defensive record against
crosses into the box from set pieces like corners or free kicks

And I agree.

The argument for me is - even though the theory of zonal marking
may be a good one.....

Is it the system that we should be using?

Okay, perhaps the overall defensive record does not afford a straightforward correlation to the success of zonal marking (although they surely must be related?).  But, what do you make of Reina's clean sheet numbers?  Surely, not conceding a goal is a measure of success when it comes to evaluating our zonal system since we undoubtedly face several corners or free kicks per game?  If the system were flawed, surely he'd have a much harder time keeping clean sheets?  And yet, his numbers are revealing:

2005-2006...20 clean sheets*
2006-2007...19 clean sheets*
2007-2008...18 clean sheets*
2008-2009...20 clean sheets

* = most in the league

Plus, he's the fastest keeper in club history to get to both 50 clean sheets and 100 clean sheets.

Surely, zonal marking can't be that flawed a system if our keeper is keeping that many clean sheets season after season? 

tonyeh wrote:

GYBS wrote:

tonyeh wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:

tonyeh wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:Look, for the millionth time--both systems have their inherent strengths and weaknesses.  One is not "obviously" better than the other, though many proponents of man marking make it sound that way.  Moaning about the system almost always misses the point anyway.  Most set piece goals are the result of poor execution by the players working the system rather than the system itself.  We conceded a goal from a corner today using zonal marking and Bolton conceded two goals from corners using man marking.  All three goals, though, were down to poor execution.

On paper Bob, the "zonal marking" system sounds fine. But in practice it has proven to be a liability.

On the pitch, it is the poor cousin to man marking, at least for Liverpool.

I'm talking specificaly about set pieces here, not general defence.

Nonsense.  If zonal marking were as much of a problem as you make it out we'd be leaking goals right left and centre.  Yet, our keeper has played his entire Liverpool career under this system, facing multiple set pieces virtually every game, and yet still managed to be the fastest keeper to reach 50 clean sheets with the club, while winning the Premiership Golden Gloves award three seasons running for most clean sheets in the league.  Simply put, the numbers do not and never have supported the misconception that the zonal marking system is broken.

Take a look at the goal that Bolton got today.

That's tells me that the system is NOT working for Liverpool.

The number of Bolton players left completely to their own devices, while red shirts marked their zone.

thats means the players fecked up as the system doesnt allow any zones to be left empty and the players fecked up poorely defensively as opposed to the system .

Jesus fucking Christ 

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THE PLAYERS "FECKED UP". THE SYSTEM CLEARLY ISN'T WORKING FOR LIVERPOOL IN SET PIECES.

has it not worked for 5 years then or just in the last couple of games ? and off course it matters if the players fecked up clown - they will still feck up whatever system you pick - what happens if your man marking and you loose the man ?? is it the system or ther player feckcing up ?