Chandler Posted 21 April 2005 Posted 21 April 2005 Its clear we havent got the right players for this zonal marking - at least if you are man marking then you can see who is at fault and try and sort them out in the training 95894[/snapback] When has zonal marking ever worked? If we haven't got the players for zonal marking (which is blatently obvious) then we shouldn't even by attempting to use that tactic. Bad management again imo (even though that wasn't our downfall yesterday). 96007[/snapback] It worked ever so well for Norway, who, if memory serves me right, introduced to world football...Top clubs still mostly use zonal marking, just not for dead ball situations but if CL says it worked at Hearts then why shouldn't one believe him? 96249[/snapback] Your memory serves you wrong, Shen. The term 'zonal marking' started to appear in the coaching manuals in the 1970's. Like many concepts it has been redefined in several different ways since then. The term is now used virtually as an insult to describe loose defending at set plays. It had a more profound meaning thirty years ago. The term 'zonal marking' was coined as a deliberate contradistinction to 'man to man marking'. The latter was practised by the Italian national team and clubs (with some success in the 1960's - Inter Milan were seen as expert exponents of this dark art) and in one or two minor South American countires (chiefly Uruguay). Man to man marking didn't just apply at set plays. It was practised ALL over the pitch, by ALL players, ALL of the time. It was seen as ultra defensive,negative and stifling. It gave Italian football a very bad name. Gradually it fell out of favour when Italian football went into a mini crisis in the 1970's. OK history lesson over...
shen Posted 21 April 2005 Posted 21 April 2005 Its clear we havent got the right players for this zonal marking - at least if you are man marking then you can see who is at fault and try and sort them out in the training 95894[/snapback] When has zonal marking ever worked? If we haven't got the players for zonal marking (which is blatently obvious) then we shouldn't even by attempting to use that tactic. Bad management again imo (even though that wasn't our downfall yesterday). 96007[/snapback] It worked ever so well for Norway, who, if memory serves me right, introduced to world football...Top clubs still mostly use zonal marking, just not for dead ball situations but if CL says it worked at Hearts then why shouldn't one believe him? 96249[/snapback] Your memory serves you wrong, Shen. The term 'zonal marking' started to appear in the coaching manuals in the 1970's. Like many concepts it has been redefined in several different ways since then. The term is now used virtually as an insult to describe loose defending at set plays. It had a more profound meaning thirty years ago. The term 'zonal marking' was coined as a deliberate contradistinction to 'man to man marking'. The latter was practised by the Italian national team and clubs (with some success in the 1960's - Inter Milan were seen as expert exponents of this dark art) and in one or two minor South American countires (chiefly Uruguay). Man to man marking didn't just apply at set plays. It was practised ALL over the pitch, by ALL players, ALL of the time. It was seen as ultra defensive,negative and stifling. It gave Italian football a very bad name. Gradually it fell out of favour when Italian football went into a mini crisis in the 1970's. OK history lesson over... 96561[/snapback] I stand corrected, Chandler. I never said my memory was any good . I remember training zonal defense though. It was actually quite fun, and effective if done right..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.