This zonal marking caper

YOGI_GER said:
Not got a clue other than defend your zone which could have nobody in it

It’s a stupid tactic
Click to expand...
If you've done your homework you will have an idea of the opponents corner pattern. You select your best aerial players and give them the expected areas for a corner delivery, no one might be in it, but that doesn't mean they won't make a run into it. Mix that with good old fashion touch tight marking and you've got a fighting chance. For their first goal, it just missed Bassey before getting to the big Mexican fella. We had I think 4 players who all seemed to bump into each other between Bassey and the Mexican.
 
Lenoblue said:
Gordon Strachan said something he learned from managing Middlesborough was that you have to fit your system to your players. It's less whether zonal is statistically best and more whether we have players able to do it.
Click to expand...
Possibly Gio looked at his players and thought who amongst my players is likely to win a header or a 50/50 tussle in the box. Possibly realising that he could have Ryan Kent, Steven Davis, Barisic on the field at that time. So he thinks he'll go zonal and put his best headers of the ball along the six yard box. Goldson, Tavernier, Sands and Lundstram will win that header. Except not one of them would take that responsibility to go and attack it, possibly with the exception of Lundstram who was the only one who actually jumped at their goal the other night. Also you have around four players on the edge of our box attempting to block the six runners that could be coming in at speed. How could it possibly fail!
 
Truelightblue said:
The fact that sands walked off his man and he (Ajax) went on to score from that corner was just a joke. They keep doing it.

I heard Walter Smith preferred using zonal and man marking together. That makes more sense because sands and Goldson don't have a clue what they're doing.

I can't believe they can't figure out that they need to mark their man in those corners. How many beat downs will it take for Gio to get that in his head. Hand enough of him and his one dimensional football.
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of a mixed system. Just let your best players in the air try to clear it. When you are a defender marking at a corner the forward has the momentum as they are running in the direction they want to head the ball, so the defender is more trying to put the forward off, rather than clear it. Still an important job that someone has to do, but not something you should waste your best headerers on.

The current "system" is a joke and needs replaced promptly. I don't think the players really know what they are meant to be doing and it often ends up in us basically just watching the opposition score.
 
Nothing new,This stupid zonal coverage has been a thing since Gerrard.
we are wide open on the wings when opponents attack.Tav especially
gives a winger so much space and,time to put the a perfect cross into our penalty area.Same thing on the left,but not quite as bad.While Goodson seems to be covering no one.:rolleyes:
 
Bigbluebear said:
Folk thought it was because of McGregor we were shite at defending corners
Click to expand...
This is the root of the problem I think. There was a period (especially last season when McGregor's form dropped) where we did look really ropey at any cross into the box. The management, I think, looked at it (during the summer) and decided that the solution was zonal.

What actually needed to happen was bring McLaughlin in (last season). Stick to man marking and tell the defenders to make sure they beat their man and tell McLaughlin to come get the ball, which to be fair to him he did previous to this change in system. Now he's mostly stuck on his line.

I thought we'd worked this out last season. There's a perfect example in the Scottish Cup final where at 88mins Hearts get a corner at 0-0 down their end. Normally it'd be chaos/nervy but we go man for man, and as well as winning our battles, McLaughlin takes a couple of steps off his line and easily claims the ball.

That's the system that suits this squad but the next thing that happens is we're in pre-season in Portugal and the zonal causes us to lose a goal and it doesn't stop from there.

Here's 2 stills from that corner:
ibb.co

man1 hosted at ImgBB

Image man1 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
ibb.co

man2 hosted at ImgBB

Image man2 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co

Also worth noting we had someone on the post too... crazy to think this was all changed.
 
Mental we stick with it, pure stubbornness with management imagine seeing us concede these goals every game now and sticking with it.
I think it shows that Gio care more about his philosophy than Rangers unforgivable.
 
Neild79 said:
We still have a physical presence in Goldson, Lundstram, Arfield, Morelos Colak, its just piss poor tactics.
Click to expand...
Of those that you mention only one of those (Goldson) goes to attack the ball when defending, and this season he’s been pretty abysmal at it.

I don’t see Colak as a physical presence at all. He’s good at finding space to win a header in the opposition box. In a 1v1 aerial duel he’s very weak.
 
On the Ajax goal, zonal should have worked but Goldson jumped to make himself smaller and Tav hid behind Goldson. When Bassey doesn't head it, one of they two fearties had an easy clearance. As Gio said, zonal can work but only if defenders still battle for the ball. Our problem is that guys like Goldson seem to put more effort into getting out the way of the ball than trying to make contact with it.
 
RangersEasyOK! said:
Its meant to be you put players in the areas the ball is most likely to go and defend your zone.

We just stand on a spot and get beat trying to static jump against moving players.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing anybody trying to jump, I do see central defenders ducking under the players they are supposed to be up against, basically trying to make themselves as small as possible, I can only think it's a vain attempt to get awarded a free kick. It's not going to work in Europe where the Refs are generally competent and it's definitely not going to work in Scotland where the Refs are both incompetent and corrupt.
 
Crouchy said:
Just pick a fucking man, go with him and compete.

It’s a simple, simple set up.

Decide if you want two on the posts and one up, or one on the post and two up.

Remember how good we were at set pieces under Culshaw!
Click to expand...
That’s zonal!
SAF once said “zones don’t score goals”
That sums it up!
 
Polar bear said:
Nothing new,This stupid zonal coverage has been a thing since Gerrard.
we are wide open on the wings when opponents attack.Tav especially
gives a winger so much space and,time to put the a perfect cross into our penalty area.Same thing on the left,but not quite as bad.While Goodson seems to be covering no one.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Beale said they gave up space on these wide postions on purpose. We conceeded more from these postions because we were tight centrally and didn't allow teams to play through us.
 
Point to ponder.
If everybody man marks properly the opposition don’t score.
You can’t say the same about zonal.
Some years ago, under McLeish, we had a defender called Rodriguez.
Against Porto, Rodriguez was marking his man and the two grappled with each other so much they both ended up in the net at one point.
Problem is that Namouchi wasn’t as strong as Pepe who scored an equaliser for them.
Rodriguez though, was ridiculed for his play by the press and many on FF on the day.
However, and this is the point I want to make, Rodriguez did his job, regardless of the ridicule he got.
He was determined to stop his man scoring.
You can do this when man-marking but not in zonal.
 
Don't know if this has been mentioned,we cover the zones but we don't seem to have any blockers preventing attackers running in to the zones.If we don't do that the attacker has the momentum and the defender gets blamed for being out jumped.Either that or the defender trys to block and leaves space behind him.Its just a shambles.
 
YOGI_GER said:
Why have we adopted this stupid defending system?

I’ve never seen it work for any team, the players don’t seem to know what they’re doing with it.

Every set piece it’s heart in the mouth stuff, we had a warning 5 minutes before that first goal last night.

Get it in the bin ASAP, go man to man and on the post or we’ll see more embarrassments in the next few weeks
Click to expand...
Doesn’t matter zonal or man marking
If you don’t have the aggression to attack the ball/ lacking physicality and players incapable of heading the ball you can’t defend corners and free kicks or even scoring from our corners
Aim at Goldson seems the only option
Ffs we don’t even block runners defending corners
 
Zonal can work well if it’s implemented properly
When we had Marvin Andrews, we used zonal but Marvin was handed a “free role” whereby he wouldn’t be restricted to moving in the zones.
As a result Marvin got his head onto 99% of what came in.
A blend of zonal with a free man worked for us for years under Walter
 
our zonal marking is farcical and can't believe our manager can't see this
every set piece we concede has me watching through my fingers
 
Viirus72 said:
Beale said they gave up space on these wide postions on purpose. We conceeded more from these postions because we were tight centrally and didn't allow teams to play through us.
Click to expand...
But he didn’t notice that all the high balls coming into our box,were causing all sorts of problems.:rolleyes:
 
I prefer man marking, but not having a man on the back post and the front post is school boy stuff, anyone staying on the back post clears that header, the only reason we got to the Champs League was Tav clearing one of the line at the back post in injury time against USG, as I doubt we would've come back from 3-0 on the 2nd leg.
 
EK1422 said:
Statistically zonal is a better system than man-to-man.

Our take on it is a disgrace though. Although we would struggle in any set up given how badly we lack proper physicality in our team now.

McCoist nailed it in his half time analysis yesterday. When we lost Aribo, Bassey and Balogun we didn’t just lose three technically able players, we lost three physical specimens and didn’t replace them.
Click to expand...
The equivalent of four physical specimens. Bassey counted for at least two. It certainly seemed that way last night.
 
So if I understand this zonal pish correctly it is that each of our players has an imaginary box or area that they are supposed to defend with their lives, but if no one is in any of these imaginary areas then what? Not my problem? I don’t get it.
 
The only time we hear about 'zonal' is when it fails. Again.

When a ball is swung into your box, be if from a corner or from a cross, the only thought on every defenders mind should be "WINNERS".

Not some abstract, hypothetical and invisible patch of grass, begging to be exploited by the runners from the opposition.

Ultimately it encourages ball watchers, pointers and blame shifters.
 
YOGI_GER said:
Why have we adopted this stupid defending system?

I’ve never seen it work for any team, the players don’t seem to know what they’re doing with it.

Every set piece it’s heart in the mouth stuff, we had a warning 5 minutes before that first goal last night.

Get it in the bin ASAP, go man to man and on the post or we’ll see more embarrassments in the next few weeks
Click to expand...
100% agree, a fkn shambles that should never have been introduced.
 
I don’t think that there‘s anything wrong with the zonal system as such, but our execution of it is terrible.

Defenders can determine very quickly if the ball is coming into their zone. They should then attack the ball aggressively, we are so weak and somehow Goldson and Tav regularly contrive to actually make themselves smaller.

The other players not zonal should be doing much more to block the runners, opposition get a free run at it far too easily.
 
Rangerstillidie said:
I thought we’d maybe gone to this because McLaughlin was gonna come for more crosses. Think he’s come for about three so far this season. Ironically he came for one further out later in the first half than the one he didn’t come for.

As people have said it lets players go it wasn’t my zone. We are struggling with it massively and it should be stopped immediately.
Click to expand...
Yes we spoke about this too what was going on at that corner which differed from the one on 16 mins ?
How it appears to me for the goal at the corner is Sands needs to cover that space from his start point to the next zone in front . He was stationary . Why ? I thought it was he was watching for the ball and never got to see it as Goldson Tavernier Lundstram and the Ajax players all obstructed that . Meantime Alvarez had an angle and a run and worst of all a space because Tav n Goldson we’re on top of one another without leaving the ground as Ross mentioned .
A thing we rarely see is our players basically playing to stop others getting the ball whether that is leaping early or leaping across a gap to disturb the opposition. I think that might be a point GvB has made in the past .
 
Rio Loyal said:
Did you miss the post last night about Colin Stewart being the set piece coach as well as the Goalie coach?

Zonal marking is always a shit show especially when we have next to no physical presence.

Gio apparently learns from his mistakes here’s another he hasn’t.
Click to expand...
He had the same mistakes with Feyenoord, what makes you think he will learn now.
 
Ohmk5CG.jpg


4 against 7 Rangers players
 
EK1422 said:
Statistically zonal is a better system than man-to-man.

Our take on it is a disgrace though. Although we would struggle in any set up given how badly we lack proper physicality in our team now.

McCoist nailed it in his half time analysis yesterday. When we lost Aribo, Bassey and Balogun we didn’t just lose three technically able players, we lost three physical specimens and didn’t replace them.
Click to expand...
Statistically and Theoretically is all very well. However, if you continue to fail to implement it, drop it.

You'd look very hard to find someone who thinks it has improved us.
 
BlueDel said:
Statistically and Theoretically is all very well. However, if you continue to fail to implement it, drop it.

You'd look very hard to find someone who thinks it has improved us.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it does us any favours to drop it either. A lack of aerial presence would see us just as likely to lose 1v1 duels.

Personnel is a far bigger issue than system at the moment.
 
I genuinely think a that football hipster jumped in a Delorean, went back 30 years and invented zonal marking just for “shits and giggles, man”.
 
Ridiculous to change from the system for the 55 season where we looked so comfortable defensively. We also don't have a enough strength in the air in defense. Sands isn't an aggressive centre half. Always a recipe for disaster when you have a defender like that.
 
Maida Vale Bear said:
We had I think 4 players who all seemed to bump into each other between Bassey and the Mexican.
Click to expand...

This. I've noticed that it happens quite a lot when we defend corners, there's normally 3 players who all sort of concertina and much of the time none of them get a head to the ball.
It's something they are working on, because it happens in every game at least 2 or 3 times, but eff knows what it's supposed to achieve.
We are so vulnerable to corners & free kicks it's untrue.
 
For some reason Scottish teams never seem able to master zonal marking. I'd go back to man to man.
 
YOGI_GER said:
Why have we adopted this stupid defending system?

I’ve never seen it work for any team, the players don’t seem to know what they’re doing with it.

Every set piece it’s heart in the mouth stuff, we had a warning 5 minutes before that first goal last night.

Get it in the bin ASAP, go man to man and on the post or we’ll see more embarrassments in the next few weeks
Click to expand...
Totally agree! Get it tae £#(*
 
EK1422 said:
I don’t think it does us any favours to drop it either. A lack of aerial presence would see us just as likely to lose 1v1 duels.

Personnel is a far bigger issue than system at the moment.
Click to expand...
While aerial prowess is one thing, all we see just now is free men, free runners, our guys backing into each other, ducking and getting in each other's way. You will always be susceptible to losing goals but it is inarguably making us weaker when compared to previous seasons.

If we can't do something right, go back to something we can at least do better.
 
If we insist on zonal we may as well have the team on the goal line to try and stop the inevitable attacker winning the header. Least if on target it should be blocked
 
Battlefield Bear said:
Serious question. Could someone try and explain the merits of zonal marking for me please? I genuinely can't see the point in it at all.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Players like simple instructions and tasks to perform. Man marking is a simple concept which is far easier to master than zonal tactics.
 
EK1422 said:
Statistically zonal is a better system than man-to-man.

Our take on it is a disgrace though. Although we would struggle in any set up given how badly we lack proper physicality in our team now.

McCoist nailed it in his half time analysis yesterday. When we lost Aribo, Bassey and Balogun we didn’t just lose three technically able players, we lost three physical specimens and didn’t replace them.
Click to expand...
And you know what they say about statistics
 
Zonal marking is awful and I’ve never been a fan.

You are almost instantly giving advantage to the attacker in that they get a run on the defender.

The fact we have lost most of our goals this season to set pieces and haven't changed says it all.

Go back to man marking and stay tight, have a free man to track the ball and try clearing it, men on the posts etc…Leave two men up field.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top