Liverpool and Barcelona can’t both be wrong, can they?
Once again this defensive system has faced ridicule in the UK, but one of its most famous recent proponents are considered one of the greatest club teams of all time.
“Zones don’t score goals.” This, in a conveniently phrased nutshell, sums up a common criticism of the zonal marking system, particularly in relation to set pieces. The much maligned tactic again took a battering from pundits last week, as Arsenal’s defenders were brushed aside by Joleon Lescott as he headed in Manchester City’s goal at the Etihad.
I’m not going to say here that zonal marking is clearly a better system than man marking, I would have no idea if that’s the case, and would expect it would depend on the kind of defender a manager has available. There are however certain myths about the system that are used to criticise it, and these should be addressed.
The most common thing said is that zonal marking means that attackers have an instant advantage against it because they are moving whilst the defenders are stationary in their zones when the ball is delivered. But surely any manager worth his likely considerable wages is implementing a system were defenders are on the move as the ball comes in, attacking it as it enters their zone. Not being on your toes is entirely a player’s fault, no system has demanded they stand there like mannequins until the ball enters their pre-ordained area of activity. In fact zonal marking gives an advantage over man marking it terms of defender’s movement. When man marking, it is far more likely a defender will be running towards his own goal as the ball comes in, as he tracks the run of his man. This can make it more difficult to clear the ball, and occasionally result in a hilarious own goal. With zonal marking, a defender can make his run at the ball away from goal.
This concentration on the ball is a central part of the zonal system. Just as the keeper is doing, defenders are focussed on clearing the ball, rather than tracking one individual. The defender’s job is not very different to under a man marking system, and the same culpability is true when they allow a shot in their zone, than when they allow the man they’re marking to get a shot away. There is an inclination to blame the system when teams concede when marking zonally, there should be more focus on the defenders, as there is in man marking.
There are flaws in the system of course, if not every team would use it and we’d have no more goals from set pieces. If an attacking team can target one area with there strongest aerial threats they can overload a zone. Perhaps some kind of hybrid would be the best system, with the greatest attacking threats being marshaled by a couple of your best defenders, and a zonal system imposed on the rest. You can then maybe take advantage of the best attributes of both systems, or perhaps this would make both systems entirely useless.
Zonal marking has most famously been used recently by Benitez’s Liverpool, and Guardiola’s Barcelona. The former, as Benitez was at constant pains to point out, often had the best defensive record from set pieces in the league. The latter are already footballing legend. This doesn’t mean everyone should embrace zonal marking, but it does mean that it’s unlikely the flaws in it make it unworkable.
image: © Ronnie Macdonald
Receive exclusive football transfer news and updates twice a week to your mailbox
