The Twilight Zone

To me football isn't overly complex. You are 11 vs 11. Contest for the ball, all day, every day, and use it to hurt the opponent when you've won it.

Simples.

The other way, the One on One manner, man marking... where ever he goes can get a bit blinkered.

2 attackers vs 2 markers... or 2 attackers vs defended zones

All can be undone by the Harry Lime option... The Third Man.

The Third, not picked up... a whole other discussion... Man, pops in between or behind or in front of his 2 mates... goal.

The Third Man goes into the grey area on the edge of 2 defenders zones, a split seconds thinking time – is he mine or his?.. .goal.

Today's programme was brought to you by the phrases:

Attack the Ball & Goal Side.

So what's the cure? As always, it's that old favourite – The Goldilocks Option, not too much of one and not too much of the next... and having players with the brains to pick one from the other at any given time – easier said than done.

(Wow, there's something I don't say often, right mate?)

And I'll take it one step farther. Zonal marking requires a mindset of going to the ball with a single-minded fanaticism, like a forward. Never mind the man, just get the ball. But that goes against the instincts of most defenders. When you've practiced all your life to defend the player first, then the ball, it's very hard to react differently.

I've been a man-marking specialist for 25 years, and on the rare occasions a coach has dictated zonal marking, I have simply ignored him. The minute the corner kick goes up, I thump my man, seal him off and then go get the ball. Any other way of doing it is idiocy in my opinion.

I'm afraid we're going to lose some games due to this foolishness before Silva gets the message. But I do believe he'll get the message. I haven't seen anything yet to indicate that he's a Koeman-esque idiot who won't make adjustments.

We played some amazing attacking football in the 1st half last weekend but would have been punished against one of the league's best sides. We are already reaping the rewards in playing better football but there's still much work to do defensively.

Plenty of sides use zonal marking successfully. There is no reason we can't do so. They just need to work on it, as I'm sure they will and are. As I've said, zonal marking does not mean the keeper just stands idly by while a man stands in front of him completely unmarked. They'll learn.

To say Keane won't learn, really? That's an insane mindset, that a young man can't learn. And I don't want us basing a damn thing on the capability of Jagielka or Baines, or even Coleman if I'm honest. There is a reason why we've signed three defenders in Brands' first window. To say scrap anything after 2 matches is madness.

The simple flaw with man-marking is the problems that ensue if any of the attackers has dominance over their marker or is able to lose them in the melee. If that happens you will still end up conceding unopposed goals.

It is not that I am an advocate for zonal marking, as like Mike Gaynes I would generally back myself to stick to the task of disrupting my man, but I think what we saw on Saturday was a huge departure from how the zonal marking system is supposed to work. Persevering with it or not all depends on whether Darren is right in thinking our defenders are incapable of learning new tricks.

We've conceded plenty of goals from set pieces marking man-to-man, including one a few years ago that had me fuming. I think it was Heitinga who was all over his man, fouling him in at least two different ways, whilst not looking at the ball. The attacker, who was looking at the ball, managed to score anyway, and if he hadn't, the correct decision would have been a penalty.

Either system works if you win the header (or even challenge for it successfully), neither system works if you don't. In my experience, zonal marking makes it much easier for a defender to concentrate on challenging properly for the header.

I remember the game at Anfield with Howard and Neville fretting and worrying about Kyte at a corner, they pushed and shoved him for over a minute before the corner was taken, still worried about him as the ball came in, forgot about the fuckin' ball which Kyte headed home.

Watch your man but keep your eye on the ball!

There's pros and cons to both systems of marking at corners. The difference is that with man marking, it's always the player's fault, not the system. When a player cocks up in zonal marking, it's the systems fault.

Zonal marking is here to stay. Silva won't change it. Most of the top coaches in the world operate it. Sorry lads, you're going to have to get used to it, not just with Silva but in general as less and less managers / coaches operate man marking systems these days.

11 players on the pitch. One man up top zonal marking a jail-break counter attack. ;0)

7 men mark their men like glue.

3 men zonal mark - keeper has the middle of the net, one man has the near post, one man has the far post. ;0)

Done. If everyone does their job, no goals scored against.

Zonal marking is trash. And it's the rope Marco Silva will eventually get hung with. We hang them all in the end (sans Sir Alex at Man Utd but guys like him are a once-in-a-generation anomaly).

Zonal marking will be the eventual death of Silva.

What do you mean?

Man City, Spurs, Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal … it's all zonal marking. That's what I mean. They are just doing it properly.

We have to find the best way to stop the chances, and its clear these are arising because we are not defending the zones properly and nor are we man marking. In fact, I am not really sure what we are doing when defending set pieces.

In this league it is very hard to win once you go behind. It is the pig-headed attitude that cost Martinez – his refusal to see his set up was eroding his team's confidence, thus badly undermining the abilities of some very talented players he had at his disposal.

I also 100% agree that the team needs confidence, and results breed confidence and we look currently very vulnerable to conceding. A good pragmatist would compromise his beliefs just to get the team up and running before introducing this way of defending – which we clearly are not good at right now.

It's trash. It's counter-intuitive. Pick up a man, do your job, put a guy on each post, done.

Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten.

You can explain away the "tactical" reasons for zonal marking, or some other high-flung, PhD sounding explanation as to why it's superior. Most likely I'm going to read and hear to my ears, "Blah, blah, blah-blah-blah blah. Blaaaahhhh bla-bla-blah. Blah blah. Blah."

Not trying to be rude, Steve – you're genius with this stuff. But I've seen zonal marking and nothing will convince me it's a good system to defend set-pieces.

I'll try to watch a few games this weekend and catch some set pieces with some of the teams you mentioned and give it a look with an open mind.

Name one side successfully operating man-to-man marking on corners please?

If you're faced with a particularly dangerous forward, you'll track him closely compared with someone less dangerous. If you're faced with a set of middling players, you might as well 'mark the zone' and pick up whoever enters it. Unless I'm missing something.

Pullis was a corner master. West Brom were the top scorers in the league in his last full season at corners. Defending them was a different matter. Man-to-man marking has lots of flaws. If the man gets free of his marker he can score nearly every time.

Zonal marking isn't perfect. If I was managing a side, I'd play man to man marking because it's what I know, but I'd also have some free men to mark zones. But you have to acknowledge that man-to-man marking is dying from the game. No one plays man-to-man marking in open play anymore. It's all zonal these days, with the odd exception when facing someone like Messi. Use of man-to-man marking at corners is firmly in decline. I don't know how many teams will operate it this season with Pullis and Allardyce gone.

Pickford should be controlling what happens around the danger zone and, if he is prepared to come and get the ball at corners but gets a knock in doing so, then 9 times out of 10 it's a free kick.

Back to the zonal marking: our defenders need to attack the ball in their zone, as mentioned on other posts. A Derek Mountfield mentality to win the ball at all costs.

Barcelona use zonal marking, Mina will be fine. The rest, Zouma included (played for Stoke last season) will need a period of adjustment.

The big problem on zonal marking I usually see is that the defenders are static, and so the attacker can easily out jump them. There's no rule that the defenders should be static, really they should take a few steps forwards to get into position and so be able to jump and head away. When it goes wrong, it's usually due to a flat footed defender who has switched off.

I found this excellent article, written by a Watford fan at the end of November 2017. He was very concerned about goals conceded from corners as you will see. Of course Marco Silva was in charge of them at the time.

It will no doubt reinforce a lot of views that man-to-man marking is the way to go, whereas the author suggests tweaks to the zonal marking method.

And the answer to my earlier question was Burnley. They are the team operating man-to-man corner marking with great success. Pochettino operates zonal marking but with some element of man to man marking. Mourinho always used zonal marking and has tried to switch United to the system, but I have lost track of whether they have effectively switched or not. Liverpool and Man City are firmly zonal marking. Wenger was zonal marking, I believe Emery is too, but I would not bet my life on it. Italians always go man to man, but Sarri isn't your typical Italian so i'll need to check on them.

My instinct/age lends itself to man to man, but many successful sides use zonal.

I think it's more to do with the defenders' levels of concentration than any system. When Southampton scored on Saturday neither man nor zone were marked.

Mina and Zouma, two big centre backs who attack the ball have just been bought, presumably to make the back four more effective in a zonal system.

We shall see, but I'd concentrate on the concentration, regardless of the system we play.

Some top teams, with top players mind you, can make zonal marking successful. But, from my perspective, I don't know of a single sport where it would be preferential. Confirmation bias? Oh hell yes.

Football (my football) employs zonal coverage that often gets picked apart. In hockey, if you marked a zone, your own teammates would get 5 minutes for fighting in the penalty box as they would have beat the pulp out of you for doing so. Basketball uses zone defenses and it leaves holes so wide at points you could drive a truck through them and teams give up outside shots.

I can't think of a single sport on earth where it would be a more preferential way of approaching defending.

The only way it is acceptable is if you have a player who isn't as talented, and he needs “support” from a teammate in the neighboring zone. It may be elementary, sophomoric, unintelligent, and simple?

But to my eyes, why over complicate?! Keeper, two men one on each post, 7 men marking a player, and one guy up top so the ball doesn't come straight back at you if cleared.

You can still counter out of a man marking system! If you gain possession in an advantageous position? RUN! BREAK!

Why is that not so obvious? Despite all these “top teams” with foreign managers espousing a zonal system? Seems to me very basic and the best way of not conceding on corners?

You don't have to be the smartest guy in the room to out-think everyone else. Because everyone else ignores the glaring obvious as they are trying to be overly clever and out-think everyone else! Just mark up and do your damn job already.

Marco Crowley.

That in a nut-shell is the very problem of Zonal – a moving attacker will always have the advantage over a static defender – the moving defender will usually have eyes only for the ball and the goal, whereas the static defender must watch the ball, watch the moving defender and then get himself into position to stop that ball going into the net – unless of course he just stands there and expects the ball to hit him.

I was brought up on man-to-man marking and ensuring "the big fella" was adequately nullified. You don't have to outjump them – just make sure they can't get an effective touch on the ball.

Any sort of marking requires players to be aware of what is going on around them to be successful and unfortunately we have had defenders with absolutely no sense of awareness so either system was bound to fail hence our hasty entry to the transfer market for defenders.

Silva will never get an award for his team's defensive resilience but we will hopefully see a big improvement on the Martinez theory of (non-)defending.

I did have big concerns about Silva and really wanted Emery but he and Steve Ferns are winning me over so far.

It may take time and a couple of windows, but Silva must stick to his plan. The whole team needs to get behind the idea, and we need to be consistent with it.

Darren is correct in suggesting that the U23s should be using the same tactics. The whole club needs to evolve, and we can't switch back to old tactics because of a few hiccups along the way. We must trust Silva's methods, and he must keep believing in himself and not allow doubts to enter his mind.

Goals will go in that may well have been prevented, but we must stay positive and trust that it will be for the greater good.

"Man City, Spurs, Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal … it's all zonal marking. That's what I mean. They are just doing it properly".

If so, then I'll bide my time on this one rather than jumping to conclusions yet. <>It's not clear what's meant by "these" players when saying Silva won't get it right with them. The team that started the season? Or the team that started against Southampton? Or the team that will include Mina? Or Zouma? Or both? It won't be a season before they're playing for us, pretty obvious!

Too early for me to judge. I'll wait and see.

Man-to-man is the complicated system: watch your man, but also watch the ball, (they're in opposite directions and one of them keeps moving). Foul your man, but make sure you don't get penalised (whilst one of the opponents is trying to foul you so that your man gets free). Run back towards your own goal as the ball is delivered but then somehow head it away from your own goal. Where ‘man-to-man' has worked it's because refs haven't had the guts to penalise the blatant fouls.

Zonal marking: stand there, head it away. Your man doesn't matter, as he can't do anything without the ball, and you're already in position for where he needs to get to.

How is zonal the one that's trying to be clever?

Yes, zonal has been the standard in open play for decades. No, it usually doesn't work in defending set pieces. Just watch games around the world and see how many ridiculously easy goals are scored against non-reactive zones. Zonal is much harder to do well.

Yes, Barca and City are successful with zonal marking, but they've been doing it for years. And Barca has only recently shed a longtime reputation for being soft on set pieces. Chris Gould might be willing for Silva to spend a season teaching zonal at corners. I'm not. In the first two games our backline has lined up like the subjects of a firing squad, complete with blindfold. Nobody has reacted to the ball properly. Bad is bad.

Besides Burnley, Bournemouth is another example of a side using man-marking on corners with good success.

Jamie, loved your Marine callout.

And Mike Allison, yes, of course you're supposed to be looking at the ball while you're defending... if you don't, it's simply bad man-marking. And no, man-marking isn't cheating. "Where ‘man-to-man' has worked it's because refs haven't had the guts to penalise the blatant fouls" is just malarkey in my opinion. I'm no pro, not even close, but I've never been beaten for a goal off a corner by a man I was marking, and I've never been called for a pen in that situation.

Living on the continent, I had both zonal and man marking against me and I can assure you that from my perspective neither stands out. A smart man marker will see when he needs to drop his man and step out to the free "third man", a smart zonal defender will recognize when he needs to leave his zone when there's a calamity in another zone.

I scored a lot against defenders that were not able to see when they needed to adapt, I hardly scored against defenders who were not outsmarted as I lacked pace and/or technique to beat them on my own. Had little to do with the system they used.

I am not saying both systems are the same but the differences some people are pointing at are an exaggeration.

However, the ease of Ings goal on Saturday was scary. If he had missed the ball there were a couple of other Southampton players behind him in the six-yard box also not marked. Pickford was nowhere as well.

Surely the best method would be a sort of hybrid where some defenders also man mark the opposition's biggest aerial threats. If the top six all adopt the zonal system when we get set pieces against them, can we expect Mina not to be marked? If so, could be happy days.

Your first paragraph says: "There is a very definite change in the mood of the average Evertonian". "After years of dull uninspiring mediocrity, the match goer is now looking forward to going the match again". "Entertainment is back on the menu and Blues all over the World are buzzing".

I agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments so why, when a poster came on saying how well Silva had done, did you label him a "happy clapper". Insinuating that some – but not you – are easily pleased.

Then you can't resist having a go at Silva saying why hasn't he got the Under-23 team using zonal marking. How do you know they aren't? The guy has only been here a few weeks, so I guess he is trying to educate the first team how it works before starting on the Under-23s... if he hasn't already.

There has always been pros and cons about zonal or man-to-man marking, the difference is good players make systems work – not the other way round. Just look at Liverpool: they have played zonal all the time under Klopp. Yet, before they got Van Dijk, they conceded from dead-ball situations as much as any club, but getting a top-class defender, their goals against in the league since he joined has been as good as any club. Players make systems work or not, the better clubs with the better players will make any system work.

The thing that interested me was the changes in Rugby Union and how they have moved to a more zonal Rugby League approach.

When I played, forwards fought for the ball and lolloped across the field to the next maul or scrum and wrestled again with other forwards.

Meanwhile us three-quarters when defending concentrated on the guy in same position in other team and religiously man marked him.

But then coaches got clever.

The traditional attack style faded and forwards and backs started interplaying and drawing in players to create space or an overlap. As I went for my opposite number, the ball had gone inside to someone else and I left a gap for them to exploit.

I recall coaches looking at the more zonal approach of League. They covered the whole pitch and the emphasis wasn't so much man marking but a line of players covering a pitch.

In football I think coaches and their attackers have also become smarter. Players exchange places, interplay, swap roles and do other wickedly clever things.

Previously when it was a predictable cross to their forwards in the box with a midfielder coming in from behind them, it was easier to spot your man.

Now not as easy and perhaps if we stick with man marking too much longer we will continue to have that horrid moment when the player got the man, whilst the ball was elsewhere and ultimately then in our net.

I can see the prob with corners and how you defend those against a good attacking team I am not sure.

But I do recall it took us ages in rugby union to change how we defended and made some howlers on the way. But we got there and became a much harder team to breach.

Does that solve the problems of upcoming season? Who knows yet but strikes me the attackers are showing they are adapting to change so far.

Everyone needs to get behind Silva's methods. One change may have a knock-on effect and undo other good work.

I was as angry as anyone else when Ings scored, but thankfully it didn't cost us points and the players will hopefully learn from it.

We haven't defended well on a consistent basis in years, and Zonal marking can't be blamed for it. I'm willing to give it a chance and accept there may be some teething issues.

Though I am a happy clapper and proudly wear the t-shirt!

If we win our home games, and draw our away games, I don't give a fuck what the system is!

Also, if your defensive system (whatever it is) is being operated by John Stones and Vincent Kompany, it's more likely to be successful, than if it's operated by Bert Sproggis and Freddie No-mark!

Two points regarding the zonal marking in rugby.

1. You're comparing open play with a set piece in soccer. It's not the same thing.

2. The space in question is much, much smaller (usually) on a set piece than the entirety of a rugby field.

Your point is well taken however! I think, and my American brain didn't consider rugby because I simply don't watch it, a zonal defensive approach in that sport would be preferable.

Not knowing the sport I stand to be corrected obviously. But the size of the pitch with overlapping players and what not could definitely dictate that.

It was a really good point and comparison you made.

Oh! And I have to say - what Mike Gaynes said @ 37!

In the first two games our backline has lined up like the subjects of a firing squad, complete with blindfold.

Yup.

As for the space to overlap, pass inside etc, watch the good attacking teams and they increasingly do it well enough in the 18-yard box.

Truth is, I know the tactics and coaching of rugby much better and watch football as it plays to my emotions and family history rather than my head.

So, if I wander in to tactical discussions, I usually end up just learning!

It's likely VAR will be ruining games in the premier league from next season. Handballs and penalties will abound of course. Hurrah, I hear you say, contrived video-assisted drama!

Okay now, I'm down off my high horse.

Let's look back at the World Cup. Set-pieces were hugely important, most of the defending was man to man and that yielded more decisions to review for the minions in the VAR chamber of horrors.

Grabbing and pulling penalised, jumping for the ball with opponents, greater scrutiny was placed on arm positions. A veritable jackpot of pens.

To circle back, as trend I'd believe zonal will become en vogue. A system with less dueling, and hence grappling, the emphasis is on getting to the ball unimpeded unlike ‘Gaynes' sealing off his man and then going for the ball! Mike great challenge by the way. No pen! Ref waves away the protests from other Toffeewebbers.

That, I believe, will be one of the many unintended consequences of VAR. Coaches will want less contact in the box, to mitigate VAR, zonal achieves that over man-to-man coverage, a little US sports cliches for ya there.

Back to Everton's zonal attempts to date, cumbersome. But the team will improve. Keane is not the answer but he may well learn zonal but his ability to defend high and 1v1 will see him lose his place to a more mobile and pacey team-mate.

Tosun got caught ‘in' for the goal, playing Ings onside. But what I don't like is having all XI back for both corners and free kicks.

What purpose does Walcott serve? I can see why Tosun and a Richarlison are there, both 6-footers & aerially decent.

Marco, just lob Theo up top, mate.

"Don't be the dozy sod that switches off and doesn't do his job."

Zonal or man-to-man marking, if you have a dozy sod switching off and not doing his job, you will concede goals.

The point John Pierce makes @ 49 is a good one. VAR is going to change how teams defend in their penalty area at corners and free kicks.

I'm of the belief that players can and do learn new systems that are possibly alien to them, so I can't subscribe to the belief in the opening post that it is beyond a 'British back four' to adapt to whatever system Marco Silva wishes to introduce.

It's imperative to stop any flick-ons because this type of ball always creates danger and this is what I think Ward-Prowse was trying to achieve with his delivery.

So a man at the front is zonal? Then, whatever you say, it's defenders being both clever and brave that is obviously the most important thing.

Good article, Darren. Great point John Pierce, because "the times they are a changin"

My point is that, zonal or man-to-man, both of which have merits, the degree of success at defending such set-pieces ultimately depends on the anticipation and speed of thought of the defender. Perhaps the instincts of the defenders are as important as the system deployed?

I'm not in favour of this zonal marking. Much better to have man-to-man marking. Again, looking at the Southampton goal (with a freeze frame) we have four players, Holgate, Tosun, Baines and Richarlison all stood in or on the edge of the six-yard box in effect marking space. It only needed Holgate to drop back about three yards of so, and help Keane out. In fact, as you roll the picture on, there is possibly any one of three Southampton players who could have scored that goal.

If we persevere with zonal marking, and it appears we might, we are going to concede a lot of goals from corners.

As I said in the OP, I've come across dozens of coaches with different views as to what Zonal Marking actually entails. Reading the differing opinions offered I guess that view has been born out.

Steve Ferns,

I know how much you want this guy to succeed and you have never been adverse to a little sleight of hand when it comes to defending him when he is questioned. You challenged Jamie to name a successful manager currently operating a man to man marking system in England – sneaky.
Yes the manager of the current champions employs Zonal marking, but you forget to mention that the previous 50-60 winners were all managers who preferred man to man.

Ask yourself this; Did Pep win the title because his zonal system was able to repel the few corners his team of superstars had to face... or did he win it because he had a team of superstars who dominated possession in nearly all of their games and scored for fun all season? I think you know the answer.

While we are at it lets address some of the other claims you make.
"Manchester City, Spurs Chelsea, Liverpool. Man United and Arsenal it's all zonal marking, that's what I mean. They are just doing it properly " Do you really believe that? Where on earth do you get this stuff from?

When a big unit marches into the Spurs penalty area for a corner. You can be absolutely certain he will be immediately picked up, if another approaches, he will be picked up too. Spurs have a couple of players on "zonal duty" but you can be very assured the two Belgian centre-backs will be marking the danger men very closely.

Why you claimed Chelsea go zonal is beyond me. You even say yourself you can find nothing to support it.

You claim Arsenal do it successfully, but their fans have been tearing their hair out over their defending for years... and the new guy has only been there for two games. Oh and did you catch Man Utd's game on Sunday? Jose will be lucky to survive Christmas.
Not quite the roaring success you have portrayed it. Pep could have played any system he wanted and they would still have won the league by Easter.

We are not Man City, so let's not make daft comparisons. We won't score a hundred goals. Pep's version of zonal is different to Marco's. When they go zonal, they do it properly and leave two men up, when we have done it, we have pulled every single player back into our box leaving no out ball. Yet another case of two coaches having completely different idea`s as to what "Zonal" actually is

Many of our games and most of our points will be decided by fine margins. If Silva perseveres with a system alien to his players, we will drop enough points to prevent any real improvement on last season's finish.

But I'm not sure it's an "unintended" consequence, because there's been a lot of comment about the grabbing on corners for years, and I think the powers that be would be happy to see it go away. We differ on whether VAR will be positive or negative for the game overall, but I think you're spot on regarding this particular consequence.

Rob #54, I saw what you saw before that corner was even taken, and Pickford definitely should have been screaming. I certainly was.

You're about six months too late Fella.

Yes, I have labelled some as happy clappers when they have applauded previous managers, but to be fair I think those claims were later vindicated.

In Silva's case, I said people are being a little too quick to hand out the bouquets – not quite the same thing. I don't contradict myself either. I feel the new found optimism has been generated by a number of factors, not least the sacking of Allardyce. Brands has also got the place buzzing, not just with the players he has been able to acquire, but with the players he has been able to ship out.

Silva is the manager, not being Sam Allardyce is good for now... but he still has it all to prove. I'm not a clapper of the happy variety and although I will support him. I won't be applauding anything until he has actually done something

Arsenal have played it since Wenger came in and Emery continues it.

Man Utd play it under Mourinho.

Liverpool have played it under Benitez (who still does it at Newcastle), Rogers (who plays it at Celtic) and now Klopp.

Chelsea have a manager who has ALWAYS played it, even back in the amateur leagues. He's got very strong views on zonal marking. Checkout the Chelsea highlights for confirmation he's playing it there. Huddersfield score off a corner.

Pochettno plays zonal marking (following Bielsa's handbook like Pep) and it's a key component to the counter-attacking philosophy as I touched on above.

I didn't say they all do it successfully but there's the big six all doing it. It's only British managers playing man to man. Meanwhile, Man City, one of the smallest teams in the league, had the highest success percentage in defending corners last season.

Personally I'd go man-to-man, but zonal is here to stay and Marco Silva is not alone in using it. All the cool kids do.

As for the previous 60 winners using man-to-man I could name 3 immediately who played zonal and that's without digging deeper. I could only really confirm Ranieri and Ferguson as man-to-man guys, so who else are you thinking? I'm not sure Conte played pure man-to-man, it seems a hybrid.

Not so

For years Wenger enjoyed the fantastic combativeness and marking ability of the defence he inherited from George Graham – they brought him every one of his titles. Only when these guys faded into the background did Wenger go zonal. Once he did that, Arsenal fell off a cliff so steep, they still haven't hit the deck. And their fans turned on him.

A little bit like when Jose enjoyed the combativeness and snuffing out marking skills of his back four; Imagine asking Terry to tell his men to leave their opponents and mark space... and are you really suggesting Jaimie Carragher zonally marked for Rafa? Take the man-marking skills out of Carragher's game and you were left with nothing.

And I would not put forward Newcastle as an example of how to zonally mark.

As for Man City, when you have 𧴜m+ worth of defenders and you concede the least corners... chances are you will concede the least goals from those corners too – however you set up.

If you can be so wrong on that, you need to realise you're wrong about some other things. And Mourinho has used zonal marking before and he did at Chelsea. Look it up.

“I'm sick of hearing people talking about zonal marking, I hear the same thing every time the ball goes in” said Carragher. “But when a same goal goes in against man marking, we don't blame the system, we blame the player. I did zonal marking under Rafael Benitez, so I like to think I've got some understanding of it.”

I refer you to the number of times Carragher would be tussling with our very own Big Dunc and Tim Cahill. I distinctly remember him "zonally marking" Lescot to the floor.

Jose – just like Wenger – inherited his man markers. That's where he gained his big successes

I wonder, Steve: What is your take on Silva bringing every man back inside the box for each of the corners we have faced? And how do you see a comparison with Peps version?

I watched the video too. What it says is he sometimes played zonal. Rafa was/is a tactical maniac – he tried just about everything. For most of the time, Carragher marked – as we all saw with our own eyes – that was all he could do.

Leicester won the league despite zonal marking. They conceded 31% of the goals in their title-winning year from corners.

West Brom in Pullis's last season were devastating at attacking corners, scoring the most off set-pieces. Yet their man-to-man system in marking corners was a failure and they were one of the worst teams in the Premier League for conceding goals from corners. And that's with a team of big ugly grocks, not a team of midgets like Man City.

Sarri has always used it. Chelsea do now.

Wenger used it for years and years and Emery does now.

Mourninho uses it Man Utd and he did at Chelsea.

Pochettino uses it at Spurs and used to use full zonal marking.

Where's these successful defences using man-to-man? Burnley and who else? Did Burnley have such a good record before last season?

In your original post, you said it needs work; I agree. You never said bin it off. He won't anyway. It was Gaynes and Co. Yet you're now the one who's determined to prove it's never worked ever. Despite Man City only conceding one goal from a corner last season, with a team of midgets.

Both systems have flaws. Silva plays it for a reason. He'll make it work and he's never kept everyone in the box before. It must be a transitional thing as he tried to iron out issues and get it working.

Mourinho says zonal marking is the only way to defend set pieces. Great book by the way.

I said doubted it when you said dozens and dozens of "coaches" had a different version of zonal marking. As far as I know, none of the posters on this thread are coaches. So that doesn't vindicate your claim in any way.

It would be interesting to read your explanation of zonal marking though?

Zonal defending is a reactive system opposed to a proactive one, as man-marking is.

One says - get on on man and mark him until you're axe-murdered. Proactively stick to him like glue to prevent him from scoring. Get on him and affect the outcome before the ball is kicked by marking.

The other espouses - stand here in this space and if an opposing player jollies through this area pick him up. Or, actually, if he leaves your area leave him for the fella next to you. Ah, fuck it, just look at the ball and go get it.

All these specifics and quizzes are irrelevant. This is a philosophy argument and debate.

I'd rather we zonally (is that a word?) defend areas of the goal and high up the pitch, while man-marking the bastards in the box trying to do us harm and score against us.

Philosophically sound in my opinion.

Again, keep it simple.

Both approaches will ultimately result in the opposition scoring goals, as we don't have 11 Jesus Christs in our line up. Man City has the only Jesus in the league to my knowledge, and he'll concede a goal probably on a corner at some point.

I prefer man marking, even if it may prove to be an outdated way by the in vogue soccer minds.

EDIT - is that "en vogue"? I've no fuckin' clue.

Man to man is reactive. You follow the man. You react to his movements.

Zonal is proactive. You move to anticipate the ball and try to win it.

The bottom line is threefold.
- both systems can work and both systems have flaws
- Silva won't change it and certainly not mid season
- we do have problems with it presently and hopefully those are teething problems and they will resolve once Silva gets his big 6'5” monster out to defend the corners alongside a 6'3” guy. Remember he loves big tall guys?

Edit: me too Jamie, although I always marked the post so I suppose that's zonal marking! And it is en vogue.

I might buy a copy as bathroom reading. Just the sight of Jose makes me wanna... ah, never mind, keep it classy.

You just need good defenders and good organisation between those defenders for it to work well. And since that time, we've also used man-marking. That is, we've used each, as the need arises. So again, it's not an either/or.

How do you appropriate responsibility for conceding a corner in a zonal system?

If you man mark, you know who lost their man.

In a zonal system, how in the hell do you actually know who should go and get the ball? One guy can stand there and say, "not my area!"

Also, and if you can just enlighten me (and I mean that sincerely not snotty - actually teach me), what happens when the opposition floods 3 players into one zone? How does one man defend his "zone" against 3 opposition players? Seriously how does overloading against a zonal marking system work?

Keeper, man on each post, man up top, and 7 men in the box marking.

How is that bad? How could anything be better at defending a corner than that?

I know I'm not the most cultured football mind, but I can't see the flaw in that system defending corners. Everyone has an area to protect or a man to pick up. Simple.

Cue mic drop?

I hope you're right that the issues resolve themselves when the big guys are ready. And I hope you're wrong that Silva won't change things if the system isn't working. Stubbornness is my least favorite characteristic in a manager.

Man to man falls apart as soon as the individual makes a mistake. It's too easy for someone to make a mistake. I used to always lose my man at corners which is why I made sure to get the post, saying fullbacks always get the post, but the truth was I found it too hard to stick to the man without fouling him.

The amount of goals a team concedes from a corner because there are no defenders on each post. The attacking team will never throw all the outfield players forward for a corner, so there are some defenders "marking space", so stick em on the posts. This in turn should create some space for the goalie to come off his line and collect the ball.

And, to my post @77, someone please explain how that approach and system to defend corners is inferior?

I don't think you can!

You also seem to think that zonal requires you to stand on a spot and not move. You can move and you can adapt and you can block a man and you can mark the man who's come into your zone.

You would not let a player have a run on you like that. If there's someone that far away at the back post, get closer to him. He has to get a better position.

Another job everyone says is nobody on the posts –we looked at every team this weekend, 14 teams don't have anyone on the post.

Personally I think it's worth it – to me it's defend first on a corner, and your favored system is mine as well – but when one of your primary objectives from a defensive corner is a quick-strike counter (City, Barca, the RS, Belgium at the World Cup), you need a system that gets everybody out quicker.

I'm not saying it doesn't work, I've seen it work. but not with thirty-somethings that have played a different system all their lives.
You made a number of false statements to back up your claim saying all the successful clubs use it and they all use it properly. That's nonsense.

You claim Jose used it at Chelsea, but you gloss over that fact that their real success was achieved when not using it.

You claim Wenger used it, but you gloss over the fact that his prolific run of titles ended once he adopted it.

You talk about Man City conceding only one corner whilst glossing over the fact that they conceded less than everyone else and that most teams were scared to put numbers into their box for fear of a swift counter.

You read facts and stats Steve, but you are not quite grasping the point or how this system works. You seem to think there is only one Zonal Marking and one Man Marking system, You can't seem to accept that some (Pottetchino) combine both. You don't seem to grasp that some coaches will only use it for certain games. You appear to believe it's one or t'other

You don't seem to get that different coaches adopt it for different purposes, some purely for defensive reasons and others with a breakout in mind. When asked to explain the difference between different versions, you evade the question.

I will ask you this question one more time and I will throw another one in the mix for you: Why is that Silva is pulling everyone back into the penalty area when Pep leaves two men up? Why is it that Wenger would leave three men outside his area, when Rafa has eleven in his.

You first have to understand why the coach is doing it; you then have to understand if the players are up to it and you then have to consider the purpose – are we looking to just defend (11 in the box) or are we looking to break out (a wide man + Aguero and Sterling up front)? Sometimes you have to look beyond the bare stats you read on fan sites.

The issue is not about who else does what, it's about Everton and Silva and why, despite having 11 men in our box, we are repeatedly beaten to the ball by opposition players?

Watch Jags. He's a master at it. That's why he consistently wins headers against bigger strikers. (John Terry was the best I've ever seen at it, not that I want to give the bastard any credit.)

Problem is that too many defenders just don't know how to do this anymore.

That's because he wasn't marking a man but being proactive in the zone.

What about a Zeman system? You know the one, where everyone pegs it up the pitch at speed to catch the opposition offside (from an indirect free kick). Crazy guy Zeman. If Bielsa is in England they should get Zeman over too.

You can't simply ignore the titles Wenger and Jose won before they introduced zonal then use the fact that they later used zonal as a measure of its success. Nor can you ignore all the titles people like Sir Alex won and claim all the successful sides use Zonal simply because the current Champions do.

You are a very good debater, that doesn't mean you are right

There's no-one doing well using man-to-man so how can everyone lambast us for playing zonal, when all the decent sides are doing it? Even Pullis's West Brom got slaughtered playing man-to-man in his last season.

Who's the successful sides using man-to-man that we should copy?

The reality is we defend zonal because it's linked to how we counter-attack. If it was really such a big problem and man-to-man would be more effective and we could still play the same way, then wouldn't Silva just use that? Only a pigheaded idiot would refuse.

Silva fielded lots of questions on this issue at Watford and he made himself very clear. He thinks this is best and he won't change.

As for the 11 in the box, I answered above. It's new and I can only guess he's doing it to try to give more solidity in the middle. And he had 9 in the box in all the bits I checked for my analysis. So I'll keep an eye out for the 11 in the box.

I enjoy your tactical analysis on TW.

If you have the time, mate, imagine you are picking Everton's side and tactics for the weekend.

Can you let us know how you would set up zonal marking defending a corner please. Players positions in that set up would be a bonus.

Simple really lads, just win the fuckin ball.

Hand on heart, the last 4 years our defending has been abysmal. Ings's goal was a tap-in as no-one spoke and he got his tap-in as he was unmarked.

I'm sure Silva will have the team collectively defending and also attacking. This needs clear communication and good understanding. To be a team, this area is where we must improve, massively.

In time to compete the team must become streetwise and savvy, read the game, see the pass and movement before it happens. Taking ownership and good team work, will become normal soon, for our team but will take time.

Silva will go for zonal, but collectively the team must defend ad an effective unit.

Mina not talking the lingo might be a problem. He is six and a half feet though. That might help. Zouma and Holgate for Bournemouth.

Pickford was on his line (no full-back on either post) and Ings was standing directly in front of Pickford.

When the corner came in, everyone charge at the ball except Keane and Holgate (they stood still). Davies nearly got to it but, once their player got a touch to it, there was only ever going to be one outcome. Schoolboy defending.

That is why we need at least one domineering centre-half and instead of having 3 or 4 players in no-man's land getting in each other's way we should, as Rob Halligan said at 80, have the full backs on each post. Let's be honest, Coleman and definitely not Baines are not going to win anything in the air at corners.

As for Ings standing on his own in our 6-yard box, that is a disgrace. Somebody must have seen that and didn't do anything about it.

Apart from that I am pretty happy because we won.

Can't be dealing with that man on man shit. That's Allardyce/Pulis bullshit.

Physically attack the players before the ball gets to them.

Cheats.

Not good enough to get on the ball. Foul the player.

Vinnie Jones/ 80s/Wimbledon bullies bullshit.

We can't match your ability so we"ll attack you with elbows forearms and whatever it takes.

I've won the ball ref! ( doesn't matter you've broke his ankle at the same time)

I won the ball!

Not a lot left to add, but whatever defensive system works best, and whatever inevitable mix of zonal and conventional it turns out to be... I hope it will look a lot more like we did under Moyes, and nothing like it did for that Ings goal, which we have seen many times in recent seasons.

Last night I heard, Williams gave a familiar performance for Stoke. Poor defending and clown antics culminating in another sending off, to the dressing zone.

His Foggia team featured one Beppe Signori, of Lazio (and Gazza) fame.

Foggia and Milan played out a mad game (can't remember the score, but it was full of goals). They played without fear against a Milan team which, in my opinion, was the greatest ever club side assembled.

I think he was a whistle-blower which may have scuppered his chances of further jobs.

Steve – I continue to marvel at the breadth of your knowledge. You can't have been very old when Foggia (and Zeman) were at their pomp.

Ah, those days of Gazzetta. James Richardson sitting reading the newspapers with a crazy desert; Gullit, Van Basten, Rijkaard; and some of the best football I ever saw, all on Channel 4! Before the days of Sky of course.

This conjures up images of Williams trudging off slowly in his funny shoes, removing his bright red nose, wiping off his make up, removing the funny acrylic wig, all in a zone specifically cordoned off for Clowns and Entertainers to get in and out of their outfits!

When you say you we defended with nine when "I checked my analysis" What exactly are you talking about? Does this "analysis" hold sway over the evidence of your own eyes? Ask any of the thousands of Evertonians who watch our games if we pulled every man back to defend corners... or, better still, cut to the chase. YouTube any of Southampton's corners on Saturday. Have a look at their goal and see if you can come back and name the two players who aren't pulled back to defend?

You come back repeatedly to defend a tactic you clearly haven't been observing, one which you freely admit you would not employ yourself. That's not tactical analysis, mate, it's blind faith.

An interesting thread. Given the nature of the question asked in post 97 and the way it was worded. Your reply (post 99) did make me laugh.

Zonal marking requires tall defenders who are dominant in the air and attack the ball. The two new signings Zouma and Mina are comfortable with the system and it allows teams to launch quick counter-attacks after winning the first ball.

Hopefully Keane and Holgate can pick it up with work in the training ground so let's give it a bit longer. I am sure that Guardiola, Klopp, Pottechino and Emery use it with good reason.

Binning zonal now and introducing it sometime "later" makes no sense to me. When is "later"? Next pre-season? After the academy (but not the first team) has been playing zonal for 5 years??? It's all or nothing – now is as good a time as any.

And it's not blind faith. People consistently go on Merson-esque rants about zonal marking. I merely pointed out that all the big 6, the successful sides are using it. Okay, I'll give you Spurs use a hybrid, but they're not using man marking. So these Merson-esque dismissals of zonal marking are just ridiculous.

Why not stick to your original post and say there's good reason to be concerned but that it's still early days and we will see how it goes.

Silva is very aware of the issues, he had them raised at Watford. But he did not have them raised at Hull. Maybe it's because he had 6'-5” and 6'-4” centre-halves at Hull. If only we had signed one of them instead of someone small like Gibson. Oh wait, we did.

You continually refer to the top six adopting this "system" as if they were all playing the same game ("They all play "it" so it must be right.") You could not be further from the truth.

I haven't seen Arsenal this season, or Chelsea, they have only played twice under new managers, so I won't comment (neither should you) but I will explain the huge difference between what the other four do.

Spurs are full of compromise (my preferred choice); they will have their roles to play but, when a big centre-back marches into their box, it's not unusual to see even Kane come back and mark him. They always man-mark the people who worry them.

Man City are different again; by putting players not only on the half-way line, but other "springers" outside their box, Pep is challenging the opposition to come into his parlour. They don't dare. He never blinks first.

Klopp also has balls; like Pep, he adopts a purer version. He trusts his defenders to police their given areas, but he also imposes his will by leaving men up and deterring the opposition from flooding his box. I've seen him leave three men up when they were defending a corner.

I'm not quite sure what Silva is up to; that's why I raise concerns. He has been leaving nobody up front. He doesn't even have people outside the box looking to counter-attack. He pulls his entire team back into the box. They are not policing their area and they are not marking men. Result — free strikes on our goal and no means of a breakout.

I have no problem with Zonal Marking, but there has to be a point to it.

I suppose I could always Google or YouTube zonal marking and come up with a few catchphrases used by coaches.

Seems most people will admit that both systems have their flaws and advantages.

I think John's post @ 49 deserves more discussion. Man-marking works best with physical defenders who are able to control/limit/impede their given man. However the World Cup showed that new refereeing imperatives and in particular the usage of VAR are likely to see to see such tactics being punished more frequently.

For this reason I suspect Zonal marking may well get the edge in the future (with the Premier League likely to implement VAR sooner rather than later) and having some old-schoolers who may struggle to get used to it suggests that they are the ones who need to be fixed rather than the system.

I believe defensive strategy is absolutely essential if you want to attack a lot. I like zonal marking, but you have to attack the ball from the space.

Defending a set piece your best headers of the ball should be positioned in the most dangerous positions. Man to man marking systems risk those players being pulled out of position.

When VAR is brought in man to man marking will see more penalties conceded.

The debate will continue. Silva will play zonal so let's back him.

I enjoyed this thread.

I just need your take on zonal marking now, mate...

Just so I can determine which one of the above camps you are in. 👍

Against Wolves, we didn't even concede a corner with 11 men. That we had nobody up front with 10 men afterwards might have been a tactical decision. So that leaves only the Saints game to judge his set-up. Point might even be made that he does this (not having men up front) in his first games to settle the team in the new system.

By all means I am not trying to be a zonal apologist or to defend Silva at any cost. I cringe at all set pieces conceded around the box as I feel this is our mayor weakness right now. But if people cannot judge Chelsea or Arsenal because their new managers had only two games, the same should hold for Silva.

When defending set-pieces, strict adherence to one or the other often goes out the window and what you are most likely to witness is a practical symbiosis of the two. Even a team whose manager preaches zonal marking as the zenith of zipping the back fours fly shut will still task someone specific, whom he thinks best suited, with sticking tight to a towering dangerman. Continually running the risk of Deerhunter scenes from every single corner if they don't.

Even Benitez, who is talked of above as a strict disciple of zonal marking, knows it would be dunderheaded tomfuckery to embrace it fully whilst excluding man marking entirely:

"That flexibility is something I tried to teach the players from the very first day: the zonal-marking system was criticised in England, but most teams are more flexible.

More often than not, for any individual game, your defensive strategy at set-pieces is something of a mix . . . some man-to-man marking, some zonal.

You have to adapt to the circumstances of the game.

It is always important to adapt your marking strategy to your opposition...(sometimes) we detailed one of our defenders to pick a player up, man to man "(see: John Terry every time the RS faced Chelsea)

Good intelligent post to bring the conversation back again and the added bonus of a post from the lesser spotted JD

I take on board what you say about two games Erik, but that's all we have to judge by. The point about not talking about Arsenal and Chelsea after two games is that we have not sat through their games and don't have a scooby how they played.

What we do know is what Silva is doing here. We have seen it against Valencia, Wolves and Saints. I know Steve is very pro Silva, but if he can sit through the Southampton game and say we didn't pull everyone back, I think he's left his analytical skills in the house. If you haven't recorded the game, just google the highlights.

I said I wouldn't discuss Arsenal and Chelsea because I have not seen them play under their new managers, but I was happy to give a detailed account of the various different set ups of the other teams Steve mentioned.

There is a genuine ignorance in asking people to describe zonal marking. It would suggest the guy asking the question is blissfully unaware of the many variations. It's right up there with asking somebody to describe a nice day. I tried to demonstrate those variations by using teams we all know as examples.

I once listened to Justin Edinburgh give a really good session at Sixfields. He spoke about the pros and cons of Zonal and Man Marking. The difficulties of getting either message across. He was articulate intelligent and knowledgeable, so much so he received a very warm round of applause from all present... He clearly knew what he was talking about; he couldn't buy a win and The Cobblers sent him packing a few months later.

As I said. I'm not for or against it per se, but I am very much against asking 30-somethings to suddenly incorporate it into their game. I don't hold with the notion that Silva will not change it even if he can't make it work. This is Everton, not Watford or Hull, and if Silva can't get it to work, the pressure will be so great, he will change it quicker than he can say "Me job's on the line here!"

This site can be incredibly educational and can inspire people to learn more. Take post #97 for example: not for the first time on the thread, he is asking another poster to explain the system to him in detail. Not to be deterred, he gets off, speaks to "many coaches", and comes back able to give a full and a detailed report. Seems very progressive, this zonal lark...

Apparently, it's "essential if you want to attack a lot". You "need your best headers of the ball in the most dangerous positions"... and you can attack from space and everything.

Honestly, that wins me over. I think I've changed me mind!

I may be wrong in your opinion but at least I posted my take on it. You, on the other hand, hedged your bets (pardon the pun).

Have a nice day.

Mind you Everton scored twice from set-pieces at Anfield, in the space of about a week, even if little Timmy Cahill, was very elusive!