Transfer News

[enema of the state]

OK, cheers.

End of.

end of end ofs

[Sir Bob]

I'd say theres a big difference between man to man & zonal marking.
In one system you mark an individual player, in the other you effectively mark the space in your zone. If the ball comes into your zone its your responsibility to deal with it.

[kopdan]

The zonal system works well in FM and seems to work much better at L4 these days

[Red_Polo]

you should deduce that in zonal marking - or man-to man - the defenders need to react to the dynamics: flight of the ball, runs of the attacker etc - to defend successfully.

In zonal marking the defenders don't react to the runs of the attackers for the first ball - they are marking the zone not the man, and the zones do not move. At first they react only to the flight of the ball. Which is quite a substantial difference really. Not 'just semantics'.

[Red_Al_77]

So nothing we didn't already know then.

[enema of the state]

In zonal marking the defenders don't react to the runs of the attackers for the first ball - they are marking the zone not the man, and the zones do not move. At first they react only to the flight of the ball. Which is quite a substantial difference really. Not 'just semantics'.

not correct - whislt they may loosely cover (ie have responsibility to clear the ball from) "zones", the players move in a variable way - eg say the "far post" which you might call a zone is 6m x 6m box. the movement of the defender for correct defence is variable and depends on the flight of the ball and the exact movememnt of the attacker within/around that "zone". Furthermore, these "zones" overlap so 1 of several players may - correctly move to clear a ball in a zonal defence. EXACTLY the same is true of "man-to man" : although the potential areas the defender may need to cover might be considered larger and the starting point variable with the movement of the attacker before the ball is delivered, in practice they are short distances. in fact the runs tend to be pretty stereotypical and conform to "zones" anyhow - just a slightly different area of grass.

[enema of the state]

In zonal marking the defenders don't react to the runs of the attackers for the first ball.

were you on the coaching staff at lfc last year?

[enema of the state]

I'd say theres a big difference between man to man & zonal marking.
In one system you mark an individual player, in the other you effectively mark the space in your zone. If the ball comes into your zone its your responsibility to deal with it.

so what does "mark" mean in that context - in my semantic argument i think it means "take a starting point from".

in both systems the defender moves to a variable point on the pitch depending on the flight ofthe ball and the movement of the attacker. the starting point is of far less importance than the judgement of the flight, the anticipation of the attackers movement, the defenders speed of movement, jumping, heading etc...

[rushscored4]

The zonal system works well in FM and seems to work much better at L4 these days

The zonal marking system also works well in NCP car parks...

[Red_Polo]

Enema...you agree then the emphasis on movement is at the very least different for the two systems?

Zonal and man-to-man. First of all you say it's all semantics. You have a go at someone who suggests otherwise. Then you say they are actually different in reality i.e. not just semantics. That's what I'm trying to point out.

[enema of the state]

Enema...you agree then the emphasis on movement is at the very least different for the two systems?.

different only in where the defender starts from when the ball is kicked. In both systems the defender then runs to a position to clear the ball/challenge a moving attacker. and in reality, often not different at all as the starting positions in man-to man end up as th same

Zonal and man-to-man. First of all you say it's all semantics. You have a go at someone who suggests otherwise. Then you say they are actually different in reality i.e. not just semantics. That's what I'm trying to point out.

my point is that people assume the terms "zonal" and "m2m" are meaningfully different on a large number of complex levels. my point is simply that the differece in reality is negligible and the effect of that difference on outcome and efficiency of defnce is also negligible (this depending on the quality of execution of the basic techniques i have tried to outline.) hence the argument is really semantic with its root in a misunderstanding of the real nature/meaning of those terms.

i have not "had a go" at anybody who hasnt had go at me first - at least not on this thread I hope you dont find sarcasm so terrible as to put it in the "having a go bracket" that would really make you a hypocrite if you did.

[Neil Young]

enema, I can't hemp thinking you are overstating your case. If if were true that the "difference in reality is negligible" then one wonders why Rafa bothered introducing it in the first place and why the players took about half a season to come to terms with it.

I would agree that pundits often, wilfully or otherwise, misunderstand and hence may exaggerate the differences and certainly misattribute failures but I think you're in danger of going to the opposite extreme.

Of course at some point after the free kick has been taken the differences between the two systems become negligible and then disappear but the crucial issues surely are when is the point that we might all deem that "open play" has re-started and what happens between players adopting the starting-position and that point.

[GordonGecko]

Where's all this transfer news then?

[Neil Young]

Where's all this transfer news then?

You need to look for it in Nicey's "Ever Feel Small" thread in The Library. There's a load of snippets in there.

[dww]

my point is that people assume the terms "zonal" and "m2m" are meaningfully different on a large number of complex levels. my point is simply that the differece in reality is negligible and the effect of that difference on outcome and efficiency of defnce is also negligible (this depending on the quality of execution of the basic techniques i have tried to outline.) hence the argument is really semantic with its root in a misunderstanding of the real nature/meaning of those terms.

I think you started with some very valid points about how the difference between systems does dissappear at some point post a free kick. However I think that what seems like a simple difference when written down - i.e. starting position and initial subject of a defenders concentration (do you move prior to the kick to follow the man of concentrate on your zone) are actually quite key to the decisions and actions taken later.

I very nearly went all mathematical and started talking of initial conditions and chaos (which was a (il)logical extreme, but luckliy for you all I held back.