Now do you understand it you thick phukkers?
ARE YOU WATCHING, CLIVE TYLDESLEY?
And when no one has heard a peep out of me in weeks, the authorities
will break down my door and find bits of me scattered all over the
room, following my spontaneous combustion.
But it's not the system itself that will cause me to explode; instead,
it's what I have to hear and read about it.
Since Rafael Benítez arrived on Merseyside the Reds have implemented a
zonal marking system on set pieces and corner kicks. The system does
exactly what it says on the tin: the players guard zones rather than
the opposition; setting-up in danger areas in and around the six-yard
box, so that they are automatically in a good position to deal with the
ball, wherever it happens to be delivered.
The best way to understand the whole concept of zonal marking is to
think of an extension of what a goalkeeper does at set pieces. The
keeper defends the ball; he does not mark the opposition striker. His
job is to follow the path of the ball, and intercept it when it comes
into his zone - which should end at around 10 yards from his goal. So
it's fairly simple to understand.
In all of Liverpool's televised live games this season the commentator,
or summariser, has mentioned how much the Reds struggled with
set-pieces last season, due to that pesky zonal marking system.
Clive Tyldesley is on a mission to mention it as many times as
possible. At least Andy Gray mentions how big a side Liverpool are, and
that the Reds should be good at defending set pieces; but there usual
follows a barb about zonal marking, to suggest that the converse is
true.
Quite frankly, that Liverpool are poor at defending set pieces has
become the biggest falsehood since it was claimed that Chesney Hawkes
was the future of music.
The truth is that Liverpool only conceded from two corners all last
season, both coming in Premiership games (Chelsea away and Everton at
home). In total the Reds faced 137 corners in the league, meaning
Benítez's men conceded on just 1.5 per cent of them. Only one team,
Chelsea, were able to come even close to that, allowing three goals
from 127 (2.4 per cent).
In terms of goals conceded from free-kicks delivered into the box,
Liverpool also allowed only two in the Premiership all season, again
one less than Chelsea. So the Reds conceded one-third fewer league
goals than the next-best team when defending set-pieces.
Widening the net to all competitions, Liverpool conceded eight
set-piece goals, compared with Chelsea's nine, Arsenal's 12, and
Manchester United's 15. Liverpool also played the most matches: meaning
fewer set-piece goals conceded from a greater amount of games.
And the Reds did not concede a single free-kick shot all last season
(this is not down to zonal marking, but is an interesting fact all the
same, and something the other top four teams could not boast).
Already this season it's been seven games, with just one set-piece goal
conceded, in the first league game at Sheffield United. The average
last season was one conceded every eight games in all competitions.
It's fair to say that Liverpool can look nervous on set-pieces. But who
doesn't? With the whip and swerve players put on deliveries these days,
and the movement of the newfangled balls, no team can ever look relaxed
in these situations; it's a potential scoring chance, after all. But
can we stick to the facts, and not continue to propagate ill-conceived
ideas?
One of the only problems with zonal marking is that it allows attackers
a run at the ball, while the defenders remain more static in their set
positions. So Liverpool will often lose the first header; however, as
it is almost never a free header (unlike with man-man marking), it's
much more difficult to score with - as the facts suggest.
Nothing was said about Chelsea having problems defending corners and
free-kick crosses last season. But why would it be? They still have an
excellent record defending them. Just not as good as Liverpool's.
It's a myth that dates back to the autumn/winter of 2004, when the new
system had some serious teething problems. For a few weeks it was a
mess, as the players struggled to come to terms with what was required
of them. But around the same time, a Premiership game between Norwich
and Middlesbrough finished 4-4, with five goals down to the worst
man-marking you can ever wish to see, as free headers were offered on a
plate to the opposition. Runs were blocked off, decoy runs made, and
time and again an attacker found space in the box.
That one game alone saw more goals as a result of free-kick crosses and
corners than Liverpool conceded in the entire Premiership campaign last
year. Put that in your reality pipe and smoke it.
The main problem in giving the system a fair press is that zonal
marking, and not the players themselves, gets the blame for conceded
goals. In man-marking, the blame might lie with a different individual
every time, so the greater trend can be easily overlooked.
This is my attempt to finally lay this myth to rest. With Chelsea being
the best side at scoring from set-pieces (last season they scored 50
per cent more goals this way than Liverpool or Manchester United,
including one from Gallas in this fixture), there's every chance it
will be an occasion when zonal marking is once again being criticised,
and criticised without any basis in fact.
While it's not 100 per cent infallible (what system is?), it's
currently proving the best method for defending in these situations,
and the sooner people start acknowledging that fact, the better.
However, if a goal from a corner is conceded by the Reds on Sunday, and
zonal marking is once again blamed - and then no one hears from me
next week - you'll know exactly what happened.
ARE YOU WATCHING, CLIVE TYLDESLEY?
And when no one has heard a peep out of me in weeks, the authorities
will break down my door and find bits of me scattered all over the
room, following my spontaneous combustion.
But it's not the system itself that will cause me to explode; instead,
it's what I have to hear and read about it.
Since Rafael Benítez arrived on Merseyside the Reds have implemented a
zonal marking system on set pieces and corner kicks. The system does
exactly what it says on the tin: the players guard zones rather than
the opposition; setting-up in danger areas in and around the six-yard
box, so that they are automatically in a good position to deal with the
ball, wherever it happens to be delivered.
The best way to understand the whole concept of zonal marking is to
think of an extension of what a goalkeeper does at set pieces. The
keeper defends the ball; he does not mark the opposition striker. His
job is to follow the path of the ball, and intercept it when it comes
into his zone - which should end at around 10 yards from his goal. So
it's fairly simple to understand.
In all of Liverpool's televised live games this season the commentator,
or summariser, has mentioned how much the Reds struggled with
set-pieces last season, due to that pesky zonal marking system.
Clive Tyldesley is on a mission to mention it as many times as
possible. At least Andy Gray mentions how big a side Liverpool are, and
that the Reds should be good at defending set pieces; but there usual
follows a barb about zonal marking, to suggest that the converse is
true.
Quite frankly, that Liverpool are poor at defending set pieces has
become the biggest falsehood since it was claimed that Chesney Hawkes
was the future of music.
The truth is that Liverpool only conceded from two corners all last
season, both coming in Premiership games (Chelsea away and Everton at
home). In total the Reds faced 137 corners in the league, meaning
Benítez's men conceded on just 1.5 per cent of them. Only one team,
Chelsea, were able to come even close to that, allowing three goals
from 127 (2.4 per cent).
In terms of goals conceded from free-kicks delivered into the box,
Liverpool also allowed only two in the Premiership all season, again
one less than Chelsea. So the Reds conceded one-third fewer league
goals than the next-best team when defending set-pieces.
Widening the net to all competitions, Liverpool conceded eight
set-piece goals, compared with Chelsea's nine, Arsenal's 12, and
Manchester United's 15. Liverpool also played the most matches: meaning
fewer set-piece goals conceded from a greater amount of games.
And the Reds did not concede a single free-kick shot all last season
(this is not down to zonal marking, but is an interesting fact all the
same, and something the other top four teams could not boast).
Already this season it's been seven games, with just one set-piece goal
conceded, in the first league game at Sheffield United. The average
last season was one conceded every eight games in all competitions.
It's fair to say that Liverpool can look nervous on set-pieces. But who
doesn't? With the whip and swerve players put on deliveries these days,
and the movement of the newfangled balls, no team can ever look relaxed
in these situations; it's a potential scoring chance, after all. But
can we stick to the facts, and not continue to propagate ill-conceived
ideas?
One of the only problems with zonal marking is that it allows attackers
a run at the ball, while the defenders remain more static in their set
positions. So Liverpool will often lose the first header; however, as
it is almost never a free header (unlike with man-man marking), it's
much more difficult to score with - as the facts suggest.
Nothing was said about Chelsea having problems defending corners and
free-kick crosses last season. But why would it be? They still have an
excellent record defending them. Just not as good as Liverpool's.
It's a myth that dates back to the autumn/winter of 2004, when the new
system had some serious teething problems. For a few weeks it was a
mess, as the players struggled to come to terms with what was required
of them. But around the same time, a Premiership game between Norwich
and Middlesbrough finished 4-4, with five goals down to the worst
man-marking you can ever wish to see, as free headers were offered on a
plate to the opposition. Runs were blocked off, decoy runs made, and
time and again an attacker found space in the box.
That one game alone saw more goals as a result of free-kick crosses and
corners than Liverpool conceded in the entire Premiership campaign last
year. Put that in your reality pipe and smoke it.
The main problem in giving the system a fair press is that zonal
marking, and not the players themselves, gets the blame for conceded
goals. In man-marking, the blame might lie with a different individual
every time, so the greater trend can be easily overlooked.
This is my attempt to finally lay this myth to rest. With Chelsea being
the best side at scoring from set-pieces (last season they scored 50
per cent more goals this way than Liverpool or Manchester United,
including one from Gallas in this fixture), there's every chance it
will be an occasion when zonal marking is once again being criticised,
and criticised without any basis in fact.
While it's not 100 per cent infallible (what system is?), it's
currently proving the best method for defending in these situations,
and the sooner people start acknowledging that fact, the better.
However, if a goal from a corner is conceded by the Reds on Sunday, and
zonal marking is once again blamed - and then no one hears from me
next week - you'll know exactly what happened.
I thought you might be joking....seems bloody obvious to me now actually
.
Comment