Defending Set Pieces: Zonal vs Man-to-Man ?

Zonal for me. Man-2-Man is way too risky

I'd say Man-2-Man. If you are doing Zonal, and someone makes a run, they will have an advantage over you because they already started moving. Man-2Man works if people are doing it properly.

Then again, you can say that about any strategy

It really depends on the personnel you have available to you, a coach shouldn't be rigid on such a matter, though I personally prefer man-to-man.

Man to Man is the best and the most effective way of defending set piece.

it depends....if you go against a team like barca where only busquets and pique are a real threat,id go for man marking

Man to Man.

In zonal, you attack thee ball, in man-2-man, you simply on to make sure the opposition don't get the ball.

attacking the ball is more important IMO.

I prefer man to man.

Man to man for me

If it's against a team with good aerial threats then I'd like my taller men to mark the tall ones

Does it have to be one or the other?

How about playing zone but making sure that one or two of the other team's danger men are man marked.

Best of both worlds. (If I had to choose one though I'd choose Zone)

Zealous wrote:Does it have to be one or the other?

How about playing zone but making sure that one or two of the other team's danger men are man marked.

Best of both worlds. (If I had to choose one though I'd choose Zone)

would be too much confusion for defenders i suppose.

U wont exactly know where the other team's danger man is gone stand for every set piece so man marking defenders will get confused with their zone marking defenders.

A mix of both?

Its good to mark opponents' most dangerous players personally, but what if thats Ribery or Robben you are playing against, who rape 2-3 players consistently?

Need cover then

BeautifulGame wrote:

Zealous wrote:Does it have to be one or the other?

How about playing zone but making sure that one or two of the other team's danger men are man marked.

Best of both worlds. (If I had to choose one though I'd choose Zone)

would be too much confusion for defenders i suppose.

U wont exactly know where the other team's danger man is gone stand for every set piece so man marking defenders will get confused with their zone marking defenders.

I know footballers aren't usually the smartest guys but I don't think it'll be that confusing to do LOL

I prefer man on man man to man, no one uses zonal anymore......

I blame Sky and English pundits in general for giving Zonal marking a bad rep.

It's an effective way to defend when done properly.

Man to man.

Or both like Zealous said, man mark the dangerous ones and zonal mark the rest of the area.

Zonal is terrible. You allow players to take free runs into areas... makes them a lot more dangerous. Man-to-man is the way to go as you need to get in the way of players at the start imo.

Zonal is only as terrible as the players using it. Man marking is easier to understand and do but it's essentially a gamble especially if the other team has great set piece players, doubly so if the delivery is good.

Look at Hernandez's goal for United yesterday against Liverpool. All it took was a dummy run and the entire man marking thing fell apart.

It's much, much harder to have to see the ball flight and find the man coming into your zone at full speed... in fact, it's suicide if you have great air game by the opponent. Zonal is usually used when you have a height advantage and/or a speed deficit. Even then, it's really risky.

Imo, in the modern game, you just can't let people take free runs into the box. Players are too strong, too fast and jump too well for it to be effective. You need to pick everyone man-to-man from the penalty box in.

The supposed advantage you get when facing a zone on set pieces of getting a running start vs the opponant in a zone simply standing, I dont buy it.

When set peices are scored, its more common that someone is free and in space rather then one player just outleaping and jumping up and over another.

Players get open or in space because one man loses another, with a zone that doesnt happen.

Though of course, you dont want an aerial threat working out a weak player in a zone and then exploiting it.

So, mixing one with another depending on the opponant makes sense to me.

The Franchise wrote:The supposed advantage you get when facing a zone on set pieces of getting a running start vs the opponant in a zone simply standing, I dont buy it.

When set peices are scored, its more common that someone is free and in space rather then one player just outleaping and jumping up and over another.

Players get open or in space because one man loses another, with a zone that doesnt happen.

Though of course, you dont want an aerial threat working out a weak player in a zone and then exploiting it.

So, mixing one with another depending on the opponant makes sense to me.

Pretty much how I feel on this subject.

It's also just so easy to mess up in a zone. Remember Puyol's flying header in the wc? they were playing zone and didn't account for Puyol who made a late run into the box.

Arsenal also plays zone and often get raped because one player screens the zone defender to allow the teammate behind to get an open look.

Just requires too much quick thinking and reacting. Very error-prone.

Btw, i'm not talking straight man-to-man. you're always going to have one player play zone in the near post and another in the back post on corners for example. But in the end, playing mostly man-to-man is much safer.

In most situations, you should have a numerical advantage in the box, so the selection of these extra players for a zonal role is important, however even so, enough physical pressure can be legally applied to an opponent to render any finish they can apply so inaccurate as to be useless. Unless you're dealing with players with the turning circles of heavy trucks, you should have the concentration to check any dummy run by focussing on remaining goal side. I know I'm making it sound easier than it is, however if you're aware of where you are, you should have the discipline to allow them to move based upon your position from the goal.