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

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.

it really depends on defensive philosophy too... some teams like the win the defensive duels while others prefer defending the most dangerous areas as a block and counting on the odds being bad in other parts.

On a personal note, i didn't like zone as a defender because i felt that i was always trying to react late to the moves of the attacker as opposed to pushing him in bad areas as early as possible. Nothing like a quick tug or sharp elbow to put the attacker off lol.

I think in the end, we can all agree that personale is more important the system.

You apply the system to get the best out the players you got.

Both systems have positives and negatives, in the end I think each team has to choose whats best for the players they have.

I think zone can cover up weaknesses but its not full proof against certain opponants vs certain players you have, whereas man to man is easier to do but give you less room for error.

Agreed Franchise. I watch Arsenal so i've learned to really hate zone... i'm biased lol.

I also believe that the goalkeeper should be considered. I personally dislike the idea of a zonal defence if the keeper is hesitant or isn't a natural communicator. The set of outfield players takes precedence in my mind though.

Yeah... keeper is critical in all defenses frankly. Defender has less to worry about with a great keeper and can be more aggressive.

Main reason Bayern is so much better defensively this year is Neuer imo. Having a rock like that makes all the defenders better.

sportsczy wrote:Yeah... keeper is critical in all defenses frankly. Defender has less to worry about with a great keeper and can be more aggressive.

Main reason Bayern is so much better defensively this year is Neuer imo. Having a rock like that makes all the defenders better.

Not just that, the coach actually spends time training the defence with defensive drills and its obviously shows......

Bayern dont even concede chances for Neuer to save sometimes lol, ofcourse Neuer is a massive plus but at the same time the defence deserve alot of credit.....

Well like most of you said both systems live and die by the personnel on offer.

Zone is more difficult to do for sure but done correctly I think it's the safer option to use.

Of course if I didn't have to choose one or the other I'd employ a mix of the two.

Have any team ever tried to mix both Zonal and man to man marking previously?

I'm sure someone out there does. I mean it's a pretty feasible idea to try and mix the two.

Zonal for open play, man to man for set pieces, but don't do it too strictly. You still have to cover all the zones you'd normally have. Sure, mark the tall ones, the dangerous ones, but you still can't leave spaces to run into.

So basically you'll have to mix both aproaches anyway.

No that I've written that, I think I changed my mind.

Zonal.

Unmarked players are less dangerous than open spaces to run into.

Everyone mixes it at least on corners.. except Arsenal lol. On corners, you have at least 2-3 guys in the gk box to start, with one hugging the near post. They react based on the kick. Never seen a team play full man-to-man on corners.