Main Discussion - Norwich City

Topic has 44 replies.
Print Search Sort Posts:

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

This coach was hired from the German 4th division.

Do you really need to say anymore?
   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

pause the clip at

1m 32sec to get a clear view of City's marking at that corner, it looks much more to be man to man marking rather than 'zonal'.


   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

If it’s man marking, it’s atrocious, as we have four men not marking in the box (back post, rear edge of six yard box, middle six yard box, and front ish of the box) and there are three Ipswich players unmarked on the edge.

What that clip looks like to me is one on each post and then two banks of four across roughly the width of the six yard box. Looks pretty zonal to me.
   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

Incidentally, a prime example of zonal not being properly applied because the players are sticking to it too rigidly. Clearly they’ve practiced setting up like that. But with three opposition players on the edge of the box, the front line of four should be another 5 yards out. We still win the first header and we deal with the loose second ball that way.
   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

err, no

you lose the header as it is too easy to thwart zonal marking

curiously the paused clip shows almost each City player close to a binner - so are we to assume the binners moved to be next to the City players !

   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

Why do you lose the header? None of the second bank of four are involved in us winning the first header.

Three of the four defenders nearest the goal are not marking. There are nine defenders within the width of the six yard box. Quite a safe bet that at least three opposition players would be ‘near’ one of them in that area from a corner isn’t it?

Or were you expecting the Ipswich players to see we were marking zonally and actually decide to just not stand in the most dangerous areas of the box?

10 defenders in the box. 7 attackers. Quite tricky maths admittedly, but if you’re man marking, each attacker should be marked with three free defenders. Yet in the clip there are three Ipswich players unmarked, and 6 defenders not marking. It’s either some of the worst man marking I’ve seen, or it’s zonal.

   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

10 defenders in the box. 7 attackers

each attacker should be marked with three free defenders.

eh ?

or actually eight attackers, three of which were on the edge of the 18 yard box - it is also usual to have a player on each post

the binner on the near post has a City player directly in from and behind him, a classic piece of man marking by blocking

the three City players man marking outside the 6 yard box each move with their man rather than stand rigid as zonal marking states

I would suggest you watch the clip again and count correctly this time

   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

The classic “double up on one and leave three completely unmarked” approach to man marking!

I’m glad though we agree there were enough defenders to mark every attacker, and to have two defenders spare, yet we chose to leave three men entirely unmarked.

Fairly rare to have players on both posts nowadays and one of the attackers is next to Krul but unmarked.
   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

I don’t agree with zonal marking as I don’t think it works well for us but if you are going to play it you surely have to have some players policing the zones further out as well. They played one corner straight to the edge of the box where their player had a free shot, worked the incident where their player dived to a player free at the top of the box and there were at least 3 occasions where defensive headers fell to their player on the edge of he box who had a shooting opportunity.

If I was an opposition manager I would be working set peice routines to exploit this as it appears suicidal.
   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

Watching that clip it’s compounded because the forward most bank get dragged back towards the goal as the hall comes in thus leaving an even wider gap.

That surely cannot be right/good tactics yet we did it throughout the game and it was clearly deliberate.
   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

 Aggy wrote:
The classic “double up on one and leave three completely unmarked” approach to man marking! I’m glad though we agree there were enough defenders to mark every attacker, and to have two defenders spare, yet we chose to leave three men entirely unmarked. Fairly rare to have players on both posts nowadays and one of the attackers is next to Krul but unmarked.

Well at least you recognise that your numbers were way out.

You closely mark those who you deem as a threat, hence the other two binners not in the frame not being marked.

I suspect the three binners outside of the box were intended to draw defenders away from the six yard box. City thought otherwise and chose the mark tightly the players where they perceived the ball would go. Likewise if you look at the binner corner following that one you won't see either a City Player on the near post or any binner either.

Football is about making decisions as the game progresses, not as some would have it about 'formations' and rigid positions. Different teams will pose a different threat. Players react to that as does the manager when picking his team, so I don't expect every corner/set piece to be defended the same each time.

That was what was seen.

   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

 Jim Smith wrote:
Watching that clip it’s compounded because the forward most bank get dragged back towards the goal as the hall comes in thus leaving an even wider gap. That surely cannot be right/good tactics yet we did it throughout the game and it was clearly deliberate.

It's called marking your man, rather than a patch of grass - so dealing with the greater threat.

   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

It is about making decisions, that’s why zonal doesn’t work in this team - there was far too much of a gap between the second row of four and their three men on the edge. Had somebody within the team taken it upon themselves to shift the second bank of four forward by five yards, problem solved.

Having 11 men looking after four players is not sensible football. If one of those four is Cristiano Ronaldo it might make slightly more sense. But I see no reason for 10/12 vs 4 against the threat of Ipswich (or any side in this division).

Regardless of whether we mark zonally or man mark, you can’t leave three players in ten yards of space at the edge of the box from corners.

If you’re right Ben, and the players were under tactical instruction from the manager to man mark, but all made a deliberate on field decision to instead stay in or only just outside the six yard box marking four players and leaving three completely unmarked on the edge of the box because the four in the six yard box were that much of a bigger threat, then it suggests to me there is nobody in that team who can sense danger or who has an ounce of defensive awareness or leadership.

More likely, and giving the the benefit of the doubt to the players, they were sticking too rigidly to a zonal marking plan and weren’t able/didn’t want to adapt. Whether that’s because the manager won’t let them think for themselves, they’re scared to do so, or they aren’t capable of doing so, I don’t know.

But if leaving three men completely unmarked on the edge of the box from a corner is an on-field decision made by the defence, then it makes me far more worried than does a set piece ploy which hasn’t been well enough drilled/the players aren’t capable of pulling off.
   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

10/11 vs 4... although I’m sure if we had twelve the extra man would have been on the goal line next to Krul...
   Report  

Re: Unmarked players at the edge of our box

We don't appear to be watching the same game, or you still can't count.

There were two binners in the six yard box, and three outside... making five, not four.

You mark those who you perceive as a threat, as was done.

"they were sticking too rigidly to a zonal marking plan"

that is utter nonsense ! ! !

as the three players just outside the six yard box move with their marked men - the whole idea of zonal marking is you mark a zone, not the man

this was seen in the following corner where the defenders took up different positions as they sought to mark attacking players, being the ones they saw as the threat

zonal marking is akin to placing all the fielders in a cricket match in equidistant to each other on the basis that they will cover a certain amount of the boundary

   Report