Zonal Marking: It's not as evil as you think it is

Zonal marking at corners – defending pre-assigned zones, rather than sticking to a specific opponent – is generally ridiculed in British circles. Pundits and commentators claiming to be experts of the game latch on to zonal marking errors and are quick to blame the entire idea and system. By doing so, they flaunt their ignorance to the world; and in turn, instill a similar ignorance in the large proportion of football viewership which is exposed only to English football.

Goals from corners can, more often than not, be put down to individual mistakes. Both zonal and man marking demand very high – and sometimes, unrealistic – levels of concentration from defenders and keepers alike. Blaming the system and the tactics of the manager is a rather bull headed approach, employed by those who only choose to see what is in front of their eyes when a little analysis will often point the finger at the real issue.

Take for instance, Celtic’s 0-3 loss at home to Milan. Celtic, normally very good at defending set pieces, conceded two goals from corners which turned the match on its head.

Kaka scores at Celtic Park to give Milan the lead.

Kaka, circled in red, scored the first from inside the six yard box. Celtic were using a mixture of zonal and man marking; the two players judged to be the greatest danger, Zapata and Balotelli were being blocked (circled in black) near the penalty spot but the setup was largely zonal. Celtic’s keeper, Fraser Forster could and should have come to collect the ball, seeing as the goal was scored from within his ‘zone’.

The error which led to Milan’s second goal was more subtle and is a very typical example of an individual error in a zonal marking setup.

Celtic set up for the corner which lead to Milan’s second.

Note the position of Swedish right back Mikael Lustig (circled in black) as the ball is played over everyone’s head.

Cristian Zapata scores Milan’s second of the night

Nocerino, at the back post, plays the ball back across goal and Zapata (who ironically, was one of the two players man marked in the build up to the first goal) has an easy tap in. This was possible however, because Lustig (again, circled in black) had now moved out of his zone. It is interesting to see that Zapata scores from the exact same position Lustig was originally in, in the first frame. Had Lustig held his position, he would have been able to clear the ball before Zapata could get a foot on it.

The commentator notes that Forster could have come to collect for the first goal, but is then quick to blame the system, commenting after the second that both goals were “all down to zonal marking”.

Then, in the post match highlights show, Glenn Hoddle goes on to say this.

“It’s that old adage of zonal. I hate it. I hate zonal from corners. I see it time and time again, teams getting goals scored against them. I just cannot understand, why clubs do that.”

He then proceeds to be confused as to why Celtic were defending zonally, claiming that “they don’t normally do that”. Celtic have, in fact, been defending zonally (at least in Europe) all season.

This coming from a former manager of the English national team. No wonder England fail to perform at major tournaments.

That is not to say that zonal marking is the way to go. Teams put in a large number of hours on the training ground, trying to perfect their set piece defending and managers spend a lot of time on the drawing board, trying to figure out how best to stop the opposition scoring from corners. There is no best way to go about it; there is only what works best for a team, a particular group of players – be it zonal, man-to-man or a mixture of the both.

But zonal marking is definitely not as nonsensical as it is made out to be. It only looks more ridiculous when it fails. Celtic conceded two set piece goals to Milan, and there was great hue and cry. On the other hand, the recent 3-3 Merseyside derby saw all six goals scored following set pieces (two of them being corners) but nobody looked to criticize the man marking systems employed by both Liverpool and Everton.

In man marking, the responsibility often falls to the player marking the scorer, and the system is rarely blamed. But ultimately, it was the system which dictated that one specific player was supposed to mark another, so why is just the player at fault?

Moreover (as we have seen in the Celtic-Milan examples), while defending zonally as well, the mistake can often be accredited to a particular player. The fact that it is often harder to spot and pinpoint should not make it any less crucial.

The disadvantages of zonal marking are well documented; a zone never scores a goal, the attacker with a running jump will always beat the defender who jumps from a standing position and no one takes responsibility. Zonal marking’s advantages however, are often overlooked. Moreover, there exists a counter to each of the above mentioned ‘disadvantages’.

A zone never scores a goal, but goals are scored from dangerous zones and eventually, it is the ball which has to be kept out of the net. An attacker can at any time get a run on the defender marking him. The defender can jump all he wants then, but will be no nearer to stopping the goal than he would have been had he been defending zonally. And the last one is just absurd – how is taking responsibility for a ‘zone’ different from taking responsibility for a ‘man’? To suggest that a player can do one and not the other amounts to insulting his intelligence.

While defending zonally, the defender cannot be blocked off by another player and there exists no confusion regarding any particular defender’s ‘man’. How many times have we seen a substitute coming off the bench and scoring from a corner because nobody was picking him up?

Zonal marking dictates that each defender defend his own zone, and is essentially a more pro active approach, whereas man marking is more reactive as it depends on how the opposition attacks the corner.

Take for instance, Liverpool and Suarez’s second goal against Norwich at Anfield last week.

Suarez scores his second to put Liverpool two up against Norwich.

Here we see Coutinho taking the corner from the left. Gerrard (circled in red), who usually takes the corners, is left unmarked. Bassong (near the penalty spot, circled in black), is pointing at Gerrard and shouting at someone to pick him up.

Meanwhile, in the confusion created by Gerrard’s unexpected presence in the box, Skrtel starts drifting away from Bassong and is eventually present free at the back post (area marked in blue). As the corner is played in, Gerrard makes a run towards the near post (area marked in yellow) and flicks it on for Suarez to score.

This situation presents a classic example of how one additional unmarked player can create mayhem in the opposition’s penalty area.

A zonal marking system, on the other hand, would need only a specific number of players to defend a corner, irrespective of how many attackers are pushed forward. The defending team would then be able to position the rest of their players in areas from where they could effectively launch quick counter attacks, making zonal marking a pro active strategy in more ways than one.