We have advocates of both pro and anti-zonal marking on here; personally, I do not understand it. I do not like it.
If I was now playing 'Zonal' and marking a space; it's possible that I could either, be marking no-one or someone much better in the air - in fact I could be defending a space that had more than one opponent attacking it; all of who were better than me in the air. Is that correct?
Yesterday, Insua (5' 10"), was marking his 'zone' perfectly when who should wander into it only Elmander (6'2") - guess who won that aerial battle, leading to a goal? .....* cuts his "told ya so!" song and dance short and continues.....
The anti-zonal legions can point to the goals we concede from set pieces and, to be honest, it's hard to deny we've got a case. However, those that are quick to defend 'zonal' blame the players and how they play the system.
It would then follow that, if the players are to blame it's because they; a) don't understand it or, b) aren't good enough to operate within that system.
Logic would seem to dictate therefore; that until the players either understand 'Zonal' or are good enough to execute the system: it may be best that we stop playing 'Zonal'. - Only a thought like.
« Last Edit: Aug 30, 2009 10:20:41 am by bad boy bubby »
Logged