Thank f*** for that

[Bailo]

From the Offal:

 

Are you watching Clive Tyldesley?

 

And when no one has heard a peep out of me in weeks, the authorities will break down my door and find bits of me scattered all over the room, following my spontaneous combustion.

 

But it's not the system itself that will cause me to explode; instead, it's what I have to hear and read about it.

 

Since Rafael Benítez arrived on Merseyside the Reds have implemented a zonal marking system on set pieces and corner kicks. The system does exactly what it says on the tin: the players guard zones rather than the opposition; setting-up in danger areas in and around the six-yard box, so that they are automatically in a good position to deal with the ball, wherever it happens to be delivered.

 

The best way to understand the whole concept of zonal marking is to think of an extension of what a goalkeeper does at set pieces. The keeper defends the ball; he does not mark the opposition striker. His job is to follow the path of the ball, and intercept it when it comes into his zone ? which should end at around 10 yards from his goal. So it's fairly simple to understand.

 

In all of Liverpool's televised live games this season the commentator, or summariser, has mentioned how much the Reds struggled with set-pieces last season, due to that pesky zonal marking system.

 

Clive Tyldesley is on a mission to mention it as many times as possible. At least Andy Gray mentions how big a side Liverpool are, and that the Reds should be good at defending set pieces; but there usual follows a barb about zonal marking, to suggest that the converse is true.

 

Quite frankly, that Liverpool are poor at defending set pieces has become the biggest falsehood since it was claimed that Chesney Hawkes was the future of music.

 

The truth is that Liverpool only conceded from two corners all last season, both coming in Premiership games (Chelsea away and Everton at home). In total the Reds faced 137 corners in the league, meaning Benítez's men conceded on just 1.5 per cent of them. Only one team, Chelsea, were able to come even close to that, allowing three goals from 127 (2.4 per cent).

 

In terms of goals conceded from free-kicks delivered into the box, Liverpool also allowed only two in the Premiership all season, again one less than Chelsea. So the Reds conceded one-third fewer league goals than the next-best team when defending set-pieces.

 

Widening the net to all competitions, Liverpool conceded eight set-piece goals, compared with Chelsea's nine, Arsenal's 12, and Manchester United's 15. Liverpool also played the most matches: meaning fewer set-piece goals conceded from a greater amount of games.

 

And the Reds did not concede a single free-kick shot all last season (this is not down to zonal marking, but is an interesting fact all the same, and something the other top four teams could not boast).

 

Already this season it's been seven games, with just one set-piece goal conceded, in the first league game at Sheffield United. The average last season was one conceded every eight games in all competitions.

 

It's fair to say that Liverpool can look nervous on set-pieces. But who doesn't? With the whip and swerve players put on deliveries these days, and the movement of the newfangled balls, no team can ever look relaxed in these situations; it's a potential scoring chance, after all. But can we stick to the facts, and not continue to propagate ill-conceived ideas?

 

One of the only problems with zonal marking is that it allows attackers a run at the ball, while the defenders remain more static in their set positions. So Liverpool will often lose the first header; however, as it is almost never a free header (unlike with man-man marking), it's much more difficult to score with ? as the facts suggest.

 

Nothing was said about Chelsea having problems defending corners and free-kick crosses last season. But why would it be? They still have an excellent record defending them. Just not as good as Liverpool's.

 

It's a myth that dates back to the autumn/winter of 2004, when the new system had some serious teething problems. For a few weeks it was a mess, as the players struggled to come to terms with what was required of them. But around the same time, a Premiership game between Norwich and Middlesbrough finished 4-4, with five goals down to the worst man-marking you can ever wish to see, as free headers were offered on a plate to the opposition. Runs were blocked off, decoy runs made, and time and again an attacker found space in the box.

 

That one game alone saw more goals as a result of free-kick crosses and corners than Liverpool conceded in the entire Premiership campaign last year. Put that in your reality pipe and smoke it.

 

The main problem in giving the system a fair press is that zonal marking, and not the players themselves, gets the blame for conceded goals. In man-marking, the blame might lie with a different individual every time, so the greater trend can be easily overlooked.

 

This is my attempt to finally lay this myth to rest. With Chelsea being the best side at scoring from set-pieces (last season they scored 50 per cent more goals this way than Liverpool or Manchester United, including one from Gallas in this fixture), there's every chance it will be an occasion when zonal marking is once again being criticised, and criticised without any basis in fact.

 

While it's not 100 per cent infallible (what system is?), it's currently proving the best method for defending in these situations, and the sooner people start acknowledging that fact, the better.

 

However, if a goal from a corner is conceded by the Reds on Sunday, and zonal marking is once again blamed ? and then no one hears from me next week ? you'll know exactly what happened.

[Falconhoof]

Nicely written piece.

 

Doubt it'll make any difference to Tyldesley and Gray though.

[johngibo YPC]

was just about to post that. Interesting stats

[Guest soueyg]

Should send it to Tyldesley and the rest of them.

 

The standard of commentators, co commentators and pundits has decreased rapidly over the past few years. Mark Bright, Steve Claridge, Paul Merson, David Platt, Jamie Rednapp, Lee Dixon. It's enough to put you off the game forever.

[Rory Fitzgerald]

I heard those stats before but not as worded so eloquently.

[_00_deathscar]

Think that's the best article he's written to date myself.

[Gray - YPC]

Funny that he mentions Boro regarding this, as they spent a weeks in training practising zonal marking, and put tried it out against Chelsea away last season (as well as a few other games).

 

It didn't really work out for them, and they never got to grips with the system, so changed back to man-marking for set-pieces.

[Boca]

Should send it to Tyldesley and the rest of them.

 

The standard of commentators, co commentators and pundits has decreased rapidly over the past few years. Mark Bright, Steve Claridge, Paul Merson, David Platt, Jamie Rednapp, Lee Dixon. It's enough to put you off the game forever.

 

I think the problem is the amount of games being televised now. Even the games that are not televised have an "expert" watching them and commenting on them. The television companies don't want the same faces on every night so they are desperate for ex-pros to appear on their programmes. Any night on sky there could be up to ten of these ex-players giving their opinions on various matches. It follows that some of them, in fact most of them, are very limited when it comes to analysing the games.

In the old days, when there was one or two games shown every week the television companies could afford to be picky about who they had on but not now. That's why the likes of Claridge, Beagrie, Earle, Townsend, Nicholas (I could go on and on) and other ex-players who can barely string two sentences together appear on our screens.

[Guest BluePhix]

I think the problem is the amount of games being televised now. Even the games that are not televised have an "expert" watching them and commenting on them. The television companies don't want the same faces on every night so they are desperate for ex-pros to appear on their programmes. Any night on sky there could be up to ten of these ex-players giving their opinions on various matches. It follows that some of them, in fact most of them, are very limited when it comes to analysing the games.

In the old days, when there was one or two games shown every week the television companies could afford to be picky about who they had on but not now. That's why the likes of Claridge, Beagrie, Earle, Townsend, Nicholas (I could go on and on) and other ex-players who can barely string two sentences together appear on our screens.

 

I second that, I've been watching goals from last season and the second 'commentator' really gets on my nerves sometimes. I think while trying to present an informed opinion there is the temptation to say something that the media are harping on about. Dare I say after any zonal marking incident there is the commentary bashing, followed up by more detailed bashing by the commentators on SuperSport 3 (African viewers) at which point I switch the channel to see something else. From the little bit of 5live that i heard in the UK, it sounded like they did a much better job. We even switched off the TV commentary once and listened to that instead... I think we could replace the 'second' expert with the commentary team from Pro Evo and they'd do a better job

[Bootle Buck]

Unfortunately most of the pundits are players that would never make it as a manager or Can't walk away from the game for whatever reason. What happened to having one commentator like the old days and leave the ex-pros to do the after dinner speach circuit.

[Cobs]

would you wanna work with Gravy?

[beejay]

Could we try zonal attacking at set pieces? We are so efin useless yet we have several dead ball specialists - Aurelio, Pennant, Alonso, Gerrard - and enough height to get there first.

[nvdm]

Stats prove nothing!

 

Unless they support your own ideas and beliefs.

[Scally the Wag]

What's so wrong with Chesney Hawkes?

 

 

 

Decent piece, brings out some interesting points about those zones.

 

And, of course that bias...

[jimmylibel]

Let them continue to propagate the myth that zonal marking is the source of our woes I reckon. The more clueless managers will fall for it and base their tactics on that ridiculous assumption allowing us to mop up at the back with relative ease.

 

Used to annoy me to feck but just makes me laugh now.

[Billy Dane]

Let them continue to propagate the myth that zonal marking is the source of our woes I reckon. The more clueless managers will fall for it and base their tactics on that ridiculous assumption allowing us to mop up at the back with relative ease.

 

Used to annoy me to feck but just makes me laugh now.

 

 

exactly.

[sexton_hardcastle]

After the Arsenal v Hamburg game last night Richard Keys said "Join us back in the studio after the break for expert anaysis from Graeme Souness & Charlie Nicholas"

 

 

I changed the channel, and proceeded to bang my head off the nearest wall figuring i would get more incisive comments & reaction