Man Marking vs Zonal Marking
Which is better for defending a Set-Piece
The debate rages on, at set pieces in particular, is it better to defend using Zonal marking or Man to man marking? Vote now to express your opinion...
Below is a brief summary of what each is, incase anybody is unaware.
In Zonal marking, players take responsibility for a certain area and radius of the pitch, this helps them to maintain their natural structure and prevent it getting disrupted by opposition players with tricky off the ball movement. Zonal marking often allows the opposition players to take a run up without much obstruction, therefore giving them the benefit of momentum, its important that the defenders take some stride towards the ball to combat this, some good teams do operate zonal marking and there is still plenty of support for it, however it is exposed whenever oppositional defensive players push up and run into the box, as nobody is specified to pick them up and certain zones can be prone to being over powered.
Man to Man Marking
The principle of Man to Man Marking, also refered to as 'Man Marking', is that each player picks up an opposition player each, the responsability is then theirs to ensure that the man which they are marking doesn't get to the ball, therefore should a player go on to score, it is possible to establish what went wrong and why the opposition scored, by placing blame upon the player who failed to track a run or beat their man to the ball. This system encourages all players to take responsability and ensures that if operated properly, no opposition player goes unchallenged, Attacking players are much more likely to take up their share of defensive duties and track the oppositions defensive player who have pushed up, in a man to man system, wheres in a zonal system, they may be tempted to see it as not their responsability, considering it does not occur in their zone.