This is a critique of zonal defending.   Pep Guardiola makes the case for zonal defending in his book ‘Pep Confidential.’

 

“Zonal defending is much more effective than man-marking.   It’s so much simpler for a player to stick to his zone.   He knows he’s responsible for that area and that sense of individual responsibility then becomes collective responsibility and in turn strengthens team solidarity.”

 

The main purpose is to not just stand in the zone but to actively mark opposition players as they enter the zone.   The zones are not clearly defined.   Players are responsible for defending a zone, which, in practice, means they need to match up against opposition players as they enter their zone.   Effectively, defending one-against-one with that opponent.  Zonal defending, therefore, consists of man-to-man principles of defence.   The two main forms of defence are not completely distinct from one another.

 

Between the lines

 

It is a common tactic for attacking teams to find space ‘between the lines’.   These lines are usually horizontal lines, between the back four and midfield, where opponents are often able to receive the ball in space.   In theory, such spaces shouldn’t exist.  But, exist they apparently do.  The reason for this will become clear.

 

It would suggest that at least one defending player who is comfortable in their currently allotted zone but not marking anybody, may have to leave this zone to mark the opponent who has found space in another zone.   Even if they are already marking someone, the responsibility for this may have to be handed to a teammate.

 

This is where playing in a zonal defence can start to get a little complicated.   The reality is you may be in a zone with no opposition players to mark.   You may have more than one opposition player in your zone.   What happens when an opposition player passes through your zone into another zone?   Is responsibility for the marking of this player transferred?

 

The issue about when a defender should go to the player on the ball and when to hold the space is a recurring theme in zonal defending.   The concern for defenders, particularly those in the backline is, if they move out of their zone to contest the ball, who is going to cover their zone?    If nobody covers, a gap appears.   Defensive cover is crucial.   If the defence is well organised the player moving out to contest the ball should be actively encouraged to do so by a teammate who has already read the situation and is able to provide the appropriate cover.

 

It would seem that defending zonally is not fool proof and has its flaws.

The basketball blueprint

 

Zonal defence is most commonly associated with the sport of basketball.   Here, with the playing area so much smaller it is easier to achieve compactness.   There is still an urgency to provide pressure on the ball.   The high-scoring nature of basketball amplifies this need to the extent that the zonal shape has to keep readjusting according to the position of the ball.   There is a requirement to ensure the opponent on the ball is being marked.

 

Players will move out from their zonal space to confront a player on the ball.   They will also “hand-over” marking responsibility to a teammate when, and if, an opponent moves between zones.   The size of the pitch, together with the numbers involved makes this process very difficult where football is concerned.   If the “handing-over” process is not occurring it would explain why attacking players, who deliberately move between zones on a football pitch, are not being marked at the crucial moment.

 

 

 

Whether by accident or design, it is important to understand how a player has lost his marker or why it is this attacking player has got free and can have an uncontested attempt on goal.   What led to this moment?   The how and why matters so much.

 

The zonal system is about zonal marking.   The marking of players, not space.   It is about the defender communicating to a teammate that this attacking player is now my responsibility.   This is the process that has to take place before marking an opponent can happen – the allocation of marking responsibility.   Otherwise, there is always the mindset in the defender’s head that the marking of a particular player is someone else’s responsibility.  A matching-off process has to occur so that at least all the main attacking protagonists are accounted for.

 

In the game situation, the delivery of a ball into the box can happen in an instant.   There is no time then to sort out marking responsibility.  This has to be done beforehand.  If it hasn’t, the marking of opponents will not have occurred on any meaningful basis.

 

 

Playing on the shoulder

 

Defending in football pledges complete confidence in the offside rule and its implementation with the playing of a zonal defence.   Opposition teams base their offensive pattern around the fact that they will be playing against this type of defensive shape.   So they are keen to exploit this defensive structure by adopting tactics such as ‘playing on the shoulder’ where the striker will be alongside the last man in defence.

 

The flat back line is the cornerstone of the zonal defence.   The straight line at the back can provide huge benefits to the defending team in catching an opponent in an offside position.   The problem arises when an opposition forward is able to break the defensive line.   The defender is not goal side and, in order to be so, would have had to drop-off and abandon the defensive line.

 

This scenario is very much tied up with the marking of opponents and the decision-making process of not “if” but “when” do you decide to identify a marker and stick with them?  There comes a point when you cannot hold a line and mark the opposition forward effectively.   Only by giving oneself a few yards to drop-off from the forward is it possible to get in front of this attacker as they make a run towards the ball.   This factor is particularly of concern when the forward makes a run towards the near post.

 

It’s a battle of wits.  The defender cannot allow the forward to get in front of them.   In order to have any chance of meeting this objective, the defender has to drop off their marker.

Note: further discussion around this topic will be in an upcoming blog:

Do you see what I see?

 

 

The defensive line is designed to compress play and also to try to catch the opponent in an offside position.   Whilst there is a good return for the defending team in catching opponents offside, the problem is when the opponent beats the offside trap.   Sometimes, it may just be that the referee has not awarded the appropriate free kick.

 

The generally low-scoring nature of football, if compared to other team sports, means the opposition may only have to break the offside trap once in a game for that to be decisive in terms of the final score or outcome of the match.   The good timing of a run and the release of the ball can leave the whole defensive line in no-man’s land.    It is somewhat ironic that the zonal format places great emphasis on compactness and being goal side but at the crucial moment, in front of goal, the ‘goal side’ principle is abandoned.

 

Most football teams are fully committed to the holding of a defensive line.   The issue about marking and “tracking one’s marker” can sometimes get lost in the team’s determination to hold the defensive line.   These are the stakes.   The choices made could explain why 64 percent of goals scored (see previous blog) are by players who are completely unmarked.   If the defender chooses to ‘stick with their man’ they are, potentially, abandoning the ‘holding of a line’ strategy.   And, yes, this may well be the correct strategy to pursue given the situation.

 

There is a tendency to have a larger proportion of players in the backline of your defensive unit compared to the distribution higher up the field.   This is justified because you are providing consolidation and good cover in front of your own goal.   It also means that, in the middle third of the pitch, the defending team are   out numbered.

 

Thus, the opposition invariably will have a free person to pass the ball to and can start to dictate and control the play.   The defending team find it hard to apply any real pressure on the ball.   As one player moves out from the zonal shape to contest the ball, it is moved swiftly on to another attacking player.  Usually, once the ball has been moved on, the player contesting it will retreat back into the zonal shape.   Thus the attacking player who has just released the ball becomes free again to receive it.

 

The zonal system does not lend itself to applying pressure on the ball.   Ideally, the defending player should arrive at the attacking player “as they receive the ball”.   Not, after they have gained control of the ball.   This is the difference between passive and aggressive marking.   Instead of receiving an easy pass, unmarked, the attacker should have to contend with not just the receiving of the ball but the close attention of the defender as well.

 

This type of play brings an entirely different level of intensity to the game.   The ‘comfortable’ passing now becomes a different proposition altogether.   It also makes for a much more exciting spectacle.   It is true that this level of intensity cannot be sustained for extended periods but it can easily be switched on or off according to need.  It is also possible to play a more passive type of marking game.

 

The zonal shape evolves into a man-to-man shape and the pièce de résistance is that you now have an alternative defensive shape which means not only are you no longer predictable but you can mix up your defensive strategies to great effect.  This changes the whole landscape.  But, don’t take my word for it.  The next game of football you watch, ask yourself, was the player scoring the goal being marked?