Last night (08/04/09) the Liverpool players conceded two goals from two corners against a dominant Chelsea team—which has given The Reds a very difficult trip to Stamford Bridge if they hope to proceed in the competition—and unsurprisingly the papers and sports-news channels are now filled with the recycled zonal marking debate.
What is also not surprising is this subject for debate appears just a couple of times a season and is not a constant source of discussion every week. It is probably because this "problem" with zonal marking is not actually a problem and the system has ensured Liverpool have had a fantastic defensive record over the last four seasons.
Amazingly—and greatly hypocritically—is the amount of goals that are conceded every single week of every single season from the man-to-man marking system. But how many "experts" and supporters are heatedly debating that system and it's many flaws?
Propaganda: "is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognition's, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the person providing the information."
Famous Liverpool propagandist, Andy Gray claims in his recent article; "Much has been made of Liverpool's defensive strategy and let me say now I'm not a fan of zonal marking and never have been. I guarantee that a running jump will beat a standing jump at any level of football at any time."
I would like to challenge this claim that Andy Gray guarantees a running-jump will beat a standing jump at any time. I could be incredibly pedantic and state that a static Peter Crouch (6'7") could probably beat Aaron Lennon (5'5") running to meet a header eight times out of ten. But surely I wont have to go that far to prove that a running jump does not beat a standing jump "every time".
The First Goal
Andy Gray goes on to claim: "I'm not saying it's a shocking system, but it is flawed and that makes it very difficult to blame people who are marking space."
With Andy claiming it is the system that is flawed and that the players can't be blamed, he is just creating an issue in order to lay the blame at the door of Rafael Benitez for choosing the flawed system—when in fact it is down to the players not doing their jobs properly.
The first goal was conceded because Ivanovic lost his man-marker—that's right, man-marker—Xabi Alonso, who tracked his run inside the box but lost him due to some intelligent maneuvering from the Chelsea defender. With blocking-off and dummy runs, this is something that happens in the man-marking system pretty much every time.
Another contributing factor for the first goal was the positioning of Albert Reira who mistimed the flight of the ball and the area it would land as he took three or four steps to meet it. Despite being just a foot in front of Ivanovic when the Chelsea man headed the ball, the Spanish winger could still not manage to clear the corner as he lept from a running jump.
Not a standing jump.
But the most interesting point, and probably the most important in terms of blaming zonal marking for the goal, would be that despite Ivanovic's run in to the box; when he met the ball he was actually standing still, and the momentum of his run in to the box had absolutely no bearing on the pace of the header.
Ivanovic could have been standing in that exact position from the very beginning and the Liverpool players would still not have cleared the corner. Simply because it was the players at fault and not the zonal marking system.
Andy Gray rightly states the system is not shocking but has its flaws. So because it is not a system that guarantees 100 percent of the time no-one will score from set-pieces; does that make it a subject that is worth criticism every time a goal is actually conceded?
And it seems only when it is Liverpool who conceded that goal.
The man-to-man system is flawed and teams who utilise that type of marking system routinely let-in goals every single week on more than one occasion. Where are Andy Grays criticism's of that system? Where are his debates and statistics complaining about a system that is just as flawed as zonal marking?
The Second Goal
If we look at the second goal Liverpool conceded "due to the zonal marking system," we can see a repeat of the first goal. The keeper does not come to claim a cross that is flighted on to his six-yard line, Steven Gerrard mistimes his reading of where the ball will land in order to clear, and Ivanovic does not meet the ball with great speed from a running position when he scores.
During the game Andy Gray—after highlighting zonal marking as being the reason for a second goal being conceded—claims that the cross clears "five" Liverpool players without them being able to clear the corner. I am sorry but four of those five players would have had to be something like 15 foot tall or bigger if they had any realistic chance of getting near that cross.
The only person with any chance to clear the ball was Steven Gerrard, who was a couple of feet in front of Ivanovic. As we know, he failed. Steven Gerrard was also man-marking Ivanovic before the corner was taken, but once again intelligent running from the Chelsea man—which are just as prolific in the man marking system—created space as he lost his marker.
So that is two goals that was not actually down to a system that is apparently so flawed that it should be abandoned at all costs. I am surprised "experts" have not tried to make out Chelsea's third goal was down to zonal marking as well.
Once again people are ignoring the glaringly obvious that when the system works—and the system works a great deal week in week out without any mention during its success—it is not a problem.
When players fail the system and don't do their job properly, it is the players who are at fault and not the system. When players make mistakes during man-to-man marking, the system is not ridiculed or debated furiously the next day.
Andy finishes with this little gem: "They could easily go man-to-man if Rafael Benitez wanted but he chooses to go zonal."
Would that be because Rafael Benitez has spent quite some time studying under some of the best managers in the world and actually worked as a football manager for a few years, Andy?
And could it be that the system does actually work?
When a defender goes to tackle a player who has the ball, he sometimes ends up fouling that player and giving away a penalty. Should we just eradicate tackling all together because the idea of tackling has some flaws to it?
Or maybe we should just accept that sometimes in football players get it wrong and not everything is 100 percent guaranteed—apart from Andy Grays theory about a running jump beating a standing jump every time.
(This article was originally written on April 4th 2009)