zonal or man defence

who uses zonal marking and who uses man marking and which is better??

There is no better. It all depends on your team and the opposition team.

Plus, why choose? My tactic uses both.

how can u use both???

Change player instructions.

how can u use both???

Er... by having some players mark zonally and some players man mark?

As per tt&f i use loose zonal marking for attack roles, with high closing down.

Zonal marking all of the way!

Check this link for diagrams and explanations on man and zonal marking: link (see bottom of the page).

Most teams in modern football use zonal marking. I personally use zonal marking for my whole team.

Regards,

C.

Zonal marking. Just don't think man marking works effectively in any other positions than DM.

Zonal marking. Just don't think man marking works effectively in any other positions than DM.

Pretty much this. The other time is if you want a big centre back to mark a big striker.

It is based far more on your players' ability level and the type of training you offer than anything else. I prefer a zone defense because it is easier for a new player to learn, easier to reset the team to their original zones and is less impacted by another team's superstar. Like in any sport, zones get beat along the seams. If your players don't overlap, the zone defense probably won't be a good fit...

The most successful teams have the defence mark to zones, but not on corners.

Thats my view anyway,,,

Depends on the players. If my DCs are faster and generally better than the oppo forwards I use man marking. If the forwards are quicker I drop deeper and use zonal.

zonal about 95% of the time

IRL i'm not a fan of zonal defence as some teams are very good at moving loosely and crowding areas of the field which can severely disadvantage zonal defence, however in fm i think a mixture is best and zonal can prove to be very effective.

Depends on your defenders attributes, your opponents attributes and your personal preference.

Often I will have them all on tight zonal marking meaning they will wait until the opposition is in their zone then stay on him until he moves elsewhere (at least that's what they should do!) But if your defenders positioning and anticipation are poor it might be better to mark the man instead. Like I say you have to look at what suits your players best and also look at your coaches preferences and see what they are teaching your players.

There is no better. It all depends on your team and the opposition team.

Plus, why choose? My tactic uses both.

Yes me too:thup:

I think that a team performs better if it is kept on playing the same tactic along the year. If you keep on switching between them I think it performs worst.

BTW do the third person of " perform " need an " s " at the end ?

thanks

I think that a team performs better if it is kept on playing the same tactic along the year. If you keep on switching between them I think it performs worst.

Obviously you can't constantly change formation or something. But small tactical changes are needed for every match. And that doesn't change performance at all.

I use Zonal on my Strikers, Defensive Middies, Attacking Wingers and Midfielders

CBs and F/WB do Man, might put one midfield on man marking if I am playing with 3 central midfielders.

always man for me.

I use Zonal on my Strikers, Defensive Middies, Attacking Wingers and Midfielders

CBs and F/WB do Man, might put one midfield on man marking if I am playing with 3 central midfielders.

I find a FB on man marking quite dangerous. As for CB's, I always put 1 CB on man marking and high closing down, and the other on zonal marking and low closing down. Put my DM's always on man marking. Works quite well.