Man Marking versus Zonal Marking

what is the appropriate situation for each of these? Also, do you find Team Instructions are largely rendered redundant by Player Instructions anyway?

I personally prefer zonal marking and always use it. I only really change player instructions if a certain player doesn't play the way I want or when making subs. Touchline shouts are the way to go.

With 1 striker against 2 of your centrebacks you may want to put the best marker as Man marking him. Otherwise its as Arrano says for me

i use both. for my 3 preset tactics, i have both man and zonal listed so my players can be comfortable with both

i use zonal when my players don't have a direct player to mark, and i use man when they do

for example if i'm playing against an opposition playing 4-4-2, i set my 2 defenders to man mark. if an opposition is usually 4-5-1, i set them to zonal mark

another example. if the opposition is playing an AMC, i'd set my DMC to man mark. if they don't have any AMC's, i set him to zonal mark

Man Marking

According to the FM12 manual, man marking requires less tactical intelligence and concentration. Relies mainly on the Marking attribute.

Useful if you're playing against a more skilled team with a lot of flair and creativity since you don't have to read the opposition as much as you would with zonal marking.

Useful if you want to shut down a single tricky player at all costs by having one player man-mark him (I often do this with a DCM to cut off a central playmaker).

Best employed if you're playing against a corresponding formation (for example, 442 vs 442, 433 vs 433) since that decreases the chance that your team will lose its shape and create gaps on the pitch.

Zonal Marking

Requires more tactical intelligence (Decisions, Anticipation, Positioning) and concentration, but your team will retain its shape and be less likely to create gaps for the opposition to exploit.

It is more versatile in the sense that you can play a single, preferred formation without worrying too much about whether your opponent's formation will wreak havoc on your team's shape.

Again, as your players aren't pulled out of formation, it enables you to quickly regroup and launch a counterattack more efficiently.

Useful if you have a strong team with intelligent players and prefer to control the terms of the match.

Generally, I would say "Man Marking" is best if you play defensively or have sloppy defenders while "Zonal Marking" is best if you play offensively or have particularly intelligent defenders.

Zonal marking

Requires more tactical intelligence

Yes that's true, most of my players lack on that so it must be true.

Man Marking

According to the FM12 manual, man marking requires less tactical intelligence and concentration. Relies mainly on the Marking attribute.

Useful if you're playing against a more skilled team with a lot of flair and creativity since you don't have to read the opposition as much as you would with zonal marking.

Useful if you want to shut down a single tricky player at all costs by having one player man-mark him (I often do this with a DCM to cut off a central playmaker).

Best employed if you're playing against a corresponding formation (for example, 442 vs 442, 433 vs 433) since that decreases the chance that your team will lose its shape and create gaps on the pitch.

Zonal Marking

Requires more tactical intelligence (Decisions, Anticipation, Positioning) and concentration, but your team will retain its shape and be less likely to create gaps for the opposition to exploit.

It is more versatile in the sense that you can play a single, preferred formation without worrying too much about whether your opponent's formation will wreak havoc on your team's shape.

Again, as your players aren't pulled out of formation, it enables you to quickly regroup and launch a counterattack more efficiently.

Useful if you have a strong team with intelligent players and prefer to control the terms of the match.

Generally, I would say "Man Marking" is best if you play defensively or have sloppy defenders while "Zonal Marking" is best if you play offensively or have particularly intelligent defenders.

Cheers! Thanks for the input

My four defenders have Man Marking + Tight Marking. My two DMC's have Zonal + Tight Marking. The two wingers and strikers all have Zonal and no Tight Marking.

I want the six guys in the back to stay as close to the opposition players as possible, to increase the chance of closing down successfully and regaining possession in lucrative positions on the field. The four guys up front are all tuned to give themselves as much space as possible so that they are easy to find with a pass once I do regain possession. Mentality, Creative Freedom, Closing Down, (hard) Tackling (on the DMC's), Defensive Line, Width and this marking scheme are all contributing to this strategy.

The thing is that there is something SI don't explain in the manual. I don't remember if something changed from the FMs I owned previous to 2011 and 2012, but as it stands now: There is no actual "man marking" in FM. Except if you specifically set a player to mark a specific player in the drop-down list. Only in that case will the player stick to the man wherever he will go when your team is defending (not in possession).

Here is an excerpt from Tactical Theorems 10:

Marking: Marking options are difficult to explain in real world concepts because Football Manager as yet has not quite sorted out the real mechanics of the system. Essentially, zonal marking strategies will look to mark the opposition player who comes in to the player’s “zone” on the field. Man marking strategies mean that each player is assigned a particular person to mark.

In Football Manager, however, man marking tends to be a more aggressive zonal marking system, whereby a player will stick to the man who enters his zone, but stay with him until the danger is cleared. The best advice with marking is to experiment with which settings work best. For more in-depth analysis of the inner-workings of Football Manager’s marking, please refer to future Tactical Bible articles.

True, real life man-marking is actually “specific” marking, which can be set before or during the upcoming match, either by manually setting the marking settings for an individual player or by using opposition instructions to target certain individuals.

Personally I haven't quite got my head around all of the implications of the bold part. I found that setting a player to man-mark lessened the chance of him leaving his marked player to close down a ball carrier entering his zone. It is also more likely to disrupt the shape of defense due to the player more aggressively marking his man and sticking to him, but I could be wrong. Seeing as the creators of Tactical Theorems did leave this out either, it almost makes me wonder if they were a bit puzzled themselves - at least in how to explain this properly. Did somebody ever try to visualize this?

The thing is that there is something SI don't explain in the manual. I don't remember if something changed from the FMs I owned previous to 2011 and 2012, but as it stands now: There is no actual "man marking" in FM. Except if you specifically set a player to mark a specific player in the drop-down list. Only in that case will the player stick to the man wherever he will go when your team is defending (not in possession).

Here is an excerpt from Tactical Theorems 10:

Personally I haven't quite got my head around all of the implications of the bold part. I found that setting a player to man-mark lessened the chance of him leaving his marked player to close down a ball carrier entering his zone. It is also more likely to disrupt the shape of defense due to the player more aggressively marking his man and sticking to him, but I could be wrong. Seeing as the creators of Tactical Theorems did leave this out either, it almost makes me wonder if they were a bit puzzled themselves - at least in how to explain this properly. Did somebody ever try to visualize this?

I think they explained it excellently. For the most part, following one man around the pitch is something that belongs to the past. Now clubs are marking in zones. Extreme Zonal defense systems such as Egil Olsen's Norway are more intent on keeping to their zones than traditional man-marking systems you see in German clubs for instance.

If you set a Zonal defense, they will be more occupied by denying space than to actually stop whoever has the ball.

I think they explained it excellently.

If you set a Zonal defense...

I was refering to FM's "man marking", which presumably due to engine limitations isn't "proper" man marking but a "more aggressive zonal marking" according to TTF. You'll notice that traditional man marking is only applied in the match engine if you pick a specific player to man mark, not when changing a player's marking from "zonal marking" to "man marking". As said, I don't know if this has changed ever since I came from FM 08, but the differences tend to be rather subtle most of the time, which coupled with this

Marking options are difficult to explain in real world concepts because Football Manager has yet has not quite sorted out the real mechanics of the system.

makes it a bit of a pity there is so little documentation about marking systems as they are implemented into FM. It doesn't matter so much playing a club manager, whereas typical "wheeler dealer" strategies and sound game plans bring in success nicely, but when my copy of FM 12 arrives, I'm going to pick a modestly sized national side and would like to experiment with defensive setups and destructive play more than I have done so previously. Think Rehagel and Greece in 2004.

Currently trying to get the minnow international side I'm managing to get a bit more robust in defense. Two matches and 12 goals against us is just not acceptable. :-D So bumping this.

Shots first, questions later: Here are two screenshots that outline FM's portrayal of "man marking", which according to TTF is more like "a more aggressive zonal marking" . In the first shot every player is set to man mark their natural opponent individually via the drop down menu (left back to mark AMR, etc.), except for striker number 9, which I told to mark the opposition keeper just for kicks. And players behave like you expect them to, getting dragged out of position all over the place. This is fine, this is "man marking" as we know it and as the manual implies.

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-16013240/marking.png.html

However, when you do the same to the entire team and set them to "tight man mark" rather than assigning each player to an opponent yourself, the marking behaves exactly as it says in TTF rather than the manual: "Man marking in FM is a more aggressive form of zonal marking". The thing still is, what exactly does that imply - other than that the online manual should be rewritten asap? What exactly is the difference between "Man marking" and "zonal marking" on FM? It is obvious both are zonal marking actually.

http://www.pic-upload.de/view-16016271/marking2.png.html

Only that the so called "Man marking" makes it so that a player is more aggressively marking the opponent entering his zone, making him more likely to always stay with him all throughout the unfolding attacking move, doesn't it?

With non player-specific man marking the defender will stay in his zone but stick closer to the attacker than he would with the zonal marking instruction...in other words non player-specific man marking is a half-way house between zonal marking and man marking...so TTF seem to explain it fine so far as I can tell

and don't forget you can use the default instruction for your back four, for example...so the full-backs are on zonal and the central defenders man-mark...works for me anyway

so you can either

(a) tell one or more of your defenders to stay with a specific striker(s) or

(b) tell them to stick to their zones or

© use the half-way house between these two systems or

(d) use the default of mixed instructions as described above

With non player-specific man marking the defender will stay in his zone but stick closer to the attacker than he would with the zonal marking instruction...in other words non player-specific man marking is a half-way house between zonal marking and man marking...so TTF seem to explain it fine so far as I can tell

If so, the difference is hard to tell, really.

Everybody set to tight "man marking": http://www.pic-upload.de/view-16016271/marking2.png.html

Everybody set to loose zonal: http://www.pic-upload.de/view-16022121/marking3.png.html

I'm more inclined to think it has got something to do with marking discipline throughout attacking moves rather than the actual positioning. I think TTF is saying something about this too. Obviously there's got to be a more clearly defined difference. For instance, the tactics creator assumes different marking duties for the same roles. A "deep-lying forward" on "Support duty" is set to "tight man mark", whilst on attack duty is set to "lose zonal".

Man Marking

According to the FM12 manual, man marking requires less tactical intelligence and concentration. Relies mainly on the Marking attribute.

Useful if you're playing against a more skilled team with a lot of flair and creativity since you don't have to read the opposition as much as you would with zonal marking.

Useful if you want to shut down a single tricky player at all costs by having one player man-mark him (I often do this with a DCM to cut off a central playmaker).

Best employed if you're playing against a corresponding formation (for example, 442 vs 442, 433 vs 433) since that decreases the chance that your team will lose its shape and create gaps on the pitch.

Zonal Marking

Requires more tactical intelligence (Decisions, Anticipation, Positioning) and concentration, but your team will retain its shape and be less likely to create gaps for the opposition to exploit.

It is more versatile in the sense that you can play a single, preferred formation without worrying too much about whether your opponent's formation will wreak havoc on your team's shape.

Again, as your players aren't pulled out of formation, it enables you to quickly regroup and launch a counterattack more efficiently.

Useful if you have a strong team with intelligent players and prefer to control the terms of the match.

Generally, I would say "Man Marking" is best if you play defensively or have sloppy defenders while "Zonal Marking" is best if you play offensively or have particularly intelligent defenders.

Nice description of types of marking.

Another conclusion to take is, if the central defenders best role are limited defender means that the player has low concentration, decisions and composure, meaning low intelligence. On that kind of players man mark is better.

If central defenders best role are central defender or ball playing defender, means good decisions, concentration and composure. Zonal marking will be a good approach on these players.

The central defender best role will help to identify the best marking type.

Nice description of types of marking.

Definitely. Only that man marking describes this kind of marking rather than what you get when simply chosing "man marking" - which is zonal marking. I still think this zonal "man marking" is more likely to disrupt your shape, as I believe players are more prone to stick with the opponent entering their zone until an attack is over. But it is hard to tell, has always been for me.

Good thread

Never used zonal marking and don't think I ever will. Mark your man. Old school.

Never used zonal marking and don't think I ever will. Mark your man. Old school.

Me too.

I've never seen space score a goal.

Definitely. Only that man marking describes this kind of marking rather than what you get when simply chosing "man marking" - which is zonal marking.

It still applies. Though defenders in FM's non-specific man-marking generally remain in a specified area and "release" opposition players who leave it, the option prioritizes restricting an individual player's ability to get the ball (at the expense of shape) as opposed to restricting the opposition team's ability to play a ball into a certain area (for the purposes of keeping shape). In other words, the defender's focus remains the movement of a player (as in traditional man-marking) as opposed to the movement of the ball (as in zonal marking). The difference is less extreme than that between zonal marking and true, old school man-marking, but the trade-off of picking one over the other is still the same (and, in fact, most of what I wrote was taken from what SI has written in regards to these options).

The difference is less extreme than that between zonal marking and true, old school man-marking, but the trade-off of picking one over the other is still the same (and, in fact, most of what I wrote was taken from what SI has written in regards to these options).

Where did SI do this? And can the implications of this be visualized? It's often hard to tell the difference, see my screenshots.

I always play on Man Marking, I don't know why. It seems to work for me so I continue to use it.

I have always used zonal marking, used to mess with setting up individual man marking set ups but found zonal to be the best for my team keeping clean sheets. I do play a fluid control game most of the time and tend to sign technically gifted players for whatever division I'm in.

Definitely. Only that man marking describes this kind of marking rather than what you get when simply chosing "man marking" - which is zonal marking. I still think this zonal "man marking" is more likely to disrupt your shape, as I believe players are more prone to stick with the opponent entering their zone until an attack is over. But it is hard to tell, has always been for me.

An instruction that disrupt the defensive shape is using a defender with stopper duty, because he will pressure the player with the ball to stop immediately the attack and if he's not successful will cause defensive problems. However if that player performs well, that can be decisive if you are a player with a offensive strategy, because will stop many counter attacks.

I find a hybrid of the two works best and I change it on a game to game basis. If the opposition start throwing full backs forward and they are causing lots of problem I will set Wingers/Wide Midfielders to tightly man mark them, if they are attacking but not causing too many problems I will leave them on Zonal marking so they keep forward inspace ready for a quick counter. Usually I try to keep a man over at center back so against two strikers I would use three center backs, setting two of them to tightly man mark the strikers whilst the third marks zonally and covers the ground in behind. Thats my usual marking setup, always worked relatively well for me