Should Marking Be a Technical Attribute?

Ive never saw a thread on the subject and decided to start a debate.

Personally i have never believed marking should be a technical attribute, it makes no sense. After all a technical attribute is all about how well a player performs an action in impact, marking is just an observation at the end of the day, basically how well a player follows someone else. I realise that this debate isn't the be all and end all of the football manager series but i still think its worth pointing out.

Perhaps moving marking to the mental side off the attributes would make more sense?

Ive never saw a thread on the subject and decided to start a debate.

Personally i have never believed marking should be a technical attribute, it makes no sense. After all a technical attribute is all about how well a player performs an action in impact, marking is just an observation at the end of the day, basically how well a player follows someone else. I realise that this debate isn't the be all and end all of the football manager series but i still think its worth pointing out.

Perhaps moving marking to the mental side off the attributes would make more sense?[/QUOTE]

No a technical attribute is not how well he can can perform an action at all, that would be mental attributes. Mental attributes determine how well the action is played out. Technical attributes highlight how good someone might be at a particular action if it was a stand alone action. The mental stats then determine how well he can then do the said action.

Why would moving it to the mental side of the attributes be any better? That just doesn't make sense one bit, I'd love to hear your thoughts about why you think it would be better off there.

I believe its already in the correct catergory and wouldn't fit the rest of the attributes if it was moved.

i can understand your point here. But i would argue that attributes such as positioning, anticipation, decisions and concentration should decide how well a player can mark an opponent. I find it a little strange how a player could have a marking attribute at '20' but mental attributes set at '1' does this mean he is good at marking or not? perhaps its just me though.

i can understand your point here. But i would argue that attributes such as positioning, anticipation, decisions and concentration should decide how well a player can mark an opponent. I find it a little strange how a player could have a marking attribute at '20' but mental attributes set at '1' does this mean he is good at marking or not? perhaps its just me though.

They do all count, like I said above the mental attributes determine how well someone carries out the technical attributes.

You might want to take a read of this, it explains in a lot more detail http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/238682-The-Project-2012-(Updated-for-FM12)

Marking is quite clearly a skill but how well it is implemented depends on the players level of concentration, team-work and work-rate etc...

Ive never saw a thread on the subject and decided to start a debate.

Personally i have never believed marking should be a technical attribute, it makes no sense. After all a technical attribute is all about how well a player performs an action in impact, marking is just an observation at the end of the day, basically how well a player follows someone else. I realise that this debate isn't the be all and end all of the football manager series but i still think its worth pointing out.

Perhaps moving marking to the mental side off the attributes would make more sense?

I can understand your debate. I have thought about it after reading your post. But I think currently it is fine classified to technical attribute. Sports is always relying on a person's mind, you know. Eventually it's our mind controlling our body. And those technical actions are more related to a person's reflex, coordination, sensitive touches. But it's different from a person's character and excercised decision. That is the difference between technical attribute and mental attribute. The former one is relying on cerebellum and the latter one is literaly relying on a person's cerebrum (brain).

It is somewhat hard to categorise, however I think it's better placed in technical than mental. It also allows the useful symmetry of there being as many technical attributes as mental attributes. At the end of the day, it's hardly a gamechanger anyway.

In the basic sense of football:

Technical - actions that directly influence a football (touches the football)

Psychological - actions that require thought/observation/decision making (generally actions that don't require direct influence on a football)

Physical - Self explanatory

In the basic sense of football:

Technical - actions that directly influence a football (touches the football)

Psychological - actions that require thought/observation/decision making (generally actions that don't require direct influence on a football)

Physical - Self explanatory

So, are you saying you agree with the OP?

So, are you saying you agree with the OP?

i don't think so ...

Marking is a technical attribute.

..., basically how well a player follows someone else.

are u joking ???

Modern football is played with zonal marking ...

are u joking ???

Modern football is played with zonal marking ...

Even zonal marking requires you to follow an opponent to a degree.

I think it fits better under "mental" attributes as it doesn't involve striking a ball. However, putting it in the "technical" category allows the categories to be balanced.

agree with you, marking it´s more like an intuition, not a technic.

Even zonal marking requires you to follow an opponent to a degree.

I don't like the idea that Pique, Chiellini, Thiago Silva, ... are world class defenders because they follows opponents better then others; And I don't think that a defender able to play (well...) zonal marking, is someone that just have "intuition" ...

For sure defenders must follow the "ball" as any other man on the pitch so i don't understand the meaning of "doesn't involve striking a ball" if we are talking of different roles.

As marking in the modern game includes wrestling, maybe it fits better under technicals.

Marking is a technique, there are many differnt ways, tricks and nounces in being a good marker it is not merely a mental attribute at all although like all other techniques it is only as successful as the implementation allows in that you have the mental ability to carry it out to a degree whish will also like all other technical attributes be limited by physical factors as well.

You get good markers and bad markers, people who play football should realise this that it is not just a conscious decision to mark someone well or not, it is indeed a skill to be a good marker.

Marking is a technique, there are many differnt ways, tricks and nounces in being a good marker it is not merely a mental attribute at all although like all other techniques it is only as successful as the implementation allows in that you have the mental ability to carry it out to a degree whish will also like all other technical attributes be limited by physical factors as well.

You get good markers and bad markers, people who play football should realise this that it is not just a conscious decision to mark someone well or not, it is indeed a skill to be a good marker.

How is that any different to positioning, for example, or off the ball? Mental attributes are still "skills".

I have never said it was any different to the attributes you mention above whisch I would agree with in that they are skills as opposed to purely mental attributes. I would go with the logic that there are far too many factors which affect ones ability to play football and that the attributes used in FM are merely scraping the surface as to the skills, traits, mental attributes and physical proficiences utilised during a game of football.

I agree with a post above that you can't possibly fit them all in the techical side of the lists as purely a gaming feature. Positioning and OTB are as much askill as marking imo.

"Technical - actions that directly influence a football (touches the football)"

Marking is when a player tries to dribble the defender. The defender then, has the technical skills to steel the ball or intercept a pass/cross(anticipated). Tackling is also a technical skill that allows the defender to get stuck in efficiently.

Its a technical action combined with mental skills

Er, no.

Do you touch the ball when you Mark someone? No you do not. So it is not a technical trait. Tackling is a technical trait as you touch the ball (if you do not it is a foul). Marking requires awareness, which is a mental trait. You have to observe where the person you are marking is on the pitch in relation to the ball (which you are not touching).

I wouldn't be covered considering that every interception of a defender is a tackling action. Would you? The rest of the interceptions that should not be considered as a tackle are also technical skilled actions and they are contained in marking.

Before touching the ball when i mark someone it is all about my ability to execute the role-duty i have in the team overall.

Marking is when a player tries to dribble the defender. The defender then, has the technical skills to steel the ball or intercept a pass/cross(anticipated).

If they steal the ball from a player who is dribbling with it, it's a tackle. Intercepting a pass or cross would be made possible a mixture of anticipation, positioning, and concentration, with the quality of the actual act of intercepting the ball depending on first touch above anything else.

You guys are really over thinking this.

Technical - with ball

Is marking something you do WITH A BALL?

No. So it isn't a technical, and is clearly a mental trait.

You guys are really over thinking this.

Technical - with ball

Is marking something you do WITH A BALL?

No. So it isn't a technical, and is clearly a mental trait.

Technique is not necessarily to do with ball. In FM, the marking is the art of using his legs and arms not to dominate the ball but his opponent in a certain aera.

Interesting point, I suppose one could argue for it to be a technical attribute in that, as opposed to mentals, it is the actual physical act of touching and tugging and hugging the opponent, so as not to be merely a question of positioning, anticipation and concentration.

If they steal the ball from a player who is dribbling with it, it's a tackle. Intercepting a pass or cross would be made possible a mixture of anticipation, positioning, and concentration, with the quality of the actual act of intercepting the ball depending on first touch above anything else.

For the sake of discussion:

This is written in the Online Manual:

--

Marking

How well players, mainly defensive types, mark an opponent. Marking alone will see them do a good job if the attribute is high, but remember that other attributes – Strength, Off the Ball, Anticipation – will play a part in the effectiveness of the marking, as well as the comparable physical statures of the two players.

--

Of course none attribute stands alone, my ponit is this: When you look at the home(your team) stats after a match you will see lets say Tackles Attempted:5, Tackles Won:3 and also Fouls made:4.

If we agree that fouls made are attempts to win the ball, there is a difference like 2 tackles missed/4 Fouls Made. So its not every action to win the ball a Tackling technique skill and the Tackles won per 90 min on every player's profile(for a CB you may see low values 2-3/90min) is not all his successfull defensive performance and does not describe all his defensive actions to win the ball.-i dont include interception in open field higher on the pitch.What do you think?

Technique is not necessarily to do with ball. In FM, the marking is the art of using his legs and arms not to dominate the ball but his opponent in a certain aera.

... I completely agree with this sentence, +1

Of course none attribute stands alone

For the sake of discussion:

This is written in the Online Manual:

--

Marking

How well players, mainly defensive types, mark an opponent. Marking alone will see them do a good job if the attribute is high, but remember that other attributes – Strength, Off the Ball, Anticipation – will play a part in the effectiveness of the marking, as well as the comparable physical statures of the two players.

--

Of course none attribute stands alone, my ponit is this: When you look at the home(your team) stats after a match you will see lets say Tackles Attempted:5, Tackles Won:3 and also Fouls made:4.

If we agree that fouls made are attempts to win the ball, there is a difference like 2 tackles missed/4 Fouls Made. So its not every action to win the ball a Tackling technique skill and the Tackles won per 90 min on every player's profile(for a CB you may see low values 2-3/90min) is not all his successfull defensive performance and does not describe all his defensive actions to win the ball.-i dont include interception in open field higher on the pitch.What do you think?

The description in the online manual fits my definition better than yours. It doesn't mention tackling or intercepting passes.

Fouls don't have to be attempts to win the ball, they can be from pushing or shirt pulling or impeding or a high foot or random acts of violence.

Marking is a part of how good a player is at defending, but just like positioning, it doesn't involve playing the ball in itself.

The description in the online manual fits my definition better than yours. It doesn't mention tackling or intercepting passes.

Fouls don't have to be attempts to win the ball, they can be from pushing or shirt pulling or impeding or a high foot or random acts of violence.

Marking is a part of how good a player is at defending, but just like positioning, it doesn't involve playing the ball in itself.

There is a possibility some of the tackles missed, did not conceded fouls. Without taking into account that my team lacks sportmanship or discipline, there is a difference and some fouling being made in every game that does not include tackling and are the outcome of bad marking. Onile manual does not mention tackling. All this fouling,most of it,its bad technically marking, bad attempts to win the ball, due to a low attribute marking value or low other attributes that play a part in the effectiveness of the marking. I guess this explains why marking is a technical attribute

Technique is not necessarily to do with ball. In FM, the marking is the art of using his legs and arms not to dominate the ball but his opponent in a certain aera.

Interesting point, I suppose one could argue for it to be a technical attribute in that, as opposed to mentals, it is the actual physical act of touching and tugging and hugging the opponent, so as not to be merely a question of positioning, anticipation and concentration.

It's a reflection of the way the game is that people think this is part of marking. Footballers are not supposed to use their arms or hands against opponents.

It's a reflection of the way the game is that people think this is part of marking. Footballers are not supposed to use their arms or hands against opponents.

Not supposed to use but it's a reality in football (and probably in FM physic engine).

IRL, marking is also the capacity of locking an agile winger to reduce his space, the way to keep his striker opponent out of danger during his off-ball play, the attitude during aerial balls or counterattack, etc. It's purely technique attribute for me. Xabi Alonso is a very intelligent midfield with high mental attributes but don't have the art of marking of a true defender for example.

Of course anticipation, agression, decision and positionning attributes are always helpful.

Technique is not necessarily to do with ball. In FM, the marking is the art of using his legs and arms not to dominate the ball but his opponent in a certain aera.

Well, sadly for you, all football coaches considering it to be so.

/unfollowing topic.

Well, sadly for you, all football coaches considering it to be so.

Not really, coaches just use a misuse of language, in fact they talk about ball technique. Even if it is the most underrated technique, marking need skills and tricks (for me especially for full back, marking is very very difficult, i always hate play in this position)