zonal or man markin for back four?

[el_magico89]

Hi.

Well Iam trying out to find the best way, to prevent through balls.

Iam actually playing with my 2cbs set at tight man marking and the fbs at lose zonal marking.

but have the feeling that Iam conceding too much, especially nearly the same scenario, when one of the strikers drop deep gets the ball and can break my def. line with an easy through ball.

allthough am playing narrow (5 notches) to stay very disciplined and close, it often happens, that the opponents wingers can run between the gap of my cb and fb.

what settings are you guys prefering/ having the best results with?

would it be helpful, if i set my fbs at tight zonal marking, as tight man marking got me very aweful results, since the gap is much bigger.

how can i prevent, that my center backs dont get dribbled so quickly when a striker receives the ball and one of my defenders trying to close him down but than getting owned and letting a huge gap behind?

how about the tackling options?

ive set all my players at hard tackling, you think it would help, to set at least my defenders at easy/normal, so that they dont immediately try to tackle the opponents?

would be nice if you guys could help me, am really desperate, am experimenting the whole time but couldnt find a way, which pleases me.

[mike-rs]

im no tactical genius but try fb with tight man marking and cb with loose zonal

[crouchaldinho]

Always zonal like in real life.

[DirtyACE]

One of the things (from wwfan) that I read either here or on FM Britain is that man marking is safer to go with if you're unsure what to pick, and especially if you have defenders that are not that good in mentality stats for the level at which you're playing. Zonal is better for intelligent defenders.

[Norte del Valle Cartel]

Did he give his reasoning as to why man marking is safer with less talented defenders? I would have though zonal would be the way to go as with man marking they're going to be dragged all over the place being caught out of position etc..

[jascko]

Did he give his reasoning as to why man marking is safer with less talented defenders? I would have though zonal would be the way to go as with man marking they're going to be dragged all over the place being caught out of position etc..

The problem here is that man marking is not the same in FM as in real life. I remember discussion when this was mention, and the conclusion was that the most of the people did translated man marking from real world in to the context of FM, something that is not correct to do. If a player is on man marking he will still zone mark but in a different kinde of way then normal zonal mark. I do not remember the hole discussion and exact variables how the system actuly works but I do remember that the man mark in FM world does not work the same way as in real world where a player follows opponent all over the pitch.

[Norte del Valle Cartel]

The problem here is that man marking is not the same in FM as in real life. I remember discussion when this was mention, and the conclusion was that the most of the people did translated man marking from real world in to the context of FM, something that is not correct to do. If a player is on man marking he will still zone mark but in a different kinde of way then normal zonal mark. I do not remember the hole discussion and exact variables how the system actuly works but I do remember that the man mark in FM world does not work the same way as in real world where a player follows opponent all over the pitch.

I'd appreciate it very much if you could link me to the thread where they had this discussion. I'm tinkering with my defence at the moment with players that are below Prem quality with my Blackpool side and am having reasonable success using Zonal/Tight although at times the strikers are easily turning us.

How would Man Marking/Loose shape up?

[TacticalGenius]

im no tactical genius but try fb with tight man marking and cb with loose zonal

Haha, well I am [:debatable:] and my back 4 is set to zonal, with tight marking ticked.

[crouchaldinho]

The problem here is that man marking is not the same in FM as in real life. I remember discussion when this was mention, and the conclusion was that the most of the people did translated man marking from real world in to the context of FM, something that is not correct to do. If a player is on man marking he will still zone mark but in a different kinde of way then normal zonal mark. I do not remember the hole discussion and exact variables how the system actuly works but I do remember that the man mark in FM world does not work the same way as in real world where a player follows opponent all over the pitch.

I still think this has been misunderstood by a lot of people.

This is how it currently works in game:

Man-marking (unnamed) - player will be assigned a particular player from the opposition. This player is the player whose position correlates most accurately with your player's position. For instance, your DC will be assigned the opposition ST to 'man-mark'. It's a bit like saying to your centre-back, 'your job today is to pick up the opposition's striker'. If that striker then swaps with a player on the wing, the defender will now be responsible for man marking the new striker.

Man-marking (named) - player will be assigned a specific player from the opposition and be responsible for marking him no matter what. A bit like saying to your DM, I want you to pick up Player X all game and be solely responsible for him.

Zonal marking - Player will be responsible for his zone and pick up any player entering his zone. A bit like saying to your defender, 'this is your zone on the pitch, make sure you look around and mark any player entering your zone'.

Therefore, to say that man-marking on FM has anything to do with zones is incorrect.

In other words, when you set a player to 'man mark' without assigning a particular opponent, the player will be assigned a particular player from the opposition. This player is the player whose position correlates most accurately with your player's position. So, as suggeted above, your DC will be assigned the opposition ST to 'man-mark'. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with zones and it is not 'zonal man-marking'. This kind of misunderstanding regarding man-marking somehow being zonally defined and zonal marking being somehow a loose form of marking seems to keep rearing its ugly head. As far as I am concerned, it's just wrong.

The key word here are what the player is responsible for (i.e. either a player correlating to his position [unnamed], a specific named player [specific or named marking] or a zone [zonal marking]).

Formations with a back four (e.g. 4-4-2) pretty much always zonal mark. That's why you hear people referring to 'two banks of four' when talking about the 4-4-2 formation, like this:

Formations with three at the back (e.g. 3-5-2) have traditionally used two man markers and a sweeper although the tendency these days is to use a flat zonal marking system with three defenders. The idea behind using two man markers and a sweeper is that your two defenders will be responsible for their man at all times, while the sweeper gives them a extra defend who is free to cover.

It's also important to note that the two types of marking are actually different philosophies. Man marking has priorities for the player like this: 1) his opponents, 2) his teammates, 3) the ball. Zonal marking has priorities for the player like this: 1) the ball, 2) his teammates, 3) his opponents. Ultimately, the marking scheme that most modern teams use is zonal across the back four.

[Norte del Valle Cartel]

I still think this has been misunderstood by a lot of people.

This is how it currently works in game:

Man-marking (unnamed) - player will be assigned a particular player from the opposition. This player is the player whose position correlates most accurately with your player's position. For instance, your DC will be assigned the opposition ST to 'man-mark'. It's a bit like saying to your centre-back, 'your job today is to pick up the opposition's striker'. If that striker then swaps with a player on the wing, the defender will now be responsible for man marking the new striker.

Man-marking (named) - player will be assigned a specific player from the opposition and be responsible for marking him no matter what. A bit like saying to your DM, I want you to pick up Player X all game and be solely responsible for him.

Zonal marking - Player will be responsible for his zone and pick up any player entering his zone. A bit like saying to your defender, 'this is your zone on the pitch, make sure you look around and mark any player entering your zone'.

Therefore, to say that man-marking on FM has anything to do with zones is incorrect.

In other words, when you set a player to 'man mark' without assigning a particular opponent, the player will be assigned a particular player from the opposition. This player is the player whose position correlates most accurately with your player's position. So, as suggeted above, your DC will be assigned the opposition ST to 'man-mark'. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with zones and it is not 'zonal man-marking'. This kind of misunderstanding regarding man-marking somehow being zonally defined and zonal marking being somehow a loose form of marking seems to keep rearing its ugly head. As far as I am concerned, it's just wrong.

The key word here are what the player is responsible for (i.e. either a player correlating to his position [unnamed], a specific named player [specific or named marking] or a zone [zonal marking]).

Formations with a back four (e.g. 4-4-2) pretty much always zonal mark. That's why you hear people referring to 'two banks of four' when talking about the 4-4-2 formation, like this:

Formations with three at the back (e.g. 3-5-2) have traditionally used two man markers and a sweeper although the tendency these days is to use a flat zonal marking system with three defenders. The idea behind using two man markers and a sweeper is that your two defenders will be responsible for their man at all times, while the sweeper gives them a extra defend who is free to cover.

It's also important to note that the two types of marking are actually different philosophies. Man marking has priorities for the player like this: 1) his opponents, 2) his teammates, 3) the ball. Zonal marking has priorities for the player like this: 1) the ball, 2) his teammates, 3) his opponents. Ultimately, the marking scheme that most modern teams use is zonal across the back four.

Good explanantion of both systems.

What defensive system would you recommend for a side that has players who have less ability than almost all of the other sides in their respective league?

For less talented defenders would Zonal/Tight be the way to go or perhaps would it be Zonal/Loose?

[crouchaldinho]

Good explanantion of both systems.

What defensive system would you recommend for a side that has players who have less ability than almost all of the other sides in their respective league?

For less talented defenders would Zonal/Tight be the way to go or perhaps would it be Zonal/Loose?

I pretty much always play with a back four so I always defend zonally regardless of the level I am playing at. As for the tight or loose option, I go along with the creator settings, which are basically looser when playing with attacking strategies and tighter when playing with defensive strategies.

[Norte del Valle Cartel]

I pretty much always play with a back four so I always defend zonally regardless of the level I am playing at. As for the tight or loose option, I go along with the creator settings, which are basically looser when playing with attacking strategies and tighter when playing with defensive strategies.

Thats exactly how my side is setup.

What important stats are we looking for for our centre backs to be good at playing Zonal/Tight?

Positon, marking, tackling & Concentration? Would Anticipation and Acceleration be an important factor?

[isuckatfm]

Therefore, to say that man-marking on FM has anything to do with zones is incorrect.

In other words, when you set a player to 'man mark' without assigning a particular opponent, the player will be assigned a particular player from the opposition. This player is the player whose position correlates most accurately with your player's position. So, as suggeted above, your DC will be assigned the opposition ST to 'man-mark'. Therefore, it has absolutely nothing to do with zones and it is not 'zonal man-marking'. This kind of misunderstanding regarding man-marking somehow being zonally defined and zonal marking being somehow a loose form of marking seems to keep rearing its ugly head. As far as I am concerned, it's just wrong.

I have a sense of déjà vu with this, so I’ll go for screenshots to illustrate.

Two Chelsea CBs set to Tight Man

I don’t know how you can look at those screenshots and say it has nothing to do with zones, unless of course there are semantic differences in which case maybe those screenshots will help illustrate how I view ‘zones’.

I’m not going to get into it about how accurate that is in terms of what the defenders are doing (and there are other behaviours related to covering and marking that FM doesn’t do quite right in my opinion) but it is a rough approximation of what is ‘academically’ called zonal-man, a hybrid of the two that was introduced by the English and is a widely applied version. It’s not quite pure zonal (academically zonal-zonal) where you deny space/passing lanes with triangles but it’s not quite pure man (academically man-man) where everyone has an assignment and sticks to him regardless of context (very much redundant). Then there is man-zonal which the Greeks applied in Euro 2004 where you pick up a man once you have dropped back to defensive shape past the half way, and stick to him while the opposition has possession more or less regardless of crossover with team mates.

Just to clarify it’s ‘academically’ called ‘cover system – marking system’. So zonal-man employs zonal cover with man marking.

[crouchaldinho]

[i have a sense of déjà vu with this, so I’ll go for screenshots to illustrate.

I don't have any déjà vu as I don't remember having this conversation with you before. Is my memory bad or are you maybe getting me confused with someone else?

Two Chelsea CBs set to Tight Man

I think I'm missing the point. What am I supposed to be picking out from these screenshots? Chelsea are in possession for a start. :confused:

it is a rough approximation of what is ‘academically’ called zonal-man, a hybrid of the two that was introduced by the English and is a widely applied version. It’s not quite pure zonal (academically zonal-zonal) where you deny space/passing lanes with triangles but it’s not quite pure man (academically man-man) where everyone has an assignment and sticks to him regardless of context (very much redundant). Then there is man-zonal which the Greeks applied in Euro 2004 where you pick up a man once you have dropped back to defensive shape past the half way, and stick to him while the opposition has possession more or less regardless of crossover with team mates.

Just to clarify it’s ‘academically’ called ‘cover system – marking system’. So zonal-man employs zonal cover with man marking.

You say 'academically', where are you getting this from? I assume from a book? I'd like to know what it is as I would like to read it for myself. The only good theoretical stuff I have doesn't cover marking in enough detail and I haven't read of these distinctions before - only of zonal, man and mixed marking schemes.

If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is that the 'unnamed man marking' in FM requires that a player is responsible for his man but only when he enters his zone. Is that right?

Are you suggesting that English sides mainly play with this system in real life? That doesn't match with my observations but then this is highly theoretical and perhaps I am missing something. Could you maybe explain how you view the difference in terms of a real life situation. Let's say 4-4-2 versus 4-4-2, how one side would deal with an overlapping fullback and wide player, neither in possession of the ball but making attacking runs? And how would such a half and half scheme work in say a 4-4-2 versus a 4-3-3? And what are the priorities?

[isuckatfm]

I don't have any déjà vu as I don't remember having this conversation with you before. Is my memory bad or are you maybe getting me confused with someone else?

I was trying to tread lightly as the last time my posting style unintentionally insulted you. I referred to one of the 'academics' you referenced as being your mate which came across as condescending when it wasn't how it was intended. Much like in real life I forgot to engage brain before doing the virtual equivalent of opening my mouth

I think I'm missing the point. What am I supposed to be picking out from these screenshots? Chelsea are in possession for a start.

Sorry, typo. I meant Arsenal.

You say 'academically', where are you getting this from? I assume from a book? I'd like to know what it is as I would like to read it for myself. The only good theoretical stuff I have doesn't cover marking in enough detail and I haven't read of these distinctions before - only of zonal, man and mixed marking schemes.

Jens Bangsbo 'Defensive Soccer Tactics'

Some of it is accessible on google books (the pages available are different from the last time I checked, but I screengrabbed some pics so shoot me a PM if you want and I'll upload them somewhere). If you google "zonal cover with player marking" including the quotes it should return some relevant hits.

If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is that the 'unnamed man marking' in FM requires that a player is responsible for his man but only when he enters his zone. Is that right?

Correct. Set up a back 4 to tight man mark and set the full backs as fully defensive so they are always back. Then for the opposite side set the strikers to channel play so they drift out wide. You'll see a defined hand off from the CB to the FB which is at it's core 'zonal behaviour'. It's part of the reason drifting strikers are so damn effective in FM by comparison to real life (position the winger to draw out the full back when he gains possession and the drifting striker runs in behind or finds himself unmarked behind because the CB will just let him go on a regular basis)

Are you suggesting that English sides mainly play with this system in real life? That doesn't match with my observations but then this is highly theoretical and perhaps I am missing something. Could you maybe explain how you view the difference in terms of a real life situation. Let's say 4-4-2 versus 4-4-2, how one side would deal with an overlapping fullback and wide player, neither in possession of the ball but making attacking runs? And how would such a half and half scheme work in say a 4-4-2 versus a 4-3-3? And what are the priorities?

Honestly I haven't a clue. Anything I'd post would be just my musings based on common sense which have absolutely zero value (and which I'm sure you could figure out yourself as rocket science it ain't ). Everything I posted here is paraphrasing and I am in no way, shape or form 'qualified' to comment.

To be honest I used academic references as I know you have an interest and would respect that more than me waffling, but me personally I view books like Bangsbo's as more of a scientific attempt at quantifying football. I doubt professional coaches would prattle on about 'zonal cover with man marking' and would more likely do what you are hypothetically doing. They'd just run a drill and say "this is what I want to happen".

I’ll PM the link to the screengrabs and maybe the diagrams therein might be helpful.

What follows is very much off the top of my head so pinch of salt and all of that.

I wouldn't say all English sides but definitely British coaches favour it, but then again I am one of those frowned upon EPL viewers so what St. Albans do on a Saturday is obviously something you’d know infinitely more about. I do remember watching Liverpool against Chelsea in the Champion's League when Hiddink was in charge and from what I remember there were subtle differences in how the back 4s defended in terms of spacing etc (Benitez obviously isn't British but I believe he is a big fan of Sacchi who in turn was influenced by the 70s/80s Liverpool teams who brought this approach to prominence). But as I said that's off the top of my head and if I were to analyse it again that might prove to be nonsense (or just coincidental or a product of confirmation bias).

The best example I can think of is when a ball gets spread to a winger. In a pure zonal system the nearside CB would shift across to the cover spot but in the zonal-man system you’ll often see a giant gap between the CB and the FB whereby the CB stays with a striker/attacker who is heading into the box or not moving across to try and run the angle.

On a sidenote typing this reminded me of how much I hate the auto log out on these forums. Cut and paste is the reason the quoting looks a little screwy.

[crouchaldinho]

I was trying to tread lightly as the last time my posting style unintentionally insulted you. I referred to one of the 'academics' you referenced as being your mate which came across as condescending when it wasn't how it was intended. Much like in real life I forgot to engage brain before doing the virtual equivalent of opening my mouth

Oh I remember now. My 'buddy' Bangsbo, wasn't it? I wasn't really insulted so don't worry about that. The funny thing is that he is the one I am least familiar with actually.

Sorry, typo. I meant Arsenal.

Ah, right, I'll go back and look at those screenshots then.

Jens Bangsbo 'Defensive Soccer Tactics'

Some of it is accessible on google books (the pages available are different from the last time I checked, but I screengrabbed some pics so shoot me a PM if you want and I'll upload them somewhere). If you google "zonal cover with player marking" including the quotes it should return some relevant hits.

Do you own any of the Bangsbo books? If so, are they worth a read?

Set up a back 4 to tight man mark and set the full backs as fully defensive so they are always back. Then for the opposite side set the strikers to channel play so they drift out wide. You'll see a defined hand off from the CB to the FB which is at it's core 'zonal behaviour'. It's part of the reason drifting strikers are so damn effective in FM by comparison to real life (position the winger to draw out the full back when he gains possession and the drifting striker runs in behind or finds himself unmarked behind because the CB will just let him go on a regular basis)

Looks as if I will have to go back and take a proper look at this. The last time I properly analysed it was on FM08 (or was it 09?) when we were discussing marking originally.

To be honest I used academic references as I know you have an interest and would respect that more than me waffling, but me personally I view books like Bangsbo's as more of a scientific attempt at quantifying football. I doubt professional coaches would prattle on about 'zonal cover with man marking' and would more likely do what you are hypothetically doing. They'd just run a drill and say "this is what I want to happen".

Books like that are highly theoretical and probably only useful to a point, and I do think you are probably right. Most managers/coaches are going to take certain behaviours or instructions for granted and teach them without getting so highly theoretical. Nevertheless, I think these books are the best way for someone like me to understand the behaviour, because I like to consider the abstract concepts and I don't have the practical experience. I am looking for ways to describe and classify what I see.

I’ll PM the link to the screengrabs and maybe the diagrams therein might be helpful.

Cheers.

The best example I can think of is when a ball gets spread to a winger. In a pure zonal system the nearside CB would shift across to the cover spot but in the zonal-man system you’ll often see a giant gap between the CB and the FB whereby the CB stays with a striker/attacker who is heading into the box or not moving across to try and run the angle.

This example reminds me of watching an analysis by Alan Hansen when he suggests that the fullback and the centre-back are too far apart (at least once a week on MoTD! )

[isuckatfm]

Books like that are highly theoretical and probably only useful to a point, and I do think you are probably right. Most managers/coaches are going to take certain behaviours or instructions for granted and teach them without getting so highly theoretical. Nevertheless, I think these books are the best way for someone like me to understand the behaviour, because I like to consider the abstract concepts and I don't have the practical experience. I am looking for ways to describe and classify what I see.

True enough. Quantification and classification is how the knowledge is spread and it definitely makes discussion on the internet far easier. But I still believe what separates these systems from pure ones is simply the application of common sense within the context of the play and the defensive system that the coach has drilled in preparation.

Take this screenshot from the Chelsea Liverpool match I mentioned. If you remember being coached as a kid, the basics of a pure zonal system is linkage which was enforced by tying the back 4 together with a rope. Under the strict, abstract definition of a zonal system the separation of the CBs would not happen.

But what you have is based on the context of how Chelsea are coming at them and the system in place. Skrtel holds his ground to potentially defend the box while Carragher comes to press Ballack off the ball. Anyone who has played the game or watches football will understand what they are seeing without ever having read about “zonal cover with man marking”. If you were to mention this concept to a football fan who isn’t into tactical reading etc. he/she would just laugh at you and call you a pseudo-intellectual complicating the game unnecessarily (speaking from experience here). Said football fan would just point out why it made sense, and in my opinion neither side of the discussion would be wrong.

So as you said, the theory is just a way to deal with the abstract and separate the defensive behaviour from other observed methods.

This example reminds me of watching an analysis by Alan Hansen when he suggests that the fullback and the centre-back are too far apart (at least once a week on MoTD!)

Just to clarify, I’m not saying he would never be on the cover, but it very much depends on the context of the play and the system (who’s attacking that space, is my winger tracking back, has a midfielder shifted across and dropped in to support defensively).

The thing about football analysis and punditry is that it is always after the fact. I know I’m stating the obvious here but let me expand on it with respect to the screenshot I posted. If a runner hits the gap between CBs and Skrtel fails to react then Hansen picks it out with the standard ‘you could drive a bus through it’ quip. If Skrtel does shift over but instead there is a late runner behind him this potentially leaves the Liverpool full back against two Chelsea attackers at the far post, and again Hansen will highlight the lack of basics. In other words neither decision is fundamentally correct nor a rule of thumb for basic defending.

I know that spiel has little to do with anything. I’m just trying to cover my bases before someone starts calling me out as an idiot who knows nothing about football

Just as a quick example to show what I mean (it may also illustrate that it is just semantics) with respect to the CB-FB separation.

Kuyt comes off in between the lines and lays it wide. You see the Everton CB-FB separation increases.

Whether that is player decision making or a defensive system reflecting coaching preparation whereby that isn’t his job (as I noted previously re the CBs decision making with respect to the opposition attackers and his teammate winger or central midfielder), I don’t know. But in my opinion you cannot classify that as an outright zonal back 4 as if it were there would be a determined shift in keeping with how pure zonal behaves in terms of passing of responsibility and providing cover. The CB does not move relative to his FB but relative to his man (which for me is one of the issues with how the FM back 4 behaves even with tight man marking set, but that’s another story).

As I said it may just be semantics and others might view that as pure zonal and how pure zonal should function. Either way it doesn’t necessarily reflect a lack of understanding about football as anybody can look at the screenshots and see what’s what. Trying to classify it in terms of the back 4 marking system is difficult, but in terms of the team defensive system it’s pretty obvious what is going on.

[jascko]

Correct. Set up a back 4 to tight man mark and set the full backs as fully defensive so they are always back. Then for the opposite side set the strikers to channel play so they drift out wide. You'll see a defined hand off from the CB to the FB which is at it's core 'zonal behaviour'. It's part of the reason drifting strikers are so damn effective in FM by comparison to real life (position the winger to draw out the full back when he gains possession and the drifting striker runs in behind or finds himself unmarked behind because the CB will just let him go on a regular basis)

This means that whatever marking system we choose on FM it becomes problematic when marking in FM does not work as it should. These problems with the CBs marking are clear not only in terms of "drifting striker" but also in relation to the famous problem where troughball goes between two CBs to the striker without any of CBs picking him up.

Just out of curiosity, what system are you using, isuckatfm?

[SFraser]

Quite an interesting discussion that has popped up here.

I think to be fair to FM the question has be asked not "are the instructions utterly logical and equivelant to real life" but instead "do the instructions give the user the ability to create equivelant systems". Match engine problems not withstanding ofcourse.

As Isuckatfm points out, there is quite clearly alot more to defensive systems than picking your favourite ideology. It's another one of those areas of the game where there is a lot of confusion about the exact behaviour causes by each instruction, and understanding these tools is paramount to being able to construct good defensive systems in a similar vein to the one we see in real life, or indeed to defending against the opponent at hand.

Does anyone know precisely or even roughly what behaviour is produced from each of the key defensive instructions? I have my own ideas but I am still not convinced nor entireally certain.

[sander102]

I useally adapt my defence to my opponents attacking strength.

Normally my 2 DCs and DM are man mark and my FBs zonal+tight with a normal def line, the FBs are tight to try and prevent crosses.

When my DCs are faster than their opponent I'll leave it but when slower it's not much use to man mark because they'll simply run away from them (thru balls) So I'll drop my def line to give them less space to use their pace and switch to zonal+tight. If during the match I see that there are to many thru balls I'll drop my def line so more and it kinda depents how my DC is doing if I'll keep tight or not. To prevent long shots my DM is also tight.

So I guess the answer to the question man mark or zonal depents on the tactic you use and the strength of your defence and your opponents attack.

Untill lately it never bothered with adapting my set up before a match but I've seen improvements I hope it helps

[footynut]

Good to see the old man marking discuusion still going strongly

I remember having the discussion sometime ago and that they were going to discuss with Ray Houghton and post back.

[el_magico89]

well I would also say, that the formation does play an important role in deciding, whether man or zonal marking.

for example:

Ive tried to create a successful in defence solid flat 442 but always failed. it was always the same, no matter whether I set my CBs and FBs to tight/lose zonal or man marking.

but what I noticed was, that setting your CBs to tight man marking in a flat 442 will be much more profitable than zonal marking.

the reason is not the defensive line, but much more the midfield or better said the central midfield position.

as we all know, a flat 442 does not have a typical anchor man who can fill the gap between the defensive line and the midfield line. so you will often face danger when especially the opposition is using an attacking midfielder or one of his strikers are naturally a dlf who often drops back to get balls.

so as this area is not marked by the 2 central midfielders, you must get sure, that at least your defensive line is as close to the midfield line as possible. this will also mean, that your both center backs do need to cover the work of an defensiv midfielder aswell.

because setting them to zonal marking will mean, that they always let a little bit space between themselves and the oppositons strikers and this is always going to end with a disaster, as you always get outplayed.

so your both CBs need to stay as close as possible to the strikers and they must tackle them before they even get the ball.

but if you play with a DMC you can set them on tight zonal marking as the dmc is going to take the job and your both center backs can completely focus on preventing though balls.

thats also the reason, why i stopped playing formations without a naturals defensiv midfielder. as defending like roy hodgson did with fulham last year is not possible in fm, since you cant tell a cm to act like a cm when attacking and to act like a dmc when defending. they always try to close down the opponent high up the pitch and leave much space behind them.

[Mike_Cardinal]

Not unless you give an Anchor Man mixed runs from deep, that is.

[mdbussen]

Would like to resurrect this thread because there is definitely room for discussion here. There are plenty of threads dealing with getting the most out of your attack but I have yet to see one that deals with the incredibly important task of building a defensive shape or what the specific defensive instructions mean (this is the closest thing I have found in that regard).

The specific defensive instructions which specify a team's defensive shape and defensive strategy (along with their FM10 manual definitions) are:

Closing Down - Team/Individual - Slider - Closing Down represents how often, or how committed your players are, to closing down the opposition when they have the ball over the entire pitch. The slider is set from Rarely to Often. Increasing how often your players close the opponent down will put them under pressure when they receive the ball, but it can leave your team exposed for position and fitness, especially if your players don’t have the necessary physical attributes to be chasing opponents around for the whole game. Closing an opponent down will increase the chances of taking the ball from them and launching a counter attack, and is probably best employed in an attacking system – if you’re operating defensively with the intention to soak up pressure, your defensive shape doesn’t need to be compromised by players chasing the ball.

My Questions: What exactly is being specified by the Closing Down slider? Assuming we are in zonal marking is this specifying a "radius" of coverage that the player is responsible for from his default position? Is this slider completely meaningless in man-marking systems? Does a player's "aggression" attribute augment this setting in any way?

Defensive Line - Team - Slider - The Defensive Line slider positions your deepest line of defence on the pitch. It affects the position the players take up both with and without possession. The slider is set from Deep to Push Up, and the further right the bar is set, the closer to the halfway line the defensive unit will advance when in possession. If your team is using a defensive mentality, a defensive setting on the slider will ensure they stay deep when the rest of your team attacks. If your team uses an attacking philosophy, the effect of the slider is lessened and players will advance – although a deeper line will see them err on the side of caution a little more.

When your team is not in possession the same applies, but in terms of nullifying the opposition. As soon as your team loses the ball, the defensive line will adopt the approach you have told them to and either drop deeper or push up. You may want to take the qualities of the opposition’s attackers into consideration before each match before deciding on your defensive line approach, as quicker players can get in behind an advanced line, and deeper lines can be exposed by direct play and a big target man up front.

My Questions: The implication from this manual description is that defensive line is a "modifier" on the player's positioning with respect to their mentality (as well as the position of the ball). The second paragraph seems to contradict what is stated in the first paragraph - "It affects the position the players take up both with and without possession" but then "As soon as your team loses the ball, the defensive line will adopt the approach you have told them to and either drop deeper or push up"?

Tackling - Team/Individual - Easy/Normal/Hard - The Tackling slider determines the level of commitment and aggression your players will attempt to show when tackling for the ball. The slider is different from the others as it only has three options – Easy, Normal, and Hard. Hard tackling is most likely to exert authority on the opponent but is also most likely to inflict injury and disciplinary action against your players. Easy tackling negates this risk somewhat but also gives the opposition an easier time on the ball. Normal is a balance of the settings and is the best choice by default, but you should check your opposition’s disciplinary record and their record from set piece situations ahead of each game, as well as the type of player they have, before settling on your tackling approach for the match.

My Questions: The manual states that the tackling slider determines "the level of commitment and aggression your players will attempt to show when tackling for the ball" but is this entirely independent of a player's own attributes? Will a player with high Aggression behave the same on Easy tackling as a player with low Aggression? Similarly, do players with "better" tackling attempt the tackle more often than players with "worse" tackling on easy tackling, because they can win the ball easier? If not, wouldn't that imply that I should set my player's tackling individually based on their skill in the tackle?

Marking - Team/Individual - Zonal/Man/Specific-Man - The Marking option sets your team to play either a zonal or a man marking style. Man marking is the easiest and simplest to employ, as each player on your team is responsible for an opponent at all times. Zonal marking puts players in charge of an area of the pitch which they are then responsible for addressing should an opponent make their way into that ‘zone’. It is harder to employ as your defensive players will need top ratings in Anticipation, Concentration, and Decision as well as key defensive attributes, but if you have the players to implement it, some managers believe it to be a more effective defensive tactic as players are less likely to be drawn out of position, ensuring a solid structural foundation to your team.

My Questions: Is it fair to say that "marking" is the more important attribute in a man-marking system while "positioning" is the more important attribute in a zonal-marking system?

Tight Marking - Team/Individual - Yes/No - Tell your players whether you wish for them to mark their opponents up close or to allow themselves a little ‘give’ should they be beaten to the ball.

Play Offside - Team - Yes/No - Decide whether your defensive unit should play the offside trap or not. To pull it off successfully you’ll need players who are mentally capable of focusing on the plan as well as a unit who know each other very well, and a sufficient mentality so as to not conflict with the option.

There are also the "Opposition Instructions" which define how you want to defend against the specific match-day opponent - these hardly receive a mention in the FM10 manual. They are:

Tight Marking - Never/Default/Always

Closing Down - Never/Default/Always

Tackling - Easy/Default/Hard

Show onto Foot - Default/Left/Right/Weaker Foot

[dz47]

Some good points for discussion there. I’m at work now so will only give a part response to the tackling issue.

Basically I believe that individual player characteristics (both visible and hidden) have an impact on all tactical settings. So for tackling, the ‘easy/normal/hard’ setting will have an influence on how much risk the player will take in trying to win the ball in a tackle.

So ‘easy’ will mean that he will only try the tackle when he has a better than average chance of winning the ball (ie better than 50/50); ‘hard’ will mean he will try to win tackles even when he has less chance of winning the ball cleanly (ie less than 50/50) and ‘normal’ is somewhere in between.

The player’s individual mental attributes (decision making, anticipation, aggression, concentration etc) will always affect his decision making here, and how accurate he is at perceiving the ‘risk’ posed by making/not making the tackle. I find that players mental attributes are the main determinant of individual settings, particularly when using ‘normal’ or ‘mixed’ settings, as you are basically instructing the player to use their own judgment more.

Then I think their individual skills/abilities (strength, tackling etc) impact on their actual likelihood of winning the ball cleanly (ie how good they actually are at physically carrying out the actions they have decided to take). For example, a player with high mental and physical attributes, teamed with good tackling ratings could be expected to play quite well with a ‘hard’ tackling setting (ie would win the vast majority of tackles but also do so without making too many fouls), while a player with the same physical and tackling ratings, but inferior mental attributes might be better on ‘normal’ or even ‘easy’ settings (also depending on the game situation and what sort of risks you are taking) because while they have the physical abilities to win balls, they are far more likely to give away fouls/free kicks and pick up cards.

[Jaw Knee Rot Tin]

Some very good points raised here that basically show that you need to experiment with the back four settings to establish what works best with the players at your disposal. Following on from dz47's comments, it's also important to take into consideration the Aggression level of defensive players as high aggression plus hard tackling will lead to more than a few early baths

[Miek]

I have to say i'm conceading less with zonal marking. I'm using standing-off (closing down) and cautious tackling. I'm conceding less (used to play man marking) but I'm giving away far to many long shots. Good thing long shots rarely hit the net

[500Up]

I play zonal and soak-up-pressure (so I wont lose the shape) type of defense. Rarely concede, only on corners mostly or when defenders having a bad day. So I should say Zonal Marking works best, for me at least.

[John_Cro]

Zonal, check out my 4-1-2-1-2 tactic that is based on zonal marking for the back four and zonal + man for the middle players.

Cheers

[aderow]

I decided to go with zonal marking for my back four as I now employ the nike defence and I also gave my MCd zonal marking in my 4-3-3.

I just played Man City in the community shield and Chelsea in my first match of the season and in both games, I limited both Chelsea and Man City to 1 shot in the first half and both times the shot was off target