Zonal vs Man marking

[lam]

Hey,

The age old question.......... what's the difference?

I want some more knowledge on this and have started a new thread where hopefully we can discuss not just the differences but how and when to use them, but also how to use it in the game effectively.

I did some googling and found a decent description and a little history on WIKIPEDIA, now, it's probably not the best place to look, but I thought it was good enough to post here.

There are some interesting points in there:

MAN MARKING:

• The idea of man-to-man marking was perfected by the Italian teams of the 1960s and 1970s. Teams such as Inter Milan and AC Milan used it in their so-called catenaccio formation. This consisted of four man markers with a sweeper playing behind them. This brought much success to these teams and soon these tactics became popular throughout the world of football. However, this tight marking was often at the expense of the (attacking) spectacle of the game itself, because "defenders preoccupied with their defensive markings may be reluctant contributors to the team's offense".[/url]
  

• The strategy is one that has been supposedly dying out in football over the past decade or so despite Greece's success with it in the 2004 European Championships. It is however often used by lower-tier teams, as well as teams defending themselves from much stronger opponents.
  

ZONAL MARKING:

• is a defensive strategy where defenders cover an area of the pitch rather than marking a specific opponent. If an opponent moves into the area a defender is covering, the defender marks the opponent. If the opponent leaves this area, then marking the opponent becomes the responsibility of another defender.
  

• The biggest advantage of zonal marking is its flexibility. When the team regains possession of the ball, players are still in their positions and can start an attack more quickly. Communication is very important when zonal marking is used, to ensure that no gaps are left in the defensive coverage...........
  

• 15 of the 16 teams that reached the knockout stages of the 2004 UEFA Champions League used zonal marking
  

So, there were some interesting points in all of that and the descriptions certainly make it a lot clearer, but that is not really the issue for me, it's how to implement it in the game and why to use it.

So, here are some ponderings:

1. If players use ZONES. How large are these zones and how can we define them.
   
2. If I play with a DM and two CM's how do I know how the zones are controled.
   
3. If there are two players in the same zone, will a defender get help from a team mate
   
4. If players are not 'picked up' until they enter a zone how do you tight mark as there will be a gap between them entering the zone and then being marked.
   
5. Is a zone an area on the field or an area around a player
   
6. If it's an area on the field and defender has moved beyond it (to attack or something), does someone else cover the zone.
   
7. If I am using the above again. Is it okay to have one of my MC's on tightman mark or is that going to mess with the others zones? If one is MM should the other be?
   
8. How does Zonal marking work along side OI's? It's very evident that unless you give a specific player an instruction to tight mark an member of the opposition he doesn't do it regardless of other team instructions and even OI's.
   
9. When you use the shout "Hassle Opponents" why does it switch all marking to Man Marking?
   
10. Would it be dangerous to manually set ZONAL marking and then use "Hassle Oponents"?
    

So, rather than the usual, zone is zones and man is man, can we try and get a definitive thread going? I've not really seen one before and I'm not sure if that is down to people not knowing or not knowing how it works in game or people 'getting it' far quicker than I appear to do.

Regards

LAM

[wez007]

Not sure if you mention it above, would be interested to know how non tight man marking works? Does a player sit on his man whether its tight or not or does he pick him up when the opp gets into a certain zone? I'm trying to get my dms to not really worry about man marking until they get in my half.... If that makes sense?

[ashlfcowen]

I find that when I man mark, the AI stretches my defence a stupid amount. Suppose it's not so bad in parts but if you were playing against an AMC it would be dangerous. As a result of playing balanced, I zonal mark.

[wez007]

I tend to have my Dm man mark an AMC as I find if you leave them to their own devices they can severely punish you, esp in this version of the ME

[Cleon]

My response will be short because I can't sum it up any better than the Tactical Theorems 10 did;

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.

[Cleon]

Not sure if you mention it above, would be interested to know how non tight man marking works? Does a player sit on his man whether its tight or not or does he pick him up when the opp gets into a certain zone? I'm trying to get my dms to not really worry about man marking until they get in my half.... If that makes sense?

If you tight marked you would be right ontop of him and limiting space. If you don't tight mark you stand off him and shadow him and allow him a little bit of space.

[wez007]

"When you use the shout "Hassle Opponents" why does it switch all marking to Man Marking?" Wow I never noticed that and I use hassle every game Very very interesting ....

[Rashidi]

I would make it even shorter. Dont use man marking unless its player specific, otherwise at all times use zonal. You can mark zones tightly, and this is more effective than manmarking. For set pieces its an open debate, as Man Utd showed last weekend, manmarking setpieces can be disastrous, but its considered the most effective strategy. However if you set players to come in from deep, man marking is useless.

Manmarking is anachronistic. It doesnt belong in the modern game unless you want to specifically target a player. You would find it really hard to find any top class team playin in the champs league employing full man marking. IMHO non specific manmarking should be completely removed from the game, cos zonal tight marking is more realistic and it works 10 times better.

The hassle opponents shout should be used very very carefully.

[wez007]

So rather than use the hassle shout I'd be better off using more closing from team settings straight off the bat?

[Rashidi]

Nope adjusting the sliders isn't something you should do, what you can do is set tight marking up across you pitch. So if you go narrow and tight you close the areas down. I don't use hassle shouts though I can see its value, its just too dicey IMHO.

[lam]

So rather than use the hassle shout I'd be better off using more closing from team settings straight off the bat?

But the difference between max closing from team instructions to the shout is massive, at least with counter attacking.

Rashidi - do you ever use 'hassle opponents'?

Cleon - what about all my other questions?

[Cleon]

But the difference between max closing from team instructions to the shout is massive, at least with counter attacking.

Rashidi - do you ever use 'hassle opponents'?

Cleon - what about all my other questions?

I'll try and respond later, the in-laws are here

[bill_barlow]

all too often the FBs just let the wingers get their cross in my games, which will help solve this?

[lam]

Not that you need confirmation of this, but the bit you posted about MM being a more aggressive ZONAL marking almost certainly explains my issues with my MC's not picking up the opposition MC's.

Once the MC's move forwards a little THEN they pick them up. The problem this creates is that deep MC's (not just DLP's) have a ton of time and space to do something. My men seem reluctnant to close down an opposition MC unitl he is well advanced (and from what you posted, seemingly has activated the marking system) or until they get the ball and the aggressive closing down kicks in.

Using standard team instructions or OI's, I can not get my MC's to tight mark theirs without using PI's. Though, this is just a side issue.

I'm in a game against Liverpool, but on my next easy game I might try to manually set zonal marking and see how it works with the shouts.

[wez007]

When would you guys say hassle appointments should be used? For example, my Dag & Red team has a rather tricky cup game away @ Chelsea coming up? Are these the types of games??

[lam]

Horses for courses. You already know that Cleon uses it straight off the bat, whereas Rashidi would suggest utmost caution in using it.

If I were playing Chelsea I'd probably opt for a more of a man marking thing...... but it depends on how they are going to play.

[wez007]

Ok so ive done something thats probably going to be condoned , ive played the match and now going to re load it up. First one is using the hassle opponents:

And everything the same settings, OI's etc but without hassle shout:

Now it should be noted the first game went to ET so thats have an extra half hour and my players were dead on their feet. I was quite tight within that first game and couldnt see as many chances as the stats made out.

The second game i got rinsed, esp dow the wings (where all four goals game from), i played awful too as rating would suggest. Maybe ive found some kind if link... my teams stops the supply line from crosses when i use the hassle shout

If there is one thing ive learnt from this thread its i will be using the hassling shout which man marking seems to work against the bigger teams in a situation like this

[alsocan]

my humble 2 cents worth... i tried full zonal marking for the first time.. last nite..

(i have been a using specific manmarking for my whole team via OI)

i was facing Real Madrid in the CL group stage game 1, using Everton in season 2

decided to go full zonal after reading the responses in this thread and it worked a threat!

MAdrid lined up in their usual 4-2-3-1 (with CMs). Ronaldo on the right, di maria on left and ozil in the middle behind Benzema

i played a 3-6-1 (3 DCs, 2 WBs, 2 CM, 2AMC, 1 Striker), counter, balanced, press more, push up

wat i noticed was with zonal marking, the left DC helped out very well against ronaldo on the left flank.. Baines (WBL) took him on and the DCL doubled on him. DCc covered in the centre, with DCR guarding the far post.

in fact i actually scored first.. with some nice interplay between the 2 AMCs and my loan poacher upfront...

the entire match, Madrid cldnt get in behind my defence, even with me playing without a DMC and with a high line

it was simply a defensive clinic!

the match ended in a 1-1 draw when my CM bundled in a corner rebound.. **** happens..

wat pleased me was no goal conceded in open play.. which is a super achievment facing Madrid away and playing with 3 at the back against the best winger in the game.

conclusion.. zonal marking kept my team from being dragged and stretched... i used to specific mark wingers with my wingbacks and CMs to CMs, DCs to ST etc. with roaming instructions, the opp wld drag my players left and right.

zonal with tight kept the shape well... and my team stood firm and held the line... with staggered duty.. they covered and pressed intelligently...

negative observation, was in central midfield.. with 4 players in tat zone (2 CMs and 2 AMCs) we didnt seem to win that battle... with zonal marking.. my players seemed to stand off too much... Madrid's 2 CMs were not marked tightly enough

will experiment tonite with Man marking specific for my 2 CMs only

[Rashidi]

I used hassle opponents once I havent used it since. I get by without needing that shout.

[FyB]

It all depends on the formation and strategy.

Like Cleon, I agree with what Tactical Theorems 10 (TT10) says in regards to this topic.

However, TT10 did not give us any example to understand how it really works other than saying "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."

TT10 also talked about specific man marking, which Cleon has already quoted from above. Specific man-marking is where the player will mark the specific player where ever he goes once possession is lost whereas, man marking is actually zonal marking with a catch.

An example of utilizing specific man marking is playing 2 CBs & Sweeper against a 2 Strikers. Setting up the 2 CBs to tight specific mark the 2 opposing Strikers and Sweeper to Zonal loose marking. This will allow the the CBs to follow the Strikers everywhere they go, if they run the channels they follow them to the channels, if they drop deep, the CBs will follow them into midfield. Disadvantage of using this system is that your CBs will be pulled out of place however they will be neutralizing the strikers.

However, in the same scenario, if I utilize man marking on the 2 CBs. Whenever the 2 Strikers come into the zone, they will start to mark them, however, if the strikers run the channels, the CBs will just let them go as they are no longer in their zone, and its left to the FBs to pick them up. Hence, if the Strikers drop deep, the CBs will let them go while just holding the D line.

Now, if I switch them zonal marking. Like man marking, same thing would happen. Only difference is when advance midfielder runs into one of the CBs zone. The CB will close down the advancing midfielder and leave the Striker for the Sweeper to pick up which he won't (which is for another thread) whereas, in man marking, the CBs will just stick to the Strikers and let the midfielder run.

In conclusion, the only difference between zonal marking and man marking comes down to how the players will react when his zone is overloaded. However, this is all theory, it also comes down to the attributes of the players.

[Rashidi]

I still think man marking is a complete waste of time in FM

[lam]

What worries me about all of this is how it all translates into FM.

Like I've pointed out before, the ever popular turns any marking into MAN MARKING. For those that use a default setup, most of the times your DC's will be MAN MARKING too.

So, in it's current format, would it be fair to say that the activation of ZONAL and MM is the same. But zonal will let a player go when the ball move out of his zone, whereas in MM the player will continue to track the player until possession is gained?

How are people dealing with the opposition MC's?

These guys generally do one of two things A) they run the show or B) they recycle the ball. Like I've said many times before, if I do not specificy in my PI's to mark specific players then these guys get way to much time and space. As it stands currently, I just don't see myself running a full zonal system, and this is based purely on how ineefective any system is at pick up the opposition CM's.

It might just be me, but I'd love some feedback on this, just to see if others have the same issue. I'll check the analysis tab at various points and without specified marking, the oppo MC's are likly to be at 90%+ passing ratio. Once I set my markers, this will drop to around 75%. Surely there isn't a better way to deal with these chaps?

[FyB]

lam, can you give a match where this happens so we can analyse what is happening. Formation will be good for starters. I can't say that i'm facing the problem, but I do get what you mean.

ATM, I just bypass that as I'm playing 4-1-3-2 counter in BSN. Most opposition lines up as 4-4-2.

My Backline are set to man tight except my Fullback set to man loose. My Anchor man is set to Man tight whereas my MCs are set to Zonal loose.

In theory, this plays perfectly, into my counter strategy. My anchor man picks up anyone lingering in the DM zone while the MCs holds a line pressing whoever has the ball. This is an example of keeping tight at the back and trying to win the ball in midfield. However, this is not full proof, a striker running the channels + winger and FB combo still penetrate my defence at times.

I just take its just due to my formation as I am susceptible to wing play. A very good FB with good decision might solve this. For the moment, neither man or zonal seems to work for my FB. He is always confuse on who to mark/ who to close down between the striker running the channels and the winger when his zone get overloaded. Even on man marking he seems to prioritize the man on the ball which seems to be the winger while he is marking the striker and when he goes to close it down, he passes it to the striker and he has a clear crossing chance.

[lam]

I'll post some pictures next time it happens, though I am trying the manual override of ZONAL marking now. I like how I maintain my attacking shape, but again, my opposition MC's weren't really picked up. 85%+ passing completions. To be fair though, my own two MC's are shocking at defence.

[luka_zg]

I put my team on man marking and I feel born again. started playing great defence, restricting opposition and dominating in attack. Completly changed my experience with the game. Also it seems it is some sort of agressive zonal marking and not clasic man to man marking, team does not lose shape,players are not leaving their positions stupidly. After I build up a good lead I use stand off opponents shout and they stop beeing aggressive,maybe they switch to zonal ,I don't know. all I know is the man marking is the way to go for me at this point.

[jdrawmer]

If anything this thread goes to prove that FM have done a good job of the marking settings to reflect real life. If there was a one size fits all it would be rubbish - instead, it seems like preference has a big impact, and people are advocating both. _luka at the end there stating he's having great success with MM, and others stating they have greater success with ZM. I tend to go for Default as it seems to reflect how i want to play (defenders MM strikers, otherwise zonal).

What I would say is, having everybody on MM doesn't really make sense unless yours and your opponents formations line up exactly the same. For example - if i'm playing a 4-5-1 with an anchorman against a 4-4-2 and playing Man Marking - who would the Anchorman be picking up? Chances are he would double up with one of the centre backs to mark a striker, which would render him pretty much useless.

I probably prefer Zonal for most positions because when the opposition win the ball, any of your players could be out of position so you want zones to be covered. If the opposition win the ball him up and one of your CM's is out of position and meant to be man marking the other - he will be in total space.

[tommonufc]

Marcelo Biesla would be the perfect exponent of a man marking system in the modern day, but even then zonal considerations are taken into account to retain some level of shape.

[video=youtube;KxXmcTyfoqY]

I remember having good successes playing as Bilbao in last years game with man marking - in efforts to replicate the above.

This year I've used tight zonal through the my sides. But recently, up until the last two games, I've taken some Bielsa into my defence, and efforts to stop opposition full backs become so free in possession due to them being the spare men in opposing sides systems.

vs. front 2 - LCB marks RS - CB zonal tight - RCB marks LS

Having good success so far, I'm able to press in a coordinated way in a 3-5-1-1, so I generally make it hard for opposition sides to play through my defensive and midfield lines, but on the odd occasion that they do, my two center backs are immediately on top of the forward to intercept and tackle.

[lam]

What happens when the opposition left winger gets forward?

[tommonufc]

Right wing back, right sided central midfield will come across and close the channels. If played in behind into space, the right center back would still close.

Will post an example from my next game/

[lam]

Ah... my bad, sorry I read four at the back and RCB I read as RB.

[darthrodent]

Great thread thus far, lads.

Cleon, this is what you posted before, mate:

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 problem I see with this is the definition of until the danger is cleared. What does that mean exactly? In my Oldham game I am experimenting with man marking and tight marking—my whole team is set to man marking and tight marking "Yes". I deploy a narrow 4-1-2-1-2 Diamond system and it was my intention in this little experiment to ensure Blackburn's two defensive midfielders are man marked by my two central midfielders. If we look below at Phase 1 it seems to be working pretty well. Dean Furman (8) is man marking Marvin Elliot (8):

Phase 1

This is exactly what I want him to be doing, great. However, then this happens:

Phase 2

What you're seeing is Furman closing down the left back, who released the ball to the left winger before he was even close. Essentially then, unless I've specifically told Furman to man mark Elliot, he won't stay with him. I assumed that it was something to do with Closing Down initially so I changed it. What you're seeing in the images is Furman's Closing Down set all the way to the left, Own Area.

The interesting thing about Furman's behaviour is that his opponent has not left Furman's zone of control, so theoretically he should still be marking Elliot, right? The only other thing I can think of is that his Decisions attribute is 10. However to go from Man Marking Tight to Closing Down mindlessly is quite a jump don't you think?

What are your thoughts? I'm really interested in experimenting with Closing Down. Any ideas on what I can do to gather something more unequivocal?

[ModernLefty]

Just bumping this, as this is an area of FM that is rarely spoken about. I get that zonal is zonal, and standard man marking is tighter zonal marking and specific man marking is actual man marking.

But does the engine differentiate that in playing man marking it puts a heavier emphasis on 'marking' over the 'positioning' attribute? And the same in reverse, does zonal put more influence on the 'positioning' attribute as opposed to the 'marking'?

Always something I've wondered, any thoughts? It's probably nonsense.

[RTHerringbone]

Doesn't matter whether you use either system or a combination of both. Positioning is critical for any defender or defensive Role and is weighted equally in either scenario as Positioning and Marking are different things.

[ModernLefty]

I get that they are different things, defensive 'positioning' is: how good they are at knowing the right place to be in defense to stop the opposition, much like 'off the ball' in attack, (obviously in reverse though).

Marking is: how well they can mark someone, follow them, not let them get the slip.

Does that mean the marking stat has a precise purpose, is it specifically for corners and set pieces and when you individually get a player to man mark someone?

Or when players enter the zones of your players is it how well they can track them in that zone?

Or both.

I'm just trying to clarify.

[Cleon]

I get that they are different things, defensive 'positioning' is: how well you can be in the right place at the right time in defense to stop the opposition, much like 'off the ball' in attack.

Marking is: how well they can mark someone, follow them, not let them get the slip.

Does that mean the marking stat has a precise purpose, is it specifically for corners and set pieces and when you individually get a player to man mark someone?

I'm just trying to clarify.

Marking is how well someone can follow the person they are marking. Positioning is the ability to read the situation and place himself in the best position to deal with the situation. And he needs high anticipation to to read the move correctly or he could get caught out of position.

All attributes do something precise and they all work in conjunction with each other

[ModernLefty]

Thanks,

But if they are not strictly marking someone, as in zonal, what then?

Sorry Cleon looks like I edited it after you started replying. So with zonal is 'marking' related to how well they track them in/through the zones?

[Cleon]

Thanks,

But if they are not strictly marking someone, as it in zonal, what then?

Sorry Cleon looks like I edited it after you started replying. So with zonal is 'marking' related to how well they track them in/through the zones?

If they aren't marking anyone then the attribute won't be used until they have someone to mark. It works the same thought regardless of what system once he is marking a player because its his ability to mark a player. So whichever scenario he is in, it works the same. What will differ though is when the player is picked up by the closing down and marking systems you use.

I think I get what you are trying to say though and yes it is but there are a host of other attributes to consider too like decisions, teamwork, anticipation, concentration etc.

[ModernLefty]

Cleon cheers, and I appreciate that all the attributes play a part, I was just trying to get the specifics down so I could then have a clearer picture when I built it back up.

It's never been too much of a problem, but its something that I just always put on Zonal and played a reasonably high line with fast, able, rounded defenders and seemed to be reasonably solid.

I just think that as it is one of the less sexy areas of the game, it rarely gets spoken about, but in continuing to educate myself to understand FM more fully, it's something that I need to focus more on probably. As certain players and defenders wouldn't be conducive to the aforementioned strategy.

[Cleon]

Cleon cheers, and I appreciate that all the attributes play a part, I was just trying to get the specifics down so I could then have a clearer picture when I built it back up.

It's never been too much of a problem, but its something that I just always put on Zonal and played a reasonably high line with fast, able, rounded defenders and seemed to be reasonably solid.

I just think that as it is one of the less sexy areas of the game, it rarely gets spoken about, but in continuing to educate myself to understand FM more fully, it's something that I need to focus more on probably. As certain players and defenders wouldn't be conducive to the aforementioned strategy.

Did you ever read my SI Sports Centre thread? Parts of that dealt with attributes and how they worked on the pitch;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/289528-The-SI-Sports-Centre-All-You-Need-To-Know-About-FM

That is the link if you didn't

[ModernLefty]

I skim read it, it serves me right, I'll go back and have a look at it more fully this time, so more of it stays in.

Cheers.

[lemeures]

A huge influence on marking is wether you are playing an offside trap with it.

For instance, the catenaccio is ineffective as part of an offside trap, as if the players are marking tightly and following there men, they have no line to speak of and the libero is behind them, reducing its effectiveness even more

I think as the game has changed over the years man marking has been less effective due to different formations and more teams employing a direct fast paced attack. I tend to only use man marking for set pieces

[darthrodent]

I'm glad this thread has been bumped since I completely forgot about it.

Marking in real life is tied to shape, and shape is essential. While specifically man marking an opponent in FM is, in my opinion, the most glaring manifestation of any of the sliders, I have to say that the difference between man marking—not specifically man marking an opponent—and zonal marking is so infinitesimally minute that it's undetectable to the human eye (like some sort of quantum particle). Therefore I would argue that the choice between man or zonal marking is utterly irrelevant. I have put a lot of time into observing the differences to no avail. As a result I don't even perceive marking as being any part of my overall strategy unless I'm specifically man marking a player, which can actually work a treat.

[ModernLefty]

I guess that's the problem really, as it's name wise a bit of a false dichotomy as they are practically the same thing, it's really just a choice between Man='Tight zonal' and Zonal='Loose Zonal'.

Though having said that I have moved to 'Man' marking, having had been put off by its name for years, and quite like the tight aggressive pressing that it can provide, though it does sometimes mess the teams shape about though.

[themadsheep2001]

I'm glad this thread has been bumped since I completely forgot about it.

Marking in real life is tied to shape, and shape is essential. While specifically man marking an opponent in FM is, in my opinion, the most glaring manifestation of any of the sliders, I have to say that the difference between man marking—not specifically man marking an opponent—and zonal marking is so infinitesimally minute that it's undetectable to the human eye (like some sort of quantum particle). Therefore I would argue that the choice between man or zonal marking is utterly irrelevant. I have put a lot of time into observing the differences to no avail. As a result I don't even perceive marking as being any part of my overall strategy unless I'm specifically man marking a player, which can actually work a treat.

I totally agree. I have spend an age watching and using the two, frankly I do not see where difference is in terms of FM, so effectively for me in FM there is zonal marking and specific man marking.

[themadsheep2001]

I guess that's the problem really, as it's name wise a bit of a false dichotomy as they are practically the same thing, it's really just a choice between Man='Tight zonal' and Zonal='Loose Zonal'.

Though having said that I have moved to 'Man' marking, having had been put off by its name for years, and quite like the tight aggressive pressing that it can provide, though it does sometimes mess the teams shape about though.

I see where you are going, but then I've also used Zonal/tight, and after about 900 hours this year, I cannot see a big enough difference, in fact I honestly cannot see any worthwhile difference at all. Happy to be proved wrong by the likes of wwfan, but I feel the weight of choice between Zonal and Man marking is so negligible as to be totally pointless.

[ModernLefty]

Well zonal with tight marking, probably ends up looking like 'man' because that's all that 'man' is. However, 'man' with tight marking seems to make them abit tighter again, but I agree it is all infinitesimal steps of difference.

[RonnySanchez]

I use "man marking" for reshaping my defensive positions of the players. If I play against a team with three central midfielders I put one of my strikers to man mark their DMC or one of the MCs so that I get even in terms of number of players in the center of the pitch. My striker with the man mark instructions will then go down the pitch in the (AMC or MC position) when the opposition holds the ball and will catapult himself into attack when we conquer the ball. The rest of the team is put on zonal.

If you play with AMRs and AMLs then you sometimes see that they don´t go deep enough to defend when on zonal, what I do is to put man mark instructions to mark the full/wingbacks on their side - the backside of this is that your wingers get much more tired because of their increased defensive responsibilities. The good is that you put the opposition’s full/wingbacks out of play and make it harder for the opposition to create 2 on 1 situation against your full/wingbacks.