Zonal Vs Man Marking - Why is it, when a goal is scored from a set piece where the team zonal marks

[Maravilloso Marvo]

That it is always put down to zonal marking being bad.

When a goal is scored where the team man mark and invariably the goalscorer gets free space due to his markers run being blocked by a fellow attacker in a carefully pre planned choreographed set of runs designed exactly to block a defender as per basketball, is the fault never laid at the door of the Man Marking system but at that of individuals?

[Red N White Army]

[Nicosia Gooner]

[Monty91]

even for the thickest **** of a football fan and gives them the chance to sound tactically informed.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

Essentially saying that man marking did fail.

[Luis Anaconda]

[Maravilloso Marvo]

happened in zonal.

But the other way round, it is always taken back to that point that it would never had happened with man marking.

[Steve Williams - gay for Mark Knopfler]

"... it is always taken back to that point that it would never had happened with man marking."

The suggestion may be that man marking will have at least stopped completely unmarked attackers being in the area.

No commentator or pundit will ever have said "it would never had happened with man marking". They may simply have said the chances of defending it may have improved.

No system - man or zonal - is perfect. For one they don't take into account the quality / tactics or whatever of the attacking side.

[Doublespeak]

good defending is about stopping your opponents movements, not about getting to the ball first. Zonal marking is fine if you make sure you block off attacking runs towards the ball.

the AW zone is rubbish because they just crowd an area, but without any clear defensive strategy. Hence Bradford and Swansea.