There was quite an animated discussion at HT yesterday during the Man City v Arsenal game about Arsenal's zonal marking being to blame for the goal, and the commentary team argued along the same lines.
I'm not so sure though. The keeper made a strong claim for the ball, though missed it badly. When your keeper comes with authority you don't get in his way, it usually means disaster. I'd put that goal down to awful keeping, not zonal marking. The CBs didn't attack it because the keeper shouted for it.
But I don't buy the general argument about the forwards having the run on the defenders and that therefore gives them a clear advantage. My experience as a CB is that the forward always has the advantage. Even if you get touch tight you can never follow the forward properly and you can get dragged into a useless position by a clever decoy run. By definition, the defender is playing catch up to the forward too.
I don't see why, if a CB starts by defending a position, that if the ball is played to a certain area he can't then move to head the ball. Once the ball is in the air it's there to be won, and it might actually be easier to attack the ball from a starting position of your choice, not some random position determined by your opponent's run. They key is to see the ball early and react accordingly - regardless of whether you're man-marking or zonal marking.
I know that when I played as a GK or a CB I used to make sure my other defenders were marking up, but I think zonal marking can work as long as defenders are prepared to get to the ball early.
Anyone got any views?
No "I've never seen a zone score a goal" cliches please! A smart but meaningless soundbite.
