Man-on-Man Marking In This Game

[Medo zalata]

Some users have said that:
(1) zonal marking is best for playing against stronger opponents;
(2) man-on-marking is best for playing against weaker opponents.

This does not make any sense, if both points are considered. If (1) is correct, then (2) is not correct. If zonal marking is best for facing stronger opponents, then why should it not be even better for facing weaker opponents?

I don't think so as I think man marking needs better quality than your opponent in order to win the ball and start counter attack
So in zonal marking you may outnumber attackers and this would be your last hope to stop his stronger attack but without a counter attack ( sometimes )
Against weaker teams your defender is strongrer so he can get the ball easily without the need of many defenders so it would give more chances to attack

To sum up, man marking needs quality so one defender can take the ball easily and start a counter attack and this means more goals
Zonal marking Outnumber attackers and this may take more time so many defenders would can take the ball again or throw it away ( in live animation matches ) and this maybe useful against stronger teams.

However this is only my opinion
I have less experience than all of you as I have been playing the game for only 2 months and I'm discussing this to learn more

[Tactician]

I don't think so as I think man marking needs better quality than your opponent in order to win the ball and start counter attack
So in zonal marking you may outnumber attackers and this would be your last hope to stop his stronger attack but without a counter attack ( sometimes )
Against weaker teams your defender is strongrer so he can get the ball easily without the need of many defenders so it would give more chances to attack

To sum up, man marking needs quality so one defender can take the ball easily and start a counter attack and this means more goals
Zonal marking Outnumber attackers and this may take more time so many defenders would can take the ball again or throw it away ( in live animation matches ) and this maybe useful against stronger teams.

However this is only my opinion
I have less experience than all of you as I have been playing the game for only 2 months and I'm discussing this to learn more

Let me point out what I mean. Suppose the following.
You have 5 defensive players, with overall defensive qualities (including the defensive physical qualities) D20, D21, D22, D23 and D24.

The opponent has 4 attackers, with overall attacking qualities (including the attacking physical qualities) A25, A19, A20 and A22.

Consider a large zone where all those players will be involved.
Zonal marking will provide an overall of (20+21+22+23+24) = 110D against (25+19+20+22) = 86A. The defense provides a superiority of 24Q, when used in combination.
Man-on-man marking will provide something like: D22-A24, D20-A19, D24-A20, D21-A22. This clearly shows that man-to-man marking is likely to be inferior defensively for this case. D22-A24 amd D21-A22 are risky. But, it provides something extra - a free player, D23, to do something else. At any time, any one defensive player will be more likely free from any defensive duties.

Consider a second attacking group, where the 4 attackers are A15, A16, A17 and A18.
Zonal marking using the 5 defenders above will provide a total coverage of 110D. The 2nd attacking group will provide a coverage of 66A. The difference in quality covered in that zone is 44Q. This is, it is significantly better than for the first case of zonal marking.

Man-on-man may provide something like D20-A15, D21-A16, D22-A17 and D23-A18. D24 will be free to do something else. While this seems good, it cannot be said to than man-on-man making is superior defensively as compared to the zonal type of marking. For sure, it might provide a free player to do something else - more likely to be used to contribute to attack.

This is why I say that, if zonal marking is best for playing against a higher quality team, then zonal marking should be even better defensively for playing against a lower quality team. 44Q is significantly better than 24Q. The point (2) in the first post is not valid. If point (1) is correct, then point (2) does not make any sense in terms of defense. Taking into account that man-on-man marking consumes more condition, this makes it even more inferior.

If ever several tests are done, and results show that man-on-man marking is superior to zonal marking defensively, then the people who were involved in this part of the game (Nordeus people or other) don't know what man-on-man marking is or they mi-assigned this term to something that can be made to occur in this game, that is the term assigned does not reflect what the order is actually doing.

[nash123]

My experience are, that zonal marking is/was everytime better against equal/stronger teams.
Every match I used mtm vs an equal/stronger team, I conceeded 2 oder more goals and lost all of these games. I also lost some games with zonal marking, but my statistic says:

8 (mtm) vs 2 (zonal)

So I only use zonal (vs weaker teams(, because of saving condition.

[Medo zalata]

Let me point out what I mean. Suppose the following.
You have 5 defensive players, with overall defensive qualities (including the defensive physical qualities) D20, D21, D22, D23 and D24.

The opponent has 4 attackers, with overall attacking qualities (including the attacking physical qualities) A25, A19, A20 and A22.

Consider a large zone where all those players will be involved.
Zonal marking will provide an overall of (20+21+22+23+24) = 110D against (25+19+20+22) = 86A. The defense provides a superiority of 24Q, when used in combination.
Man-on-man marking will provide something like: D22-A24, D20-A19, D24-A20, D21-A22. This clearly shows that man-to-man marking is likely to be inferior defensively for this case. D22-A24 amd D21-A22 are risky. But, it provides something extra - a free player, D23, to do something else. At any time, any one defensive player will be more likely free from any defensive duties.

Consider a second attacking group, where the 4 attackers are A15, A16, A17 and A18.
Zonal marking using the 5 defenders above will provide a total coverage of 110D. The 2nd attacking group will provide a coverage of 66A. The difference in quality covered in that zone is 44Q. This is, it is significantly better than for the first case of zonal marking.

Man-on-man may provide something like D20-A15, D21-A16, D22-A17 and D23-A18. D24 will be free to do something else. While this seems good, it cannot be said to than man-on-man making is superior defensively as compared to the zonal type of marking. For sure, it might provide a free player to do something else - more likely to be used to contribute to attack.

This is why I say that, if zonal marking is best for playing against a higher quality team, then zonal marking should be even better defensively for playing against a lower quality team. 44Q is significantly better than 24Q. The point (2) in the first post is not valid. If point (1) is correct, then point (2) does not make any sense in terms of defense. Taking into account that man-on-man marking consumes more condition, this makes it even more inferior.

If ever several tests are done, and results show that man-on-man marking is superior to zonal marking defensively, then the people who were involved in this part of the game (Nordeus people or other) don't know what man-on-man marking is or they mi-assigned this term to something that can be made to occur in this game, that is the term assigned does not reflect what the order is actually doing.

Surely I agree with you
What I meant is that against weaker teams man marking would be more suitable to make CA then score more goals as one defender could take the ball easily and start a CA

Against stronger teams man marking would be useless as attacker would dribble the defender easily but zonal would be better to outnumber attackers
I noticed in live animation matches that if an attack took a long time to be stopped then no CA but if it was a short time then your players would start a CA
So man marking would take less time to stop a weaker team's attack but zonal would be better defence without CA

What do you think ??
Defensive CA formations should use man marking
Using zonal means less CAs ??

[Tactician]

Surely I agree with you
What I meant is that against weaker teams man marking would be more suitable to make CA then score more goals as one defender could take the ball easily and start a CA

Against stronger teams man marking would be useless as attacker would dribble the defender easily but zonal would be better to outnumber attackers
I noticed in live animation matches that if an attack took a long time to be stopped then no CA but if it was a short time then your players would start a CA
So man marking would take less time to stop a weaker team's attack but zonal would be better defence without CA

What do you think ??
Defensive CA formations should use man marking
Using zonal means less CAs ??

From what it seems, man-on-man marking might be more suitable against teams that force counter-attacks. The counter might be stopped more easily and more quickly at its source, that is in the opponents half, or intercepted or made into offside in 'our' half. Also, if ever the attacker manager to receive the long ball, the defender will stick to him.
A lot of testing is need though.