Man-on-Man Marking In This Game

In real life, the combination of mostly zonal marking with some man-on-man marking is likely to be superior to zonal marking only, and both are superior to man-on-man marking only.

In this game, either zonal marking or man-on-man can be used, but not both at the same time. So, logically, zonal marking should be superior, but some users have said that man-on-man marking gives a defensive boost.

It is said that the use of the man-on-man marking is more condition consuming to the team using it as compared to zonal marking. In that case, I think that the opposing team should also lose more condition because its players will have to run around more to get unmarked.

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?

Please post on how you think man-on-man work in this game, and provide feedback on what advantages or disadvantage it gave your team(s).

I think man on man would work better if your defence have more quality than opponent's attackers
Just think of it in live animation matches
Your defensive player would chase the attacker and manage to take the ball to start a counter attack but if attacker was stronger then your defence would become useless

However I hardly use man on man so I don't know how it really works in the game

I will try 4-5-1v hard defending long passes counter on and man on man tonight against much weaker team to see if it would give me more goals
I think the scenario : opponent attacker will enter the area then a defender would stand man on man and take the ball to start a counter then a goal ( opponent players are 2-3* and mine are 4-5-6* )

As i said in another thread of Abhi, in real football at this period there is no zonal or man-to-man
Older times it was m-t-m
Then zonal
Then a combination of two
zonal & man-to-man of the best defender to the key-player of oppo (Marandona).
Now it's the triangles.
When the attacker has the ball, he is surrounded from a triangle of defenders.

About the game :
man-to-man seems to give a little advantage in defense (but not sure)
and gives an extra condition loss (for sure).
So I don't use it at all, unless for emergency situations
(last minutes of a critical game, to keep the score, if I remember to do it, haha)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikolgiorgos

Now it's the triangles.
When the attacker has the ball, he is surrounded from a triangle of defenders.

---

This is not marking; it is called pressing. You will notice this sort of shape especially when full pitch pressing is used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tactician

This is not marking; it is called pressing. You will notice this sort of shape especially when full pitch pressing is used.

---

It's a form of marking isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awe Imoleayo Peter

It's a form of marking isn't it?

---

Marking and pressing are 2 different things, but they are complementary to each other.

Consider zonal marking, with four zones,1,2,3 and 4 in midfield. Say you have 4 red players (R1, R2, R3 and R4) and 5 blue players(B1, B2, B3, B4, B5). Another player, acting as a neutral player is about to send the ball in the midfield area. R1, R2, R3, R4 and R4 can mark B1, B2, B3, and B4 respectively. The ball is sent to B5. The red players have two options, either to keep on marking the other blue players as they did earlier, or one or several of them leaves his marking duties and go to press B5, so that possession may be recovered quickly. Or, he can let B5 come and try to pass to another blue player in his zone that he is marking.

Suppose that all red players allow B5 to operate freely with the ball. B5 enters the zone of R4, then R4 may press him to try to force an error or steal the ball from him. B4 will be free to receive the ball. Or R4 may keep on marking B4 and allow B5 to keep on progressing alone.

The idea of using a 3 man pressing system on a player is to force the player to give back possession (make errors, rush in passing, and so on). This allows little room for the player to operate. Doing this requires a lot of physical condition.

There is a difference between pressing the play (that is, the area where the ball is) and marking (the area where the other players have positioned themselves to receive a potential pass coming from the other area).

Pressing may be considered as active while marking may be considered as passive.

press: go and put pressure on the player that has the ball or on the player that has positioned himself to receive the ball

mark: focus on a player; put yourself in a favourable defensive position with respect to the player so that you may make an interception in the case where he might receive a pass or prevent him from progressing in the case where he was able to receive the ball.

Both can be said to result to the same things, that is intercept a pass or prevent a player from receiving the ball, but they do it in different ways. But, pressing provides something else: forcing the player that has the ball to act quickly or else concede possession. That is, it reduces the time a player has on the ball. This is why I say that pressing may be said to be active while marking may be said to be passive.

Marking is highly involved when defending set-pieces and crosses.
Pressing may be more involved in 'open' play situations.

A good combination of marking and pressing is what makes a team good defensively and also prevent the other team from keeping possession. One or more players press the players in the zone of play or close to the zone of player, while the others mark the rest.

By the way, the order forcing counter-attacks means that your players won't press the incoming attackers moving forward in the other half. They will be allowed to come into your half more easily (without much resistance). Once in your half, most probably deeper in your half, this where they will likely to be pressed so that the ball may be recovered and a counter-attack launched.This is why it is called forcing counter-attacks; your players will force the event of counter-attacking to occur. Forcing counter-attacks may be said to be a passive attacking strategy; it will likely to work only if the opponent is attacking; some of its defenders have to leave their marking roles or defensive positions. Else, the counter-attack will likely not result to a goal. Also, you must have enough players to mark and press all those attackers that were able to enter your half (including those incoming defenders from the opposing half), so that one of your players may recover the ball and launch a counter-attacking pass. If you can't recover the ball, then it is called a failed strategy.

So, your players are defensively much less active in the opponent's half, but they are much more active defensively in your own half. This is why using full pitch pressing and forcing counter-attacks may likely not to be a good combination of orders. Those 2 orders may be said to be antagonist to each other.

So, briefly, someone should not use or do things 'blindly, that is' without knowing what they mean and what they are likely to do. This applies in real life situations too, and in fact, is very important in real life.

Update
Additional points have been added in the first post.

The marking style mostly depends on your pressing style, which in turn depends on your playstyle. Usually, attacking formations should press high, and it takes up a lot of condition. Since it's expected that the ball will be in the other half, you should not need sophisticated defending, so use zonal marking to save energy. I don't even press high against way weak teams (I don't play attacking, but as they say, attack is the best defence ;)). I play defensive counter attacking, so it's important to win the ball back IN YOUR OWN HALF. So it's essential to press low in this case. With man-to-man marking, the opponent are more prone to giving it away, thus a counterattack can be executed. Man marking can also be effective if want to drive a bus;)





Man marking can be extremely effective, but for that your defensive players should have good positioning and marking skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tactician

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medo zalata

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tactician

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 ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medo zalata

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.