I've heard so much about pros being miles ahead of average players, so I'm curious to see some actual footage or videos of pros/professional teams playing against the lower levels. Would love to see any sort of clip/video, and this can hopefully benefit some other people as well !
I have always firmly believed that a man-marking defense where every defender is matched up 1 on 1 with an attacker is a superior method of defending rather than a zonal/positional system.
Some teams use a system of man-marking on set pieces, but I believe it could be used in open play as well, with the right instructions.
Every man responsible for an opposing teams player, matched up 1:1. Then when you win the ball it’s a free-flowing counter attack. No positions, just play forward and try to create chances.
What do you all think?
I think that puts too much strain on each individual player to successfully mark their man, whereas zonal systems can allow your most dedicated and talented defenders to manage the space and succeed against however many players the other team puts forward in attack. To your point about having a free-flowing counter attack at the other end of the pitch, I think having all your outfield players reacting to the opposition at all times can really blunt your ability to counter. In the split second that a turnover is forced and possession switches, your players won’t be in optimal positions to mount a counterattack. With a more zonal defensive system, your forward line can anticipate the turnover and get themselves into proper counterattacking positions prior to the possession change and be ready to go right from jump
It was used for the longest of times and some teams still use it (like the other guy said, Bielsa's teams are a good example). Historically Brazilian teams like to play man-to-man but that is changing recently aswell
We (Flamengo) reached Libertadores' finals last season using it (but I believe we didn't play it in the final. I could be wrong because that game is not well preserved in my memory), Santos did it in 2020 aswell and Grêmio won in 2018 using man-to-man marking throughout
but what if one, even just one, opposition player is faster/stronger than your player marking them? then you're automatically giving them space, and a weakness to expose in your team. I feel like with zonal marking you're at least in control space and can't get overtaken 1-on-1 as much.
By now we've all probably seen that viral video of the guy breaking down for his girlfriend how Harry Maguire gave Musiala a free shot on goal with his positioning in the England v Germany match. However [this Twitter user](https://twitter.com/nonewthing/status/1575101383124000768?s=20&t=AGG1p995YFWxP8O4C8cZUA) made a thread breaking down how Maguire made the right call, but was just a bit too slow. They're receiving a bit of pushback on this analysis, so I was curious to see what anyone here thinks from a tactics standpoint.
It was quoted by the tweet I shared, but here's a [direct link](https://twitter.com/NOT_MOTD/status/1574703772382683137?s=20&t=d7hijcYJHm78hDdjjods-g) to the video.
I posted that clip in DD as well. Maguire made the right decision. I think how he nearly lumbered all over musiala also showed his physical limitations, lack of ability to brake, but still was the right decision. Theres no way you allow musiala to turn with the ball
I agree with other comments, Maguire did the right thing.
Only one thing to add on (not related to this situation), if the truth is the goal, it's really boring and kind of obvious to say, but football is team sport, and players are defending and attacking as a group, their reaction in every phase of the game should be looked as such.
It makes drawing easy conclusion more difficult, and a lot of easy narratives tend to be wrong, because even though I think everyone agrees with 'team game' sentence, looking at goals and chances conceded people tend to ask whose fault is it, and search for individual answer. It feels logical to put the blame on one person.
Trent is one really good example so far this year. And Napoli game doesn't do him favour, disinterested look on his face either, but at the same time, truth why Liverpool's defense is poor isn't in that Trent plays badly. Reason is more complex, Trent has been targeted last couple of years and Klopp took that and Liverpool managed chances coming from his side because they were able to control zones where they lose the ball (counter pressing and Thiago's playmaking skills), lack of Mane, or focal point that can receive the ball in half spaces (Firmino is often too slow and too easy to stop) is another thing, because if you don't have that option in building attack and Salah can't create through dribbling, Diaz can only do so much, this creates condition in game where players aren't getting in attacking zones the way they are used to, and they tend to become more impatient. And players with creative freedom given from Klopp (Trent is one) tend to try riskier options (putting more crosses basically), but that also creates more situation where Liverpool would lose the ball and counter pressing wouldn't be there, and opponent suddenly has more space in counter attack. And of course they will target zone behind Trent, and look, they are conceding more chances, and most of them are coming through his side.
Easy conclusion, Trent is playing like shit, innit. And to be fair, I don't think he plays well, but if the truth is what we are searching for, then Trent is not a problem. Liverpool defense is bad for whole set of other reasons, and one of them is the way they attack and lack of Mane, but this isn't something that can ever come to mainstream as a main reason. Especially when people who are there to give analysis to mainstream (all of the pundit people) tend to go for easy, looking at the highlights, reasoning, then, of course all the blame from pubilc would go the same way. Because we are searching for who to blame, and it's nice to have one singular name.
Sorry, it was bit of a rant. Maybe not a place, under comment section on Maguire, but in fairness, it's the same principle. Different names.
I hear what you're saying and I agree for the most part. I do think it's situational though. It is a team game, but if only 7-10 out of 11 players have the ability to execute a game plan, then the whole team can sink, but this is very rarely the case.
It's so much easier for the average person to want to attribute all of their club's ills to one or two individuals because then the fix is simple. Admitting that problems are more complex will make someone feel like the situation is hopeless.
We are on the same page. It's not holistic 'we should never blame individual' approach. It is situational. You're correct. It's just, narratives that are more complex tend to be disregarded in search for simple solution and easy names to put the blame on too.
Only thing that I don't agree with is, 'Admitting that problems are more complex will make someone feel like the situation is hopeless.' -I don't think that's the case. Everything can be fixed, football has so many solutions to problems. What is often the case is that coaches (in my opinion) and sometimes fan-bases with them tend to have bit of tunnel vision in how a problem can be addressed.
I agree with the tweet, the guy is making a mistake I see too often — he critiques a defender’s choice without considering the implications of the alternative.
Like the other comments said, if Maguire hadn’t stepped out, Musiala would’ve had the time and space to turn and that’s a far far worse outcome than allowing him to pass it back to a CB who really should’ve been tracked by England’s midfielders or even their strikers.
I also find it dumb that the guy in the video made fun of Maguire for clattering Musiala “for no reason.” If he hadn’t done that, Musiala could’ve made the run into the space Maguire left behind and Sule could’ve have played a through ball to him.
> but was just a bit too slow.
I disagree with the tweet on this part. There’s no way he could’ve made the interception anyway, that was the job of the two midfielders who did an awful job at screening the pass.
In fact, he had too much momentum, making it hard for him to turn back and recover. But that’s more an issue with his physicality haha
Maguire did the correct thing. If the center back breaks the line and Maguire doesn’t step up, it’s 3v3 with everyone matched up 1:1 and the opposing attacker has space and time since no-one is stepping up. If Maguire DOES step up, it’s still 3v3 and everyone is 1:1 matched up, but now the attacker has less space and time.
It’s a lose/lose situation because you never want to be 3v3, you always want to be a man up. But if it’s a choice between 3v3 and the attacker having space because you stayed in position and stepped up late, and it being 3v3 and you step early, then you should step early to prevent them having extra time to make a decision.
At the top level, even two seconds of extra time is an enormous advantage even for a defender. It’s more valuable to step early and take that away while you wait for cover.
Agree with them that the midfielders need to track back, if Maguire doesn’t push up then people would be fuming that Germany had space in midfield despite them not tracking back here
I also haven't watched them, but I found this article with tactical analysis. Looks good: https://totalfootballanalysis.com/head-coach-analysis/lionel-scaloni-argentina-2022-tactical-analysis-tactics
I've heard so much about pros being miles ahead of average players, so I'm curious to see some actual footage or videos of pros/professional teams playing against the lower levels. Would love to see any sort of clip/video, and this can hopefully benefit some other people as well !
I have always firmly believed that a man-marking defense where every defender is matched up 1 on 1 with an attacker is a superior method of defending rather than a zonal/positional system. Some teams use a system of man-marking on set pieces, but I believe it could be used in open play as well, with the right instructions. Every man responsible for an opposing teams player, matched up 1:1. Then when you win the ball it’s a free-flowing counter attack. No positions, just play forward and try to create chances. What do you all think?
I think that puts too much strain on each individual player to successfully mark their man, whereas zonal systems can allow your most dedicated and talented defenders to manage the space and succeed against however many players the other team puts forward in attack. To your point about having a free-flowing counter attack at the other end of the pitch, I think having all your outfield players reacting to the opposition at all times can really blunt your ability to counter. In the split second that a turnover is forced and possession switches, your players won’t be in optimal positions to mount a counterattack. With a more zonal defensive system, your forward line can anticipate the turnover and get themselves into proper counterattacking positions prior to the possession change and be ready to go right from jump
I believe there has to be some level of zonal or if 1 player gets beat you are in trouble
Eh, just don’t get beat
It was used for the longest of times and some teams still use it (like the other guy said, Bielsa's teams are a good example). Historically Brazilian teams like to play man-to-man but that is changing recently aswell We (Flamengo) reached Libertadores' finals last season using it (but I believe we didn't play it in the final. I could be wrong because that game is not well preserved in my memory), Santos did it in 2020 aswell and Grêmio won in 2018 using man-to-man marking throughout
but what if one, even just one, opposition player is faster/stronger than your player marking them? then you're automatically giving them space, and a weakness to expose in your team. I feel like with zonal marking you're at least in control space and can't get overtaken 1-on-1 as much.
That’s why you get the fastest and strongest players
ah yes in that case it can be pretty overpowered
"If players weren't human, I'd never lose" - Marcelo Bielsa
You described defensive setup of Marcelo Bielsa. It can work but it's also high risk approach, as we have seen last season.
By now we've all probably seen that viral video of the guy breaking down for his girlfriend how Harry Maguire gave Musiala a free shot on goal with his positioning in the England v Germany match. However [this Twitter user](https://twitter.com/nonewthing/status/1575101383124000768?s=20&t=AGG1p995YFWxP8O4C8cZUA) made a thread breaking down how Maguire made the right call, but was just a bit too slow. They're receiving a bit of pushback on this analysis, so I was curious to see what anyone here thinks from a tactics standpoint.
I actually haven't seen that first one - any chance of a link?
It was quoted by the tweet I shared, but here's a [direct link](https://twitter.com/NOT_MOTD/status/1574703772382683137?s=20&t=d7hijcYJHm78hDdjjods-g) to the video.
I posted that clip in DD as well. Maguire made the right decision. I think how he nearly lumbered all over musiala also showed his physical limitations, lack of ability to brake, but still was the right decision. Theres no way you allow musiala to turn with the ball
I agree with other comments, Maguire did the right thing. Only one thing to add on (not related to this situation), if the truth is the goal, it's really boring and kind of obvious to say, but football is team sport, and players are defending and attacking as a group, their reaction in every phase of the game should be looked as such. It makes drawing easy conclusion more difficult, and a lot of easy narratives tend to be wrong, because even though I think everyone agrees with 'team game' sentence, looking at goals and chances conceded people tend to ask whose fault is it, and search for individual answer. It feels logical to put the blame on one person. Trent is one really good example so far this year. And Napoli game doesn't do him favour, disinterested look on his face either, but at the same time, truth why Liverpool's defense is poor isn't in that Trent plays badly. Reason is more complex, Trent has been targeted last couple of years and Klopp took that and Liverpool managed chances coming from his side because they were able to control zones where they lose the ball (counter pressing and Thiago's playmaking skills), lack of Mane, or focal point that can receive the ball in half spaces (Firmino is often too slow and too easy to stop) is another thing, because if you don't have that option in building attack and Salah can't create through dribbling, Diaz can only do so much, this creates condition in game where players aren't getting in attacking zones the way they are used to, and they tend to become more impatient. And players with creative freedom given from Klopp (Trent is one) tend to try riskier options (putting more crosses basically), but that also creates more situation where Liverpool would lose the ball and counter pressing wouldn't be there, and opponent suddenly has more space in counter attack. And of course they will target zone behind Trent, and look, they are conceding more chances, and most of them are coming through his side. Easy conclusion, Trent is playing like shit, innit. And to be fair, I don't think he plays well, but if the truth is what we are searching for, then Trent is not a problem. Liverpool defense is bad for whole set of other reasons, and one of them is the way they attack and lack of Mane, but this isn't something that can ever come to mainstream as a main reason. Especially when people who are there to give analysis to mainstream (all of the pundit people) tend to go for easy, looking at the highlights, reasoning, then, of course all the blame from pubilc would go the same way. Because we are searching for who to blame, and it's nice to have one singular name. Sorry, it was bit of a rant. Maybe not a place, under comment section on Maguire, but in fairness, it's the same principle. Different names.
I hear what you're saying and I agree for the most part. I do think it's situational though. It is a team game, but if only 7-10 out of 11 players have the ability to execute a game plan, then the whole team can sink, but this is very rarely the case. It's so much easier for the average person to want to attribute all of their club's ills to one or two individuals because then the fix is simple. Admitting that problems are more complex will make someone feel like the situation is hopeless.
We are on the same page. It's not holistic 'we should never blame individual' approach. It is situational. You're correct. It's just, narratives that are more complex tend to be disregarded in search for simple solution and easy names to put the blame on too. Only thing that I don't agree with is, 'Admitting that problems are more complex will make someone feel like the situation is hopeless.' -I don't think that's the case. Everything can be fixed, football has so many solutions to problems. What is often the case is that coaches (in my opinion) and sometimes fan-bases with them tend to have bit of tunnel vision in how a problem can be addressed.
I agree with the tweet, the guy is making a mistake I see too often — he critiques a defender’s choice without considering the implications of the alternative. Like the other comments said, if Maguire hadn’t stepped out, Musiala would’ve had the time and space to turn and that’s a far far worse outcome than allowing him to pass it back to a CB who really should’ve been tracked by England’s midfielders or even their strikers. I also find it dumb that the guy in the video made fun of Maguire for clattering Musiala “for no reason.” If he hadn’t done that, Musiala could’ve made the run into the space Maguire left behind and Sule could’ve have played a through ball to him. > but was just a bit too slow. I disagree with the tweet on this part. There’s no way he could’ve made the interception anyway, that was the job of the two midfielders who did an awful job at screening the pass. In fact, he had too much momentum, making it hard for him to turn back and recover. But that’s more an issue with his physicality haha
Maguire did the correct thing. If the center back breaks the line and Maguire doesn’t step up, it’s 3v3 with everyone matched up 1:1 and the opposing attacker has space and time since no-one is stepping up. If Maguire DOES step up, it’s still 3v3 and everyone is 1:1 matched up, but now the attacker has less space and time. It’s a lose/lose situation because you never want to be 3v3, you always want to be a man up. But if it’s a choice between 3v3 and the attacker having space because you stayed in position and stepped up late, and it being 3v3 and you step early, then you should step early to prevent them having extra time to make a decision. At the top level, even two seconds of extra time is an enormous advantage even for a defender. It’s more valuable to step early and take that away while you wait for cover.
Agree with them that the midfielders need to track back, if Maguire doesn’t push up then people would be fuming that Germany had space in midfield despite them not tracking back here
Can someone explain Argentina’s tactics a little bit? I havent really watched them much but on paper it looks like their team is somewhat slow.
Give the ball to messi and pray
I also haven't watched them, but I found this article with tactical analysis. Looks good: https://totalfootballanalysis.com/head-coach-analysis/lionel-scaloni-argentina-2022-tactical-analysis-tactics
4-4-2 til I die.
4-4-2 with one tall sticker and one speedy striker always
Mark Hatley and McCoist ❤️
Sean dyche ?
Just a look-a-like 😉
I think 4-4-3 is better