Defending at corners...

[spudski]

...kinnel...how bad are we!!!

The marking and defending yesterday for Readings first goal. Totally embarrassing. 

And it's been like it most of the season.

10 goals now conceded from set pieces.

How the hell can you just stand there zonal marking, and allow a player to freely run at the ball and attack it...whilst our lot just stand in their positions, not blocking and jumping tamely from a standing position.

It's fragile, weak and symbolic defending.

It's soooooo bad. Any team playing us must be aching to get a corner.

Surely it has to change. We can't set up like this anymore. 

I'd love an explanation from NP as to why he continues with this method.

[W-S-M Seagull]

We all focus on the defending from corners but the fact is if you concede a high amount of corners then the chances from conceding from them are much higher. 

So the real issue is we have to work on conceding less corners. 

[2015]

We gave away far too many cheap corners yesterday it was asking Reading to just go and score from one. 

We need to go man for man at marking from corners and scrap zonal, but my issue is that our players are just not aggressive enough - see Reading when defending our set plays. 

[And Its Smith]

14 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

We all focus on the defending from corners but the fact is if you concede a high amount of corners then the chances from conceding from them are much higher. 

So the real issue is we have to work on conceding less corners. 

I’m not sure where stats can be found on this but I’d be willing to bet that we concede from a higher percentage  of corners than most so I would say the problem is the defending of them. 

[spudski]

11 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

We all focus on the defending from corners but the fact is if you concede a high amount of corners then the chances from conceding from them are much higher. 

So the real issue is we have to work on conceding less corners. 

I agree to a point. So what is the reason. Are the opposition looking to get the ball into areas where a cross is likely to be made or blocked for a corner? Imo ...yes....teams are looking to play in behind our wing backs. That's where the space and weaknesses are. However...we are even weaker at defending the set piece.

To counter it...I'd like us to change our formation. It's starting to look like how SC used to play us. He ran out of ideas and wouldn't budge from his system. Our ' wing backs' can't defend. Sykes and DaSilva are hopeless at defending in this system at this level. That's where a lot of our problems stem from imo. Shore ourselves up...go more 433. 

10 minutes ago, 2015 said:

We gave away far too many cheap corners yesterday it was asking Reading to just go and score from one. 

We need to go man for man at marking from corners and scrap zonal, but my issue is that our players are just not aggressive enough - see Reading when defending our set plays. 

Something has to change for sure. Like you say, we aren't aggressive or strong. It's all very weak and symbolic. 

[Unan]

Do we zonal mark in the 6 yard box & then man for man outside of it? I can never really tell

[Offside]

On the radio commentary yesterday, our defending at corners was compared to Reading’s - theirs being described as “aggressive” whereas ours was “passive”. Something definitely needs to change. 

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Marcus Aurelius said:

Do we zonal mark in the 6 yard box & then man for man outside of it? I can never really tell

It looks like it. However the men not zonal marking very rarely block a run, or are aggressive. The rest just jump from a standing position.

It really is farcical when you watch our set piece defending.

1 minute ago, Offside said:

On the radio commentary yesterday, our defending at corners was compared to Reading’s - theirs being described as “aggressive” whereas ours was “passive”. Something definitely needs to change. 

I've been using the word symbolic rather than passive for many a month now.

This is where stats can screw you up.

They will show players in their required position. But they won't show you whether they were passive/symbolic in their defending.

Perhaps I should start using shambolic

[Robbored]

Defending corners/set plays is a long-standing issue and earlier in the week the  squad spent the entire training session working on defending them and it seemed to work reasonably well at the Baggies but then in the next fixture the same issue is back - no surprise that Nige was so frustrated. 

Question is - other than working hard on defending them what other methods are there? Every City player has an opponent to mark but clearly they’re not doing their individual job - who was supposed to be marking Loum?    
 

I imagine defending set plays again will be a priority this week at Failand, particularly near post where Loum scored a free header from.
 

 

Edited October 23, 2022 by Robbored

[Offside]

9 minutes ago, spudski said:

It looks like it. However the men not zonal marking very rarely block a run, or are aggressive. The rest just jump from a standing position.

It really is farcical when you watch our set piece defending.

I've been using the word symbolic rather than passive for many a month now.

This is where stats can screw you up.

They will show players in their required position. But they won't show you whether they were passive/symbolic in their defending.

Perhaps I should start using shambolic

Haha, yep, shambolic is probably the best word!!!!

[spudski]

13 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Defending corners/set plays is a long-standing issue and earlier in the week the  squad spent the entire training session working on defending them and it seemed to work reasonably well at the Baggies but then in the next fixture the same issue is back - no surprise that Nige was so frustrated. 

Question is - other than working hard on defending them what other methods are there? Every City player has an opponent to mark but clearly they’re not doing their individual job - who was supposed to be marking Loum?    
 

I imagine defending set plays again will be a priority this week at Failand, particularly near post where Loum scored a free header from.
 

 

It's all very well training RR and getting roles and positions sorted and ingrained...but if you are passive and symbolic doing it, then you'll lose out regardless of how many times you've trained. Plus...if you are training with players that aren't aggressive and come up against those who are...you are in for a big surprise.

Sadly...when things become an issue, players tend to make sure they are doing as they are told, in correct position, so as not to be blamed. During a game that's often futile, as you have to read the game and adjust to what the opposition are doing. 

With zonal marking...it's about defending your designated area. We concentrate on the area, rather than where the opposition are going to attack and to where the ball is going.

Rabbits in headlights at the moment. Scared to leave their designated spot.

[Supersonic Robin]

It's frustrating how many goals we've conceded from set pieces. Perhaps more accurately, it's frustrating how many soft goals we've conceded - goals where the opposition haven't had to do anything special, we've just gifted them a fairly easy goal. Many set pieces we've conceded from fall into that 'soft goal' category IMO.

I think part of the issue this week has simply been the volume of corners conceded. I commented after the WBA game to say that I felt the win (and specifically, the clean sheet) didn't feel sustainable. We'd allowed WBA to have the ball in and around our box a huge amount, and we'd thrown our bodies on the line when WBA had the chance to shoot inside the box. "Bodies on the line" may be admirable, but it's not a sustainable way to keep clean sheets and win games.

Across the 2 games this week, we've conceded 23 corners (13 WBA, 10 Reading). By comparison, we've won 6 (1 WBA, 5 Reading). A quick google suggests that around 3-4% of corners result in a goal - so about 1 in 25. Hence, having conceded 23 corners this week, it's not that surprising we've conceded a goal from one.

Improvement is needed not just in the way we defend set pieces, but also in the way we defend generally in allowing the opposition so many chances to put the ball into our box.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

...kinnel...how bad are we!!!

The marking and defending yesterday for Readings first goal. Totally embarrassing. 

And it's been like it most of the season.

10 goals now conceded from set pieces.

How the hell can you just stand there zonal marking, and allow a player to freely run at the ball and attack it...whilst our lot just stand in their positions, not blocking and jumping tamely from a standing position.

It's fragile, weak and symbolic defending.

It's soooooo bad. Any team playing us must be aching to get a corner.

Surely it has to change. We can't set up like this anymore. 

I'd love an explanation from NP as to why he continues with this method.

Yet we defended them pretty well first half. But…

1 hour ago, 2015 said:

We gave away far too many cheap corners yesterday it was asking Reading to just go and score from one. 

We need to go man for man at marking from corners and scrap zonal, but my issue is that our players are just not aggressive enough - see Reading when defending our set plays. 

…we do give away cheap ones.  At times the lack of anticipation coupled with not being smart when near the goal-line really bugs me.

[Superjack]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

...kinnel...how bad are we!!!

The marking and defending yesterday for Readings first goal. Totally embarrassing. 

And it's been like it most of the season.

10 goals now conceded from set pieces.

How the hell can you just stand there zonal marking, and allow a player to freely run at the ball and attack it...whilst our lot just stand in their positions, not blocking and jumping tamely from a standing position.

It's fragile, weak and symbolic defending.

It's soooooo bad. Any team playing us must be aching to get a corner.

Surely it has to change. We can't set up like this anymore. 

I'd love an explanation from NP as to why he continues with this method.

I heard Pearson mention (I think after West Brom), that zonal marking frees up your best headers of the ball.

I think the problem is that if our defenders are so soft, unaggressive and fragile, they are even less likely to win it marking man to man.

If that's the case, I don't know how you solve it beyond binning the lot of them.

[BCFCGav]

Lots of good points on this thread, it’s two problems in one. We’re all too happy to concede corners, you’ll see players not busting their ass to stop the corner for example. And then the defending from said corners is shameful. Even the ones we don’t concede from are often won by the opposition, we just get lucky.

Surely time to go man to man. It could hardly do worse.

[Midred]

2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

We all focus on the defending from corners but the fact is if you concede a high amount of corners then the chances from conceding from them are much higher. 

So the real issue is we have to work on conceding less corners. 

Ironic that it's corners that we have problems scoring from!

[Mad Cyril]

The average stat for goals from corners is 3%, so a goal every 33 corners faced.

If we have conceded 10 goals, that means we would have given away 330 corners so far this season to be 'average'.

But, a bit like winning penalties, we are anything but average.

 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Apparently Reading were quite robust when defending corners. Is this an approach that we should follow?

[spudski]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Apparently Reading were quite robust when defending corners. Is this an approach that we should follow?

Not sure where you've got that quote from...but shouldn't we be ' robust at defending? '

Defending has now become an art in itself...as in not defending...but more not offering a body shape that can be conceived as 'unnatural'.

Defenders are now scared to defend.

Who  try's to block or tackle these days without their hands behind their back?

Yet naturally trying to jump or defend...is now deemed as an unnatural position.

It's a ****** up situation.

[Alex_BCFC]

It’s bit of both - statistically you will concede off a corner eventually even if you are good defensively.  Sadly we give away lots because we aren’t playing well and can’t defend the ones we face well either. WBA aside of course. 

[red colin]

6 hours ago, Robbored said:

Defending corners/set plays is a long-standing issue and earlier in the week the  squad spent the entire training session working on defending them and it seemed to work reasonably well at the Baggies but then in the next fixture the same issue is back - no surprise that Nige was so frustrated. 

Question is - other than working hard on defending them what other methods are there? Every City player has an opponent to mark but clearly they’re not doing their individual job - who was supposed to be marking Loum?    
 

I imagine defending set plays again will be a priority this week at Failand, particularly near post where Loum scored a free header from.
 

 

Thing is though robbored they don't have a player to mark they just so say defend a zone which allows un marked runners the freedom to run at them.

[EstoniaTallinnRed]

7 hours ago, spudski said:

...kinnel...how bad are we!!!

The marking and defending yesterday for Readings first goal. Totally embarrassing. 

And it's been like it most of the season.

10 goals now conceded from set pieces.

How the hell can you just stand there zonal marking, and allow a player to freely run at the ball and attack it...whilst our lot just stand in their positions, not blocking and jumping tamely from a standing position.

It's fragile, weak and symbolic defending.

It's soooooo bad. Any team playing us must be aching to get a corner.

Surely it has to change. We can't set up like this anymore. 

I'd love an explanation from NP as to why he continues with this method.

I think you're quite right spudski, have you notice how many corners we have conceded in the last two games alone?   It must be that opposing teams have worked out how bad we are at defending them and therefore they try to get as many corners as they can, knowing it an easy way to score against us. Zonal marking stinks!

[Sheltons Army]

16 minutes ago, red colin said:

Thing is though robbored they don't have a player to mark they just so say defend a zone which allows un marked runners the freedom to run at them.

You don’t defend purely on Zonal (Nor do we)

There are players designated to engage / block / disrupt opponents whilst The theory is your best headers of the ball are left free to attack the ball in certain zones 

[spudski]

10 minutes ago, EstoniaTallinnRed said:

I think you're quite right spudski, have you notice how many corners we have conceded in the last two games alone?   It must be that opposing teams have worked out how bad we are at defending them and therefore they try to get as many corners as they can, knowing it an easy way to score against us. Zonal marking stinks!

It's something that goes hand in hand with aiming offensive moves behind the wing backs.

Defensively our wing backs are imo...shocking. Last third....waste of time too. Link up play mid third...fine. Basically a waste of time.

Get someone in who can play as a wing backs fine...but DaSilva and Sykes...really? What manager would think they suit that scenario? I truly believe they are square pegs in round holes.

Seen as players that have talent, but played...just because.

Seriously...look at DaSilva. WTF is he? He's not good at defending. He's not good at beating a man. He's not good at crossing. Wtf is he? He's technically at this level fantastic. Genius. Close control and lay off midfield glorious.

Those assets imo cloud the judgement of how we want to play.

End product nil.

 

[Sir Geoff]

For 90 minutes at WBA and 45 against Reading we never looked like conceding from a corner. Vyner, Klose, Atkinson in particular and even Sykes and Scott were winning the first header every time. Max even came and punched a few. We then concede one during a period of the game when we were under pressure and everyone goes into meltdown.

[RedRock]

Never been a fan of zonal marking. 

Always loved it, playing as an attacker, against a side who adopted that tactic. For me, automatically gives the attacker the advantage, particularly so when adopted by a ‘soft’ team.

Psychologically, man on man will always give you 10% more in terms of desire to win than a man on space battle. Numerous other factors..knowledge of where the opposition player(s) is/are …etc.

One of several issues that Pearson baffles me on…. like the gung-ho attacker substitutions…

 

[Bris Red]

8 hours ago, spudski said:

...kinnel...how bad are we!!!

The marking and defending yesterday for Readings first goal. Totally embarrassing. 

And it's been like it most of the season.

10 goals now conceded from set pieces.

How the hell can you just stand there zonal marking, and allow a player to freely run at the ball and attack it...whilst our lot just stand in their positions, not blocking and jumping tamely from a standing position.

It's fragile, weak and symbolic defending.

It's soooooo bad. Any team playing us must be aching to get a corner.

Surely it has to change. We can't set up like this anymore. 

I'd love an explanation from NP as to why he continues with this method.

It is a worry. Even more so the fact that Pearson and Fleming were pretty formidable defenders in their day the defending was something i was quite looking forward to developing under their reign but in actual fact it has been the complete opposite. 

As you said an explanation from the man himself would be interesting but I suspect behind closed doors the real truth of the matter is the personnel  Pearson has at his disposal just aren’t good enough.

If financially he wasn’t so hampered and had the same £ as when LJ was in charge then i think Nige and his team would **** the vast majority of that back line out and get in fresh faces. I don’t think he is happy with many of them but unfortunately is lumbered due to our financial position.
 

It’s a hard one but I don’t actually think another manager would get a tune out of our defensive unit to be honest, some of them are a lost cause at this level IMO.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Bris Red

[Sheltons Army]

1 minute ago, RedRock said:

Never been a fan of zonal marking. 

Always loved it, playing as an attacker, against a side who adopted that tactic. For me, automatically gives the attacker the advantage, particularly so when adopted by a ‘soft’ team.

Psychologically, man on man will always give you 10% more in terms of desire to win than a man on space battle. Numerous other factors..knowledge of where the opposition player(s) is/are …etc.

One of several issues that Pearson baffles me on…. like the gung-ho attacker substitutions…

 

Virtually every professional side uses a combination of zonal and marking 

Whether we implement it well,  or get the balance right , or have the right personnel (The main issue IMHO)   , to avoid vulnerability at set pieces is another matter 

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, RedRock said:

Never been a fan of zonal marking. 

Always loved it, playing as an attacker, against a side who adopted that tactic. For me, automatically gives the attacker the advantage, particularly so when adopted by a ‘soft’ team.

Psychologically, man on man will always give you 10% more in terms of desire to win than a man on space battle. Numerous other factors..knowledge of where the opposition player(s) is/are …etc.

One of several issues that Pearson baffles me on…. like the gung-ho attacker substitutions…

 

You wont be able to quantify that. 

2 hours ago, Sheltons Army said:

You don’t defend purely on Zonal (Nor do we)

There are players designated to engage / block / disrupt opponents whilst The theory is your best headers of the ball are left free to attack the ball in certain zones 

Because the former can be used to protect the ball winners. Man marking takes the best headers out of the game. Some teams can block off the ball winners or mark them, which some teams called pinning. 

You dont defnd purely on marking man to man. It is relatively easy to combastv and create mismatches etc.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Instinctively I prefer the idea of Man-to-man marking, the idea that you have an opposing player and you stick to them at a set piece- let alone in open play, properly stick to them, track them.deep etc.

Zonal marking must have its advantages although surely good movement by the opposition (the attacking side) can negate advantages like this significantly?

Put simply, Zonal marking is a bit like marking space isn't it? Sharp movement from an attacking side can disrupt that significantly I reckon.

Edited October 23, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous