【原文地址】http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=59441
【原文标题】An Analysis of Man Marking Player Behaviour
【预计奖金】翻译本来的fmb+09区精品文章fmb
【文章内容】
The point of this thread is to illustrate some aspects of player behaviour when set to Tight Man Marking and the negative effects of it in particular scenarios. There’ll also be bits and bobs about Zonal marking behaviour as well.
As a disclaimer all based on observation so I don’t know with absolute certainty that what follows is not just me adding 2 + 2 to get 5 so any disagreement is welcomed. Also I don’t know the extent to which individual attributes might affect player behaviour particularly with respect to decision making.
---------------------------------------
Multiple Effects
Here’s some screenshots to illustrate the downside of tight man marking and it’s effects on
- defensive compactness leading to open passing lanes for midfielders to slot balls behind the defense
- related to the above, stretching of the defenders making your defensive width wider than intended
- midfielders set up to help out the defense holding position outside the box to man mark an opponent instead of dropping back when the ball gets deep to support the centre backs
- isolation of centre backs in 1v1 scenarios close to goal as tight man marking pulls the supporting defenders out of a position from which they could help
- opening up of space for forward running midfielders due to knock on separation of full backs from centre backs and centre back from centre back
- strikers getting an easy path to goal from a slightly wide position once they beat their marker due to no other players being close enough to make the ‘close down ballcarrier’ decision or not being goalside to do so
- full backs becoming redundant as they tight man mark a winger who has held his run and/or drifted out to a wide position, thus unable to help out the centre back
They are a bit messy but hopefully they’ll make sense. Within the screenshots there are two players, the ML and MR in a 442 set to Zonal Marking. The difference in behaviours is illustrated in the last screenshot by all players positional transition as the attack evolved in a dangerous area of the box.
---------------------------------------
The Dropping Off Striker Effect
A couple of examples of the ‘dropping off striker’ effect leaving space for the advanced midfielder as the centre back set to Tight Man Mark follows the striker when he holds his run on the edge of the box.
EXAMPLE 1
First screenshot shows Rooney in possession. Flick through the screenshots to see Arsenal CB #4 go to Man Utd #16 and Arsenal CB #5 stick to Rooney which opens up space for Scholes to move into as he loses his midfield marker.
The tactical question to ask is did Arsenal MC #9 lose Scholes because he was set to Zonal Mark? Would he have picked him up if set to Tight Man Mark? Or was it simply a player mistake influenced by attributes? Does this mean you should match up marking choices to prevent space for the opposition? That’s up to you to decide
EXAMPLE 2
Man Utd attack again after initial attack cleared. Striker drops out of box, CB follows just for a moment but this leaves enough space for the advanced MC Scholes to dribble into the box past the MC arsenal #9 covering him.
---------------------------------------
Tight Man Marking CB behaviour when opposition counter attack swiftly.
The striker #11 for Man Utd holds back on his run from just outside the centre circle but the CB #4 does not stick to him initially and drops back. But as Rooney on the break down the wing gets closer to the byline and CB#4 reaches his own box he slows down, checks his backtrack and moves to mark striker #11. In the screenshots where this happens I highlighted it showing the difference between FB #2 set to Loose Zonal circled in green and CB #4 set to Tight Man.
No negative potential consequence here but interesting to note. Similar quick break over the top in screenshots below whereby centre half stalling to pick up man could have lead to the opposition striker getting a clean run at goal if he had beaten the other centre back, similar to first group of screenshots where Newcastle players went to mark instead of supporting to cover team mate. Also highlighted is how Loose Zonal could also cause issues as it leads to a left back ‘collapsing’ onto the goal when if set to Tight Man Mark he might have picked up the midfielder who eventually slots home the deflected cross.
---------------------------------------
Multiple effects
The following screenshots show a few issues with both including
- mixing of zonal and man generating space for the opposition
- advanced midfielders drifting into Zonal voids and not being picked up
- tight man marking defender getting caught flat footed in reacting to rebound
- zonal defensive MC mentality too high (11) such that he does not drop to defensive line when CB gets sucked out
---------------------------------------
CB stops short as ball goes down flank and gets caught flatfooted
An attack down the right flank. The striker holds his run and after initially dropping back the Tight Man Mark CB stops to pick up the striker coming from deep. But in doing so he has to slow down, change direction once to move towards the striker and then a second time changing his facing direction almost 360 to head where the striker is going. At the same time the striker builds his speed and thus bypasses the CB with ease as he does not have to adjust as much when changing direction. In this scenario it didn’t amount to anything but being aware of the effect may help some with decisions to change player behaviour.
Also of note is the Zonal effect where you will see Arsenal RB #2 and Arsenal MC #9 both find space as their opposing players drop back relative to the ball as opposed to stalling to pick up the man. This behaviour does tend to make Zonal vulnerable to cut backs.
Similarly here Man Utd CB #4 the same effect. In this case though CB #5 does not stall his backtracking which possibly explainable by distance between him and nearest opposition opponent. Also 2 attacking players arrive late in the box to more or less the same point, largely unmarked due to creeping into Zonal voids. A contributing factor to this is Zonal players move relative to the ball and tend to pick up late on quick breaks. This regularly leads to bunching of defending players on the side the attack comes from as highlighted in the manmarking89 screenshot.
---------------------------------------
ST run draws out CB to create space for advancing midfielder
Here you’ll see an overlapping FB pick up the ball on the wing. The CB will track the striker’s less aggressive run which will create separation from the winger at the byline and create a gap for a more aggressive forward running midfielder to move into unmarked and finish.
---------------------------------------
Winger skins full back from deep position and has open run
You’ll see how Man Marking CBs go towards strikers drifting inwards which opens up room for the wide man to attack in towards the goal. Also Sunderland CB #5 will move laterally as the winger heads towards goal in an attempt to pick up an opposition man, then change his focus to another opposition player. Not highlighted in the images but you can also see two Man Marking MCs 18 and 22 for Sunderland behaviour in not collapsing towards goal relative to the ball but stalling to pick up runners.
---------------------------------------
Long ball in behind full back to winger, only one man to beat to get to goal
Quick diagonal ball in behind the defense to the right winger. You’ll see the striker move inwards and the Man Marking CB stall his trackback to go to him rather than dropping back to get goalside and help the full back to block the path to goal. Other players showing same behaviour are highlighted.
Also note that an assumption of behaviour on previous screenshots from same match where the Sunderland RB dropped back which looked like Zonal behaviour. Yet here he gravitates out to the winger instead of dropping back. Was there a tactical change or does this reveal a ‘trigger point’ for go to man or continue dropping back? A quick comparison of behaviours.
It still stands that a zonal full back will drop back thus from a tactics/players perspective the questions relate to whether or not you want your CBs to stall to track the striker with man marking tight and whether or not your players/tactics can compensate for this
- attack occurs quickly down left flank
- is your right back capable of dealing with the left winger?
- if you had him in an advanced position is he quick enough to make up the ground and block the wingers path to goal
- is your right back quick enough to get across and block the left winger’s path to goal after he beats the left back?
- how far advanced is your right back in above situation and the effect of his speed and mental attributes in covering the ground
- the effect of your team width on the amount of ground the right back will have to cover to block the right wingers path to goal
- will you have a deep lying defensive midfielder and if so will you set him to zonal and ensure his mentality/forward runs makes him capable of filling the space left by the CBs gravitating to the striker to block the wingers path to goal?
- if so does he have the necessary physical attributes to do this?
---------------------------------------
Zonal CB behaviour = drop into box relative to ball
To illustrate the difference here are a few screenshots showing Zonal Loose CBs dropping into the box as the opposition winger gets to the byline rather than stalling their backtrack to cover the strikers who stalled their runs. The same applies to the other players who will collapse into the box and pick up zonally where relevant. The negative side is highlighted whereby CBs end up in redundant positions and the two late running strikers get picked up by an MC (who loses him) and a LB. Not a good thing when considering the aerial battle for crosses. Similarly the negative of narrow width plus zonal leading to free man at opposite post to point of cross. In this scenario the nature of the cross (more floated than whipped) allows one of the zonal players to get back to head clear despite being far behind the play.
---------------------------------------
So that illustrates some behavioural aspects of marking choices and mixing of systems. There is a variety of scenarios but in many the same player behaviour contributes to certain contextual effects. You could do a similar analysis of player behaviour when set to Zonal Marking and see the negatives of that particular choice (as well as looking at the positives of both systems). For example some negatives of Zonal Marking include
- players unmarked in the voids between zones
- trailing players for cut backs left unmarked as the Zonal players collapse onto the 6 yard when an opposition player gets to the byline
- related to the above the attacking team collecting cleared balls and initiating a secondary attack with ease due to Zonal defenders collapsing into the box
- the width effects creating separation of your full back and their winger which can increase the likelihood of him getting skinned when he rushes out to close down
- width effects when the dominant side leading to your wide players standing a few yards outside of theirs when the opposition is in possession (assuming the width differential between your team and the opposition is at the ‘sweet spot’ to cause this)
- width differentials and ‘coded’ defensive drift relative to the ball leading to wide players unmarked at the back post when a winger on the opposite side gets to the byline (most often a drifting striker or a wide player)
Basically the positives of one system are directly linked to the negatives of the other system, and vice versa. For example
- in the screenshots I noted how man marking left the CB isolated with respect to the MCd not dropping back as he covered the MC on the edge of the box. In that respect it is negative but it’s a positive in that the MCd can challenge for balls that are cleared from crosses
- in a zonal system the MCd would have dropped back to help and possibly closed the strikers run towards goal which is a positive. But the negative of that is he is not on the edge of the box to challenge for cleared crosses.
Like most choices in this game you can’t have your cake and eat it. You need to make a choice that reflects the players at your disposal, the quality of the opposition and the tactical set up of the opposition. From which point of attack are you more vulnerable? Can your CB handle getting isolated on a through ball to the striker he is opposite to? How effective are your MCs in tracking their man? How good in the air are the opposition strikers? Are the opposition midfielders creative enough to spot the through ball and technically capable of pulling it off? Can your full backs handle the opposition wingers consistently?
I’m not saying man = bad, zonal = good or vice versa. I’m just illustrating player behaviour so that if someone sees their players behave as in the screenshots they will know the cause and be able to make a decision as to how to react if they choose to do so. All based on observation so as I said at the beginning any disagreement with those observations is welcomed .
这个翻译好了发到09区吧...我会给个高亮麻烦大家了..工作量有点大... |
发表于 2008-11-6 22:54:33
显身卡
发表于 2008-11-6 22:57:18
