"Disappointing" tackling and marking bug

[moxphere]

After several attempts to start games with different teams in different leagues (more than once each), I have the impression that the "marking" problem some people already complained about (the "unstoppable through balls") is deeply related with the marking setup. the 5 games I started ith zonal marking were flawed. It doesn't matter if I had a much better team with much better players (ex: playing with PSG against a third division team), the rival playmakers/forwards played like Zidanes leaving colleagues unmarked ahead of the goalkeeper.

With man marking (which I have NEVER used in the previous versions of the game), the problem became almost inexistent - much like IRL. The defenders can be beaten, yes, but you won't see John Terry being dribbled by John Doe twice. So it seems to me that definitively zonal marking needs some work.

The other is more of a question: in all the games I started, my tackling was "disappointing", even with robust midfields (like Ambrosini, Gattuso, Flamini) being ordered to tackle in different ways (cautious, default and aggressive). Does any of you could give me a hint on if it is a sort of a bug affecting everyone or if the mistake is mine, how to improve tackling (no remarks about training please, as the training respondes very well and with really good coaches).

Thanks

[Cleon]

Zonal marking always gives problems as its reliant on the individuals knowing who to pick and when. So at times you will have players out of position, or thinking someone else will pick the player up. It's always been the same. For zonal marking you need very intelligent players with good mental stats for it to be successful.

If you want to be more assured that someone will be picked up or not given much space then you really need to go the man marking route. There is less mistakes with man marking as they know who to follow and don't think 'oh its not my zone I won't track him, someone else will get him'

[moxphere]

Cleon, first of all, thanks for your comment, but although I agree with you that zonal marking demands more intelligent players, a defence with major players could not be beaten so easily as it is on this game.

After several failures, I edited the database to put together a world class defender alongside Lamine Sakho at PSG (Gerard Pique), for experience purposes. They seemed like headless chickens as if they were the central defence of Rushden and Diamonds reserve team. This was the beginning of my distrust over zonal marking and after reading the "Unstoppable..." thread, I decided to test the man marking system.

Zonal marking it is massively more employed than man marking in football for a long time already. Not even the Italian managers (the country where man-marking ruled for most time) employ man marking as a whole system any longer, unless there is a single very good player to be stopped in the rival team. FM, as a loyal reproduction of the game itself, cannot hold such feature (i.e. zonal marking being so worse) even if some players retain man marking being more efficient. Central defenders usually are given man marking instructions, but the rest of the team plays zonal - even in lower levels of the game.

My advice to SI for the next patch would be to work on the marking systems making both of them equally efficient, with pros and cons. Your remark that zonal marking demand more intelligent players is perfect, but it cannot be taken to such extent.

[Drake]

This is a very important issue, I believe, and I fully agree with the thread starter. Furthermore, SI and TTF creators do admit that they didn't sort out marking IRL footbal as of yet.

I'll try to get my thoughts on the matter written down, as I suspect I know what is causing the problem, or, at least, a part of the problem. Meanwhile, it's necessary to add that marking problems have an adverse effect on team pressing and ball possession as well, as it should be... Pressing is not only about your players chasing the ball when not in possession, it's about limiting passing options for the opposition as well by marking them. And obviously, pressing etalons like Michels' Ajax and Dutch sides were on zonal marking (taken from Michels himself) - the two aspects of the play are deeply connected with each other. Man-marking is originally a tool of defensive approach. However, as it's stated in TTF'10, current "man-marking" in ME is, in fact, "more aggressive" zonal marking.

More thoughts on marking IRL and ME football follow, and it'd be very nice if the thread is discussed extensively, with more FManagers sharing their experience on the matter.

[jascko]

It's very controversial statement that tackling is bugd. The conclusion after much debate, and verified from SI on several occasions, is that tackling in this version of the game is calculated slightly different than in the previous versions. As I understand the ME does not calculating certain events that should be defined as a tackle. This means that your players in fact have some higher percentage of tackles without ME register them as a tackle.

When it comes to marking, and differences between zone and man marking, this question is more open to discourse, but also depends on subjective preferences. You presented a statement that indicates that the zonal marking is bugd. Well, if a hypothesis is to be verified or ratified it must be tested from objective perspective and many times. You do not show any test, and provide no evidence, that the zonal marking is bugd, you just claim that is broken. You need to prove to us that the zonal marking is bugd, so that we can rule out that this is not due to your tactics. Until then, I choose to look at your hypothesis as falsified until you convince me and others the opposite.

[Drake]

[jascko]

It is obvious that the players you refer to in this example does not mark tight. But still this example does not explain that zonal marking is bugd, or is this result of your tactic. You say that these three players are all on tight zonal marking, but you do not say much about other variables that plays an important role in the outcome of such episodes. Firstly, what is the players' mentality? What is their closing down instructions? What is their creativity instructions? You are not mentioning their players attributes. The most important attributes in this case are: marking, decision, concentration, positioning, off the ball, composure, anticipation, aggression, bravery and work rate. If they are missing in some of these attributes, that can explain why they do not mark tight.

[Hammer1000]

It is obvious that the players you refer to in this example does not mark tight. But still this example does not explain that zonal marking is bugd, or is this result of your tactic. You say that these three players are all on tight zonal marking, but you do not say much about other variables that plays an important role in the outcome of such episodes. Firstly, what is the players' mentality? What is their closing down instructions? What is their creativity instructions? You are not mentioning their players attributes. The most important attributes in this case are: marking, decision, concentration, positioning, off the ball, composure, anticipation, aggression, bravery and work rate. If they are missing in some of these attributes, that can explain why they do not mark tight.

Thats crazy talk fella, i'm an ex striker turned defender due to age and if my Sunday League Football Manager asks me to "tight mark" an opposing player then i am stuck to him like glue.

[jascko]

Thats crazy talk fella, i'm an ex striker turned defender due to age and if my Sunday League Football Manager asks me to "tight mark" an opposing player then i am stuck to him like glue.

One thing is what you claim, another thing is what others think about your "tight marking". You act on the basis of subjective preferences, where your perception is that you are good at tight marking. But you are not a credible source in relation to such a claim. It is up to others to judge. I thought once that I was good to play in the Premier League, I had both the technique, speed and creativity to do so. But I never got to that level, most likely because others were not of the same opinion.

What you do here is comparing Sunday League with a top-level football. Anyone with a little football experience can mark out a striker at Sunday League level.

Thus your argument is useless because it has no rationality in it. Your main preference here on forum has allways been to complain, no matter what. You have not really done anything else since you became member of this forum. Thus, the last thing I would like is to involve my self in a discourse with you.

[Drake]

Jascko, I'm not going to start a debate about the game basics, as what attributes affect the decision-making in that given situation, because it's useless. Believe me, I know what to expect from a player based on his stats and my tactic. Neither DCr nor DCl are bad in any stats, DCr is average, DCl is a world-class defender with the only "flaw" in having a medium acceleration and speed. Both of them play for their nations IG and IRL.

There are no attributes and no tactic instructions, that can justify what DCr did on the screen. He's the only player around who can play against that striker, and mark him/close him down. Failing to do that will leave a striker clear way though on goal (and that's exactly what happened). Basically, DCr just moved out of his way and gave a player with the ball a perfect opportunity to play a direct pass. That movement has absolutely no justifiable logic behind it. There is no one to close down there, nothing to anticipate. It's as if the engine just pulled him like a mindless puppet to retain defensive line shape regardless of the situation.

And what did DR do ? The only logical solution there would be to try and close down the player with the ball, and yet he runs backwards (that is, having an attack duty and attacking mentality and closing down almost maxed) where he has nothing to do.

I can post 3 more screens (from 5 minutes of the game), none of them more rational in movement. NOTHING, no mentality, no coach instruction can explain THAT. There is no logic in it. And I didn't care about the match itself and decisions I make, because they have no influence on SUCH behavior. I could start, say, Barcelona game and top-drawer defenders with rigid philosophy and standard strategy - I'll still see the same "decisions".

I'm not complaining for the sake of it or whatever, I'm trying to get attention to the obvious ME flaw, correcting which will improve the game.

[Hammer1000]

One thing is what you claim, another thing is what others think about your "tight marking". You act on the basis of subjective preferences, where your perception is that you are good at tight marking. But you are not a credible source in relation to such a claim. It is up to others to judge. I thought once that I was good to play in the Premier League, I had both the technique, speed and creativity to do so. But I never got to that level, most likely because others were not of the same opinion.

What you do here is comparing Sunday League with a top-level football. Anyone with a little football experience can mark out a striker at Sunday League level.

Thus your argument is useless because it has no rationality in it. Your main preference here on forum has allways been to complain, no matter what. You have not really done anything else since you became member of this forum. Thus, the last thing I would like is to involve my self in a discourse with you.

Try again

The argument is that players in FM do not get tight enough to their opponent when asked, whether the marker then gets skinned every time is not an issue.

[jascko]

Jascko, I'm not going to start a debate about the game basics, as what attributes affect the decision-making in that given situation, because it's useless. Believe me, I know what to expect from a player based on his stats and my tactic. Neither DCr nor DCl are bad in any stats, DCr is average, DCl is a world-class defender with the only "flaw" in having a medium acceleration and speed. Both of them play for their nations IG and IRL.

There are no attributes and no tactic instructions, that can justify what DCr did on the screen. He's the only player around who can play against that striker, and mark him/close him down. Failing to do that will leave a striker clear way though on goal (and that's exactly what happened). Basically, DCr just moved out of his way and gave a player with the ball a perfect opportunity to play a direct pass. That movement has absolutely no justifiable logic behind it. There is no one to close down there, nothing to anticipate. It's as if the engine just pulled him like a mindless puppet to retain defensive line shape regardless of the situation.

And what did DR do ? The only logical solution there would be to try and close down the player with the ball, and yet he runs backwards (that is, having an attack duty and attacking mentality and closing down almost maxed) where he has nothing to do.

I can post 3 more screens (from 5 minutes of the game), none of them more rational in movement. NOTHING, no mentality, no coach instruction can explain THAT. There is no logic in it. And I didn't care about the match itself and decisions I make, because they have no influence on SUCH behavior. I could start, say, Barcelona game and top-drawer defenders with rigid philosophy and standard strategy - I'll still see the same "decisions".

I'm not complaining for the sake of it or whatever, I'm trying to get attention to the obvious ME flaw, correcting which will improve the game.

You have clearly decided that this is a bug, you do that by saying that nothing in the world can explain the behavior of these players beside bugd zonal marking. You categorically denies that this may have something to do with tactical instructions or with the player's attributes. Thus is hopeless for me to discuss this with you since you can not open up that there may be other explanations for this except that this must be a bug.

I've pointed out before that the game does not emphasize players' intelligence as much as it should, and leaves too much responsibility to the tactical instructions made by manager. This has been my main argument for a long time. I am completely agree that a CB from top level football does not need full explanation from the manager how he should react in conection with zonal defense. All important forum members, and representatives from SI, has refused to discuss this claim. But nevertheless, I believe that you have concluded too quickly without looking at other options. I m not saying that zonal marking is not bugd, I m just interested in other explanations and not jump to conclusion to fast like you. But since you already have decided that this must be a bug, I m not willing to participate in further discussion because no matter what I say it will not change your opinion that the zonal marking is bugd. It will only be waste of time.

[Drake]

I don't even think it's bugged, I think the way it's represented in ME is simply non-existent in modern football (if it ever existed at all in such a form).

Could you please define, from your perspective, what is zonal marking in real life football ?

[jascko]

Try again

The argument is that players in FM do not get tight enough to their opponent when asked, whether the marker then gets skinned every time is not an issue.

I understand that, but he rules out the possibility that this may have some other explanations. I just pointed out some of the explanations, as for example the players' attributes or tactical instructions. Players attributes are important part of this game, and especially in the case when we talk about the zonal marking, and in relation to many other situations. If these variables were not important then SI will not have a need for attributes, or tactical instructions.

[makmak]

It is obvious that the players you refer to in this example does not mark tight. But still this example does not explain that zonal marking is bugd, or is this result of your tactic. You say that these three players are all on tight zonal marking, but you do not say much about other variables that plays an important role in the outcome of such episodes. Firstly, what is the players' mentality? What is their closing down instructions? What is their creativity instructions? You are not mentioning their players attributes. The most important attributes in this case are: marking, decision, concentration, positioning, off the ball, composure, anticipation, aggression, bravery and work rate. If they are missing in some of these attributes, that can explain why they do not mark tight.

If you are sceptical, that there is something wrong with marking try the folowing:

1. Buy the 2 or 3 best DC in the game. Or use editor just for this.

2. Play with "tight marking" tactic, man or zonal marking doesnt matter.

3. Watch the games.

4. Pay attention to behaviour of your defence line around your box, when the oposition is attacking.

Mentality and closing down settings shouldnt affect behaviour around your box, when your team is defending, you can have the best defence in the game, with players with the best mental att. And still, you will notice that marking is not what it should be.

[jascko]

I don't even think it's bugged, I think the way it's represented in ME is simply non-existent in modern football (if it ever existed at all in such a form).

Could you please define, from your perspective, what is zonal marking in real life football ?

If there is something that is bugd in your case, then it must be tight marking. But as I understand, based on your presentation, this does not happens when you implement man marking. Thus, and as you said, we can exclude that this is a bug.

In zonal marking it's all about zones on the football field. Instead of finding a man and follow him around the field, like in the man marking, the zonal marking includes defending a zone. Each player on the field have their zone to defend. When the opponent enters the zone, the player who defends the zone follow the opponent player in his zone. When the opponent leaves the zone, he automatically enters the defending zone of another player on the field. This is not magic, but requires certain skills and understanding to be carried out properly. Thus, not all the players fits the zonal defending.

[jascko]

If you are sceptical, that there is something wrong with marking try the folowing:

1. Buy the 2 or 3 best DC in the game. Or use editor just for this.

2. Play with "tight marking" tactic, man or zonal marking doesnt matter.

3. Watch the games.

4. Pay attention to behaviour of your defence line around your box, when the oposition is attacking.

Mentality and closing down settings shouldnt affect behaviour around your box, when your team is defending, you can have the best defence in the game, with players with the best mental att. And still, you will notice that marking is not what it should be.

I have done this of course. I play this game to, this is a major reason why I'm here. But I have no recorder which indicates that this happens in every case, or in the majority of the time. It happens of course sometimes that the player loos his mark, like in the real world, but usually this happens against the strikers who have good attributes in off the ball, agilitty, anticipation etc, and usually when the opponent's midds are good in passing, creativity, decision etc.

[Drake]

Yes, that does look like a proper definition of zone marking. However, some questions that remain, are : is the whole field divided into such zones (means, let's say, 20 meters to the left around the box is a DCl zone) or are they a certain area around the player whether he moves or not ? If a central defender happens to find himself near the opposition's penalty area (after a corner, for example), does he have a zone and must find someone to mark in it, or is his zone left far behind and he is, therefore, free of any marking instructions ? And what does ME "think" about it?

In my case, the DCr didn't even try to mark anyone, tight or not, he performed something unexplainable in terms of logic, and I'm curious to understand what is was, if it's, indeed, possible.

Man marking does seem to behave more intelligent, but as TTF itself states, it is "a more aggressive form of a zonal marking" - therefore, it's tied to zones as well. And I'd very much like to know what does ME understand as a zone. Real-life man marking is playing against a specific pre-defined opponent, following him around no matter who is in possession. Man-marking in FM ME is still zone-based, so it's not like a real-life analogue. It is said that classic real football specific man-marking isn't used nowadays even by defensive teams, and I do believe it's true.

So, in any case, we are talking about zonal marking, whether it is defined as "zonal" or "man" by ME. "Man" seems more aggressive, it is more strict and there is less indecision on players part, but the zones are the same.

it happens of course sometimes that the player llos his mark, like in the real world, but usually this happens against the strikers who have good attributes

In given example, the striker is utter crap ). Furthermore, even if it was Owen, he did nothing there to fool his marker - he wasn't marked or attempted to be stopped in any way at all to start with. He just ran towards defender, and defender turned and ran away from him, leaving a lethal gap behind.

[jascko]

Can I ask you a question? After further studying of your example, I suddenly realized that you are playing 4-3-3 flat. In addition to playing a offansive formation, it seems that you are playing very attacking with high def line. Since you play with high def line I will assume that you also use the offside trap. Correct? This may be an explanation of why your player suddenly ran away from the opponent. It looks like your defense tried to implement offside trap and fail.

[Mitja]

If there is something that is bugd in your case, then it must be tight marking. But as I understand, based on your presentation, this does not happens when you implement man marking. Thus, and as you said, we can exclude that this is a bug.

In zonal marking it's all about zones on the football field. Instead of finding a man and follow him around the field, like in the man marking, the zonal marking includes defending a zone. Each player on the field have their zone to defend. When the opponent enters the zone, the player who defends the zone follow the opponent player in his zone. When the opponent leaves the zone, he automatically enters the defending zone of another player on the field. This is not magic, but requires certain skills and understanding to be carried out properly. Thus, not all the players fits the zonal defending.

you're absolutly right except we're talking about top players not Sunday league.

[Drake]

Can I ask you a question? After further studying of your example, I suddenly realized that you are playing 4-3-3 flat. In addition to playing a offansive formation, it seems that you are playing very attacking with high def line. Since you play with high def line I will assume that you also use the offside trap. Correct? This may be an explanation of why your player suddenly ran away from the opponent. It looks like your defense tried to implement offside trap and fail.

The assumptions on tactic, are, of course, right, the assumption on offside trap is wrong. If it was the offside trap, the DCr would then try to level with DCl, and run FORWARD, not sideways and out of striker's way at all. Look at the arrow, (X) marks where the defender was before running away. No, it wasn't an offside trap attempt. Moreover, offside traps are usually performed by all the back 4 at once, I haven't seen single players try to implement it by themselves, although, perhaps, I wasn't paying attention. In any way, that is not the case here.

[Mitja]

in real life real man marking (like it's played in basketball) is only used when manager wants one of his players to stick to one opposition player (specifing man marking in FM). otherwise man-marking is in fact more agressive zonal. in zonal marking players tend to take over much quicker than in man-marking where you want your players to follow attacking players more. it's all about tendency to take over sooner (I'm not sure if that's correct word?) or more follwing defending.

I'm 100% sure that any league 2 player is capable of playing zonal defence well enough.

[jascko]

The assumptions on tactic, are, of course, right, the assumption on offside trap is wrong. If it was the offside trap, the DCr would then try to level with DCl, and run FORWARD, not sideways and out of striker's way at all. Look at the arrow, (X) marks where the defender was before running away. No, it wasn't an offside trap attempt. Moreover, offside traps are usually performed by all the back 4 at once, I haven't seen single players try to implement it by themselves, although, perhaps, I wasn't paying attention. In any way, that is not the case here.

I now understand that you've little contact with reality football. Firstly, you play hight def line without the offside trap, this is a dangerous experiment if you ask me, regardless if you have four Ferdinands at back. Second, it has happend often in real world that only one player at back tried to implement offside trap while others just stood still. This happens especially in cases where the team has meny new players who does not know eachother. Third, how could I know that the DCr ran sideways based only on one screenshot. To reject an argument so easily as you did here is almost a paradox.

[Drake]

I now understand that you've little contact with reality football. Firstly, you play hight def line without the offside trap, this is a dangerous experiment if you ask me, regardless if you have four Ferdinands at back. Second, it happens often in real world that only one player at back trying to implement offside trap while others just stood still. This happens especially in cases where the team has meny new players who does not know eachother. Third, how could I know that the DCr ran sideways based only on one screenshot. To reject an argument so easily as you did here is almost a paradox.

1) The tactic is created with TC, of course it uses an offside trap along with high defensive line, and I am no idiot to change that. But, as it appears I have little contact with reality football and you're an expert in tactics and of course, it's me misunderstanding/not knowing basic football concepts, I find myself humbled by your illustrous knowledge about high DL and OT connection ((

2) The given example is not an offside trap attempt, I've drawn an arrow and wrote about it below exactly to explain what happened. Unfortunately, that didn't work for you, as the mark and the arrow are obviously not enough to explain where the player was and where did he move ((

3) I didn't talk about REAL football offside traps, I meant that I didn't see single players do it in FM, but didn't try to spot if they did, either. But then again, I know nothing about tactics and football, so you could understand what I wrote the way you did ((

Please, don't bother to continue this conversation if you don't change your attitude. Thanks in advance.

[moxphere]

Drake and Jascko, I believe we should do some considerations here. To do so, I will divide the subjects:

1) Bugged zonal marking: I don't believe it is difficult to conclude zonal marking do need some work by SI for the 2nd patch. I will not even go down to discuss if better players do it better or which are the attributes needed for a goor marking. The point is if I pick up a top team, THEN I add it one extra top defender with the editor for experimental purposes and the team keep conceding goals to lower level teams by "unstoppable through balls" it means something. It means even more if we note that by simply swapping marking to man marking, the game becomes "normal". I am not making an accusation to SI. The only thing I pointed is that the difference between choosing zonal marking and man marking cannot be that decisive. They have to be similar in terms of performance in general terms, only performing worse or better depending of the players you have available. As Cleon said, zonal marking demand better players - I agree - but it's not something only to be done by Champions League finalists.

2) "disappointing" tackling: I don't know if it is bugged. What I know is that I already tried to start many different games, with different teams and many many different tackling/defending configs and my ass man keeps saying that to "say that our tackling is disappointing would be an understatement". It seems impossible to me to achieve good tackling unless I have a midfield formed by Gattuso, Gerrard, Essien and Xabi Alonso. This simply does not match reality. If some other manager is able to tell a configuration which makes tackling really efficient, I would thank.

[jascko]

1) The tactic is created with TC, of course it uses an offside trap along with high defensive line, and I am no idiot to change that. But, as it appears I have little contact with reality football and you're an expert in tactics and of course, it's me misunderstanding/not knowing basic football concepts, I find myself humbled by your illustrous knowledge about high DL and OT connection ((

2) The given example is not an offside trap attempt, I've drawn an arrow and wrote about it below exactly to explain what happened. Unfortunately, that didn't work for you, as the mark and the arrow are obviously not enough to explain where the player was and where did he move ((

3) I didn't talk about REAL football offside traps, I meant that I didn't see single players do it in FM, but didn't try to spot if they did, either. But then again, I know nothing about tactics and football, so you could understand what I wrote the way you did ((

Please, don't bother to continue this conversation if you don't change your attitude. Thanks in advance.

1. You said clearly at first that the offside trap was not implemented. Now suddenly you say that you use TW and that it is likely that the offside trap was implemented. What you do in this case is to lie to me with a purpose to dismiss my argument. You are not interested to find the logical reason for your problem, but to win this discussion. That is just childish, and good luck with that.

2. You said recently that the offside trap was deployed automatically through TW, but you reject that this was an attempt on the offside trap, ie you consider your argumenet more valuable than mine. Your arrows explains nothing because you only posted a screenshot from one example. I said earlier that if a hypothesis to be considered verified or falsified the test must be repeated many times. You, however, did not do that in this case. In addition, you accuse me of bad attitude when you obviously have lie to me. That it is much worse.

3. I have seen players do this on FM countless number of times. Not my fault that you are not paying attention when playing.

Just because you do fatal tactical error does not necessarily mean that the game is bugd. Finally, I do not have the same problem as you, thus I could not care less if you are interested in my opinions or not. Have a nice day.

[makmak]

Drake and Jascko, I believe we should do some considerations here. To do so, I will divide the subjects:

1) Bugged zonal marking: I don't believe it is difficult to conclude zonal marking do need some work by SI for the 2nd patch. I will not even go down to discuss if better players do it better or which are the attributes needed for a goor marking. The point is if I pick up a top team, THEN I add it one extra top defender with the editor for experimental purposes and the team keep conceding goals to lower level teams by "unstoppable through balls" it means something. It means even more if we note that by simply swapping marking to man marking, the game becomes "normal". I am not making an accusation to SI. The only thing I pointed is that the difference between choosing zonal marking and man marking cannot be that decisive. They have to be similar in terms of performance in general terms, only performing worse or better depending of the players you have available. As Cleon said, zonal marking demand better players - I agree - but it's not something only to be done by Champions League finalists.

2) "disappointing" tackling: I don't know if it is bugged. What I know is that I already tried to start many different games, with different teams and many many different tackling/defending configs and my ass man keeps saying that to "say that our tackling is disappointing would be an understatement". It seems impossible to me to achieve good tackling unless I have a midfield formed by Gattuso, Gerrard, Essien and Xabi Alonso. This simply does not match reality. If some other manager is able to tell a configuration which makes tackling really efficient, I would thank.

I think this issues should be taken as suggestions, the ways to improve match engine not as complaining. Marking is not the only issue, but its the most anoying one. From the top of my head i would also point out to the "strikers shooting in to the keepers hand" issue. People saying on and on "its your tactic" are just ignoring very obvious points. Of course a lot of times (most) the problems are tactical, but in certan aspects you can`t blaim tactic.

[Drake]

point taken, yes.

1) - What I'd like to hear is an exact and in-depth explanation on how does ME understand "zones" from someone who knows it I have my assumptions, but I'd like to know if they are true or not to begin with. Besides, I think all players would benefit from that knowledge about ME behavior. From then, we can start to think if the actual idea of zonal marking is understood right by ME. Unexplainable decisions from players are obvious, as I've said, we can take any match and make like dozens such screenshots from the first half.

2) - Same for me. Firstly, it is connected to marking and zones as well, so if your player makes a questionable positioning decision, he may be at disadvantage prior to attempting a tackle. I, too, receive that feedback most of the time with many tactics (not always, though). However, sometimes the tackling looks quite ok and without giving away much fouls, still ass man isn't pleased - and the percentage count is rather low, although I do not see it on the field exactly. Actually, I do not bother listening to ass man at all - I have my own eyes, and do not like to read that "we should encourage our players to play a more direct passing game" when they all have passing set to 20 (had exactly that feedback in FM09 while experimenting with passing 20 just for fun ).

Do your players really fail to tackle properly, or is it just feedback received ? If it's the first, then it's worth a closer look as well.

2 Jascko

Jesus Christ, this is really sad. You don't understand what you read, you don't understand what you see on pictures, and you are stubborn like hell, yet accuse others of being stubborn and childish.

I wrote : "The assumptions on tactic, are, of course, right (tactics do include using offside trap or not, do they not ?!), the assumption on offside trap is wrong. IF IT WAS the offside trap (I think it's pretty much obvious from here that my team DOES play an offside trap ?!), the DCr would then try to level with DCl..." Your assumption was that the movement on a screen is explained with the team trying to implement an offside trap. You obviously thought that I'm not using an offside trap at all, and I agree that what I wrote can, perhaps, be misunderstood. Now, if you think that I have nothing better to do than to LIE to anyone on a FORUM to win a discussion, you are free to think so, but do not mind if others will find it ridiculous. I've known that higher defence means using offside on a regular basis since I was like 15, and that was quite a long time ago. But I am a liar and know nothing about football, so PLEASE, do not write anything to me anymore...

Enough with the flame, and apologies on my part to moderators

[Ainu]

1. You said clearly at first that the offside trap was not implemented. Now suddenly you say that you use TW and that it is likely that the offside trap was implemented. What you do in this case is to lie to me with a purpose to dismiss my argument. You are not interested to find the logical reason for your problem, but to win this discussion. That is just childish, and good luck with that.

2. You said recently that the offside trap was deployed automatically through TW, but you reject that this was an attempt on the offside trap, ie you consider your argumenet more valuable than mine. Your arrows explains nothing because you only posted a screenshot from one example. I said earlier that if a hypothesis to be considered verified or falsified the test must be repeated many times. You, however, did not do that in this case. In addition, you accuse me of bad attitude when you obviously have lie to me. That it is much worse.

3. I have seen players do this on FM countless number of times. Not my fault that you are not paying attention when playing.

Just because you do fatal tactical error does not necessarily mean that the game is bugd. Finally, I do not have the same problem as you, thus I could not care less if you are interested in my opinions or not. Have a nice day.

You've accused him of knowing nothing about tactics and then of lying, all based on nothing really (the way I read it, he didn't lie at all). Then you go on to claim that he just wants to win an internet argument, oh the irony. Furthermore you've completely ignored the original discussion to make this about offside traps, which clearly isn't relevant. He's presented his case very well and I thought his screenshot with the arrows was very clear. It certainly begs some questions about the marking in the game. Yet all you've done is offer destructive comments and blatant insults. If you want anyone to be interested in your opinions, you should take a long hard look at your conduct in this thread.

[mightymind]

In order to better argue your point, it will be interesting to have a the same match picture with the best palyer in marking etc.. ( as you said )

I'm almost sure that you will have the same type of picture with marking problem, it seems to be a general defense problem which is currently review by SI to fix it.

I understand that, but he rules out the possibility that this may have some other explanations. I just pointed out some of the explanations, as for example the players' attributes or tactical instructions. Players attributes are important part of this game, and especially in the case when we talk about the zonal marking, and in relation to many other situations. If these variables were not important then SI will not have a need for attributes, or tactical instructions.

[moxphere]

point taken, yes.

1) - What I'd like to hear is an exact and in-depth explanation on how does ME understand "zones" from someone who knows it I have my assumptions, but I'd like to know if they are true or not to begin with. Besides, I think all players would benefit from that knowledge about ME behavior. From then, we can start to think if the actual idea of zonal marking is understood right by ME. Unexplainable decisions from players are obvious, as I've said, we can take any match and make like dozens such screenshots from the first half.

2) - Same for me. Firstly, it is connected to marking and zones as well, so if your player makes a questionable positioning decision, he may be at disadvantage prior to attempting a tackle. I, too, receive that feedback most of the time with many tactics (not always, though). However, sometimes the tackling looks quite ok and without giving away much fouls, still ass man isn't pleased - and the percentage count is rather low, although I do not see it on the field exactly. Actually, I do not bother listening to ass man at all - I have my own eyes, and do not like to read that "we should encourage our players to play a more direct passing game" when they all have passing set to 20 (had exactly that feedback in FM09 while experimenting with passing 20 just for fun ).

Do your players really fail to tackle properly, or is it just feedback received ? If it's the first, then it's worth a closer look as well.(

No, my tackling is bad indeed, it is rubbish. With a team like Milan, Ambrosini and Gattuso usually have a 70/80% success rate on tackles, in the worse scenario. But in some matches they don't achieve the half of it. Actually, what I notice is that even when told to press more and tackle aggressively, sometimes they stand far or the player to be marked. It do not only causes the "unstoppable..." but also some long range shoots.

[Drake]

the question is : who is marking anybody on this screen ? It's not really a very dynamic situation, it doesn't even need any arrows or text. van Kouwen passed to Calabro, the move took like 2-3 seconds from VVV. As you can plainly see, no one is marking anyone - the players placement is determined by their mentality, duty and general formation shape and is not related in any way to how opponents play and where they actually are. "Zonal marking" here seems to simply tell the team to keep shape and adopt changes to it only if opponent is very close to anyone of them. Basically, it leaves two huge gaps on the field which can easily be exploited by the opponents. The players are just keeping their basic template formation in relation to each other, adopted width and mentality, and do not in any way take into consideration how their opponents are placed. But, since closing down is high, DCr will run and close down Calabro AFTER he received the ball - in about a second. Anyone thinks it's proper pressing and marking ? It's obvious that "zones" are either very small or are somewhere else, not around the players in this situation. Such a behavior of the defensive line can be justified and even commended on, if it wasn't for the whole team playing like this. No one seems to recognize his immediate surroundings as his "zone" and the closest opposition player to him as his marking target. Zonal marking, indeed, is about keeping shape for as long as it is possible, but on the given example number two it is long past the time it was possible (and useful) to keep shape. Now, when defender closes down Calabro and likely forces him into a backpass, making that pass and keeping possession would be easy, because Calabro has at least 4 obvious unmarked targets, and 2 more who arent marked tightly in front of him (if marked at all, they are just near each other, doesn't mean the players are actually marking). Looking at this I really fail to understand where ME players think their "zones" are. In a 1 meter distance ?

High closing down and any marking are two sides of one coin - disrupting the opposition play as soon as possible - to run them out of easy passing options and then close down to force them to make a difficult pass - and thus, likely a mistake. This is also achieved by compressing space as much as possible when in defence, and it's not what can be seen here, although it may be more of a defensive line/mentality issue. While the overall concept seems to be reproduced in a believable way, it is certainly taken by ME to a very unrealistic extent. The players (not exactly the world beaters) are playing outstandingly coordinated in terms of relational placement to each other, but fail to notice that they aren't actually alone on the field and their good team movement puts no obstacles before the opposition's build-up.

[asdpoo]

point taken, yes.

1) - What I'd like to hear is an exact and in-depth explanation on how does ME .......

Sorry, this game is made interesting by poor documentation

[Drake]

Sorry, this game is made interesting by poor documentation

hehehe, in a way, yes

[moxphere]

The bottom line is that the tools available for you to build a good defensive side (i. e. marking system and tackling instructions) are not working properly (actually, zonal marking is not working at all). As I play this game for quite a time now, I'd say that these two things need work, once they are vital to reflect the real features of football. Ok, in zonal marking, if an opposition player roams a lot, he will cause trouble, but there needs to be an equivalence in man marking, for example (like the player marked can open spaces by sucking his marker out of his area). As I see, the problem itself exists. It could be a nice thing to hear from SI people something about it, if the matter is to be addressed or if the game is perfect and we are all Graeme Sounesses in potential, an indication on how to play properly.

[Lincoln Imp2]

I have noticed a slightly different - though equally baffling - problem too. When I have set a full back on zonal marking and the opposing player dribbles in-field from the wing the full back often follows them right across the the 18-yeard box.

Surely under a zonal system when the player dribbles in-field he is picked up by a central defender allowing the full-back to stay in his wide "zone"?

What happens is the full back gets pulled way out of position leaving a huge hole that the A1 then takes advantage of.

My other issue is the number of times strkers (both mine and the A1) are given time and space on the edge of the area to leisurely turn and run at the defence - often beating them without any kind of challenge coming.

I have CDs with marking of 17/18, equally good tackling and strength and they seem to always back off the striker and give them acres of room even with "tight marking" ticked.

Frankly even League 2 defenders have the ability to stay tight to an attacker when his back is to the goal - shouldn't need great stats to do that.

Whatever anyone else says or argues my view is something is either not right with the ME or alternatively the representation of the ME on screen is not right. Could be either. Don't care - it hampers my enjoyment of the game.

[moxphere]

Yes, I think you have the point. The game is amazing in general, but there are flaws that hamper the enjoyment - even admitting that we are pretty much very, VERY much into details. I noticed the same full back prblem, although for me it has been far less of a problem than the through balls, probably due to the instructions I give to the full backs.

As I don't understand of the developing of the software, I could not evaluate it properly, but I would be glad to have the next patch improving this marking and tacking issues. Again, I'd ask for an SI response so, at least, if I am told it will receive attention, I can wait until the patch is released.

[crouchaldinho]

There does seem to be some basic misunderstandings about marking in this thread.

By instructing your players in terms of their marking, you are not asking for them to be fixed or 'glued' to their man or zone for the whole entire game. Marking is an off-the-ball responsibility not a command to be undertaken at all times in complete ignorance of everything else going on around them. Players must react according to the situation, closing down, marking or covering each other, according to the current circumstances and according to ball position.

Zonal marking has priorities for the player like this: 1) The ball, 2) his teammates, 3) his opponents.

So looking at the first example above:

- The DR is dealing with a player on the ball. The argument about him attending to his 'zone' is therefore invalid. He is recovering his ground as he is out of position.

- The DCR, well, I can only have a guess at what he is doing. I presume that he is adjusting his position in order to cover for the DR (who may well himself have to cover for the injured midfielder) and anticipate a potential situation where the player on the ball beats the DR.

- The DCL and DL look as though they are shifting laterally across the pitch to take on each others responsiblities. The DCL is going to pick up the marking responsibilities of the DCR and the DL is going to do the same for the DCL.

This is my best guess and would make sense because the players priorities are the ball (all players are reacting to the ball), then his teammates (all players are reacting to what their teammates are doing) and his opponents last of all.

It would be interesting to see what happened after the passage of play shown in the screenshot as this would seem to be a transitional point in the play and therefore it might not be the best moment to analyse how well the marking is working.

Incidentally, the poster in this case might well want to look at using man-marking instead because this appears to be what he is looking for. In man marking, the priority for the player is: 1) his opponents, 2) his teammates, 3) the ball. In this case, each player would have been more likely to stay with his man rather than prioritising covering his teammates or the ball, which is what the poster in question seems to want to happen.

Those are my initial thoughts.

Regards,

C.

[crouchaldinho]

I have noticed a slightly different - though equally baffling - problem too. When I have set a full back on zonal marking and the opposing player dribbles in-field from the wing the full back often follows them right across the the 18-yeard box.

Surely under a zonal system when the player dribbles in-field he is picked up by a central defender allowing the full-back to stay in his wide "zone"?

No. This is another basic misunderstanding, I am afraid.

This has nothing to do with marking at all, as the fullback is dealing with a player in possession.

[crouchaldinho]

The other example screenshot above is another transitional point in play and not a very good example to analyse.

I think the basic problem here is a lack of understanding about the different types of marking, what they do and how they work.

I'm certainly not convinced that anything is 'bugged' although I would be interested to see some firm evidence if anyone has anything they would like to share?

Thanks,

C.

[moxphere]

There does seem to be some basic misunderstandings about marking in this thread.

By instructing your players in terms of their marking, you are not asking for them to be fixed or 'glued' to their man or zone for the whole entire game. Marking is an off-the-ball responsibility not a command to be undertaken at all times in complete ignorance of everything else going on around them. Players must react according to the situation, closing down, marking or covering each other, according to the current circumstances and according to ball position.

Zonal marking has priorities for the player like this: 1) The ball, 2) his teammates, 3) his opponents.

So looking at the first example above:

- The DR is dealing with a player on the ball. The argument about him attending to his 'zone' is therefore invalid. He is recovering his ground as he is out of position.

- The DCR, well, I can only have a guess at what he is doing. I presume that he is adjusting his position in order to cover for the DR (who may well himself have to cover for the injured midfielder) and anticipate a potential situation where the player on the ball beats the DR.

- The DCL and DL look as though they are shifting laterally across the pitch to take on each others responsiblities. The DCL is going to pick up the marking responsibilities of the DCR and the DL is going to do the same for the DCL.

This is my best guess and would make sense because the players priorities are the ball (all players are reacting to the ball), then his teammates (all players are reacting to what their teammates are doing) and his opponents last of all.

It would be interesting to see what happened after the passage of play shown in the screenshot as this would seem to be a transitional point in the play and therefore it might not be the best moment to analyse how well the marking is working.

Incidentally, the poster in this case might well want to look at using man-marking instead because this appears to be what he is looking for. In man marking, the priority for the player is: 1) his opponents, 2) his teammates, 3) the ball. In this case, each player would have been more likely to stay with his man rather than prioritising covering his teammates or the ball, which is what the poster in question seems to want to happen.

Those are my initial thoughts.

Regards,

C.

C., thanks for posting. To take the discussion ahead, I'd like to ask: Zonal Marking is working ok with you? Is there some tactic you could send me so I can try? If there is, maybe I can find exactly what I am doing wrong.

My point is that most of the answers trying to deal with the subject end up by saying that is better to use man marking. What seems to me is that there is not a choice available: man marking works (better or worse, depending on the use) and zonal marking don't - in any situation.

if there is a zonal marking tactic some of you can send me and it works nicely, I will be glad to describe which are my mistakes in order to help the others. The flaw in the game, as I see is that there is a death sentence on ZM, and definitively it is exacly the opposite in real life.

And C., please, don't misunderstand my words, ok? Writing here sometimes may sound harsh but thats not the idea. I am grateful for your comments. Cheers

[moxphere]

No. This is another basic misunderstanding, I am afraid.

This has nothing to do with marking at all, as the fullback is dealing with a player in possession.

In this case,in real life, what should happen is that the winger or the central defender should fill the gap by moving wideand so on until the other full back comes towards the centre. If I understand what lincoln said, what happens actually is that the central defender stays numb in the area waiting for some divine help. is that right?

[crouchaldinho]

C., thanks for posting. To take the discussion ahead, I'd like to ask: Zonal Marking is working ok with you? Is there some tactic you could send me so I can try? If there is, maybe I can find exactly what I am doing wrong.

I haven't got anything much to share at the moment. I've just been using basic tactics creator tactics and I haven't worked on anything in-depth because I've not got properly into a game yet. But I always use the global zonal option.

My point is that most of the answers trying to deal with the subject end up by saying that is better to use man marking. What seems to me is that there is not a choice available: man marking works (better or worse, depending on the use) and zonal marking don't - in any situation.

That's not what I said and I certainly don't believe that. I much prefer zonal marking as that's how most teams play in real life.

What I am actually saying is that a lot of people appear to be using zonal marking but expecting it to do what man marking does.

The flaw in the game, as I see is that there is a death sentence on ZM, and definitively it is exacly the opposite in real life.

What do you see going wrong with the zonal marking then?

And C., please, don't misunderstand my words, ok? Writing here sometimes may sound harsh but thats not the idea. I am grateful for your comments. Cheers

Of course not. I am only too happy to have a polite and friendly discussion.

In this case,in real life, what should happen is that the winger or the central defender should fill the gap by moving wideand so on until the other full back comes towards the centre. If I understand what lincoln said, what happens actually is that the central defender stays numb in the area waiting for some divine help. is that right?

It's difficult to visualise exactly what is happening in this example, but what is clear is that it is not a marking issue because the opposition player has the ball. The fullback here makes the choice to go after the player but this is not a marking choice, it's a basic defensive choice. That's the point I was trying to make.

Regards,

C.

[Äktsjon Männ]

- The DR is dealing with a player on the ball. The argument about him attending to his 'zone' is therefore invalid. He is recovering his ground as he is out of position.

I don't think you understood his explanation fully. The DR is not dealing with the player with the ball as he is running away from him. He should deal with him trying to close him down and cut out the obvious passing line to the striker but he's doing the exact opposite.

- The DCR' date=' well, I can only have a guess at what he is doing. I presume that he is adjusting his position in order to cover for the DR (who may well himself have to cover for the injured midfielder) and anticipate a potential situation where the player on the ball beats the DR.

[/quote']As above. The DR doesn't pick up the player with the ball so I fail to see how the DCR can think he needs to cover for him. Furthermore, if he did decide to cover this in itself would show abysmal decision making which shouldn't happen at this level. He is marking the striker furthest up the pitch, you don't just start running away from him before it's clear that there is an immediate threat down the wing.

- The DCL and DL look as though they are shifting laterally across the pitch to take on each others responsiblities. The DCL is going to pick up the marking responsibilities of the DCR and the DL is going to do the same for the DCL.

Except they're nowhere close and there shouldn't be a reason to switch in the first place.

No. This is another basic misunderstanding, I am afraid.

This has nothing to do with marking at all, as the fullback is dealing with a player in possession.

I don't get this at all. Yes he is dealing with the man in possession but the whole point of zonal marking strategy is that all the zones are covered. If the full back can't deal with the player in his zone before he cuts in then he hands him over to the centre backs. He doesn't go chasing after the player across the pitch as it would drag him out of his zone and expose his flank which is exactly what this strategy is designed to prevent in the first place.

Overall I pretty much agree with the complaints in this thread. The zonal marking (or marking in general) in FM10 isn't working realistically at all.

[crouchaldinho]

I don't think you understood his explanation fully. The DR is not dealing with the player with the ball as he is running away from him. He should deal with him trying to close him down and cut out the obvious passing line to the striker but he's doing the exact opposite.

I understood the explanation but my point was that it had nothing to do with marking. The explanation posted was talking about him not recognising his zone but this was an invalid argument. That was my point. Whether he should close down or not is another argument for another time. In this instance' date=' perhaps the mitigating factor is the injured midfield player. This is not the fullback's territory and so he is recovering position before he begins to challenge his man.

So I can only suggest that the DR is trying to recover his position. We can't see what is going to happen in the screenshot and whether, once the player in question has recovered his ground, he is going to challenge the player in possession. It's a transitional period in the play and by the looks of it the opposition player in possession has only just received the ball.

As above. The DR doesn't pick up the player with the ball so I fail to see how the DCR can think he needs to cover for him. Furthermore, if he did decide to cover this in itself would show abysmal decision making which shouldn't happen at this level. He is marking the striker furthest up the pitch, you don't just start running away from him before it's clear that there is an immediate threat down the wing. Except they're nowhere close and there shouldn't be a reason to switch in the first place.

Once again, it is a transitional play and the mitigating factor here is the injured midfield player. It is impossible to tell what is going to happen without seeing the PKM. But what we can clearly see is that all three defensive players are moving laterally across the pitch and we must assume that this is to support the fullback, who is both out of position and coping with the injured player who would be challenging the player in possession.

I don't get this at all. Yes he is dealing with the man in possession but the whole point of zonal marking strategy is that all the zones are covered. If the full back can't deal with the player in his zone before he cuts in then he hands him over to the centre backs. He doesn't go chasing after the player across the pitch as it would drag him out of his zone and expose his flank which is exactly what this strategy is designed to prevent in the first place.

I'll say it one more time. The priority for the player is: 1) The ball, 2) his teammates, 3) his opponents. Marking is an off-the-ball part of the game and his immediate opponent has the ball, presumably in a dangerous position, and presumably with the central defenders undertaking marking duties in their zone.

What we really need is a PKM to be uploaded with some commentary to support the claims made in this thread. All I can see at the moment is people misunderstanding how marking actually works.

Regards,

C.

[Äktsjon Männ]

And to take this further, why isn't the DCR attempting an offside trap in above situation? Putting myself in his shoes and seeing the DCL way further up the pitch this seems like the only logical thing to do. Push two yards up and you take the striker right out of play by playing him offside. Instead he trudges off to the right for no apparent reason.

[crouchaldinho]

And to take this further, why isn't the DCR attempting an offside trap in above situation? Putting myself in his shoes and seeing the DCL way further up the pitch this seems like the only logical thing to do. Push two yards up and you take the striker right out of play by playing him offside. Instead he trudges off to the right for no apparent reason.

Poor decision making and anticipation?

What strategy is the manager using? Is he playing the offside trap?

[Äktsjon Männ]

I understood the explanation but my point was that it had nothing to do with marking. The explanation posted was talking about him not recognising his zone but this was an invalid argument. That was my point. Whether he should close down or not is another argument for another time. In this instance, perhaps the mitigating factor is the injured midfield player. This is not the fullback's territory and so he is recovering position before he begins to challenge his man.

So I can only suggest that the DR is trying to recover his position. We can't see what is going to happen in the screenshot and whether, once the player in question has recovered his ground, he is going to challenge the player in possession. It's a transitional period in the play and by the looks of it the opposition player in possession has only just received the ball.

Once again, it is a transitional play and the mitigating factor here is the injured midfield player. It is impossible to tell what is going to happen without seeing the PKM. But what we can clearly see is that all three defensive players and moving laterally across the pitch and we must assume that this is to support the fullback, who is both out of position and coping with the injured player who would be challenging the player in possession.

I'll say it one more time. The priority for the player is: 1) The ball, 2) his teammates, 3) his opponents. Marking is an off-the-ball part of the game and his immediate opponent has the ball.

What we really need is a PKM to be uploaded with some commentary to support the claims made in this thread. All I can see at the moment is people misunderstanding how marking actually works.

Regards,

C.

I'm sorry but all this just takes common sense out of the equation and breaks the scenario down to a purely theoretical discussion ignoring the purpose of defensive strategy completely. Whether the last point is about marking specifically or not isn't relevant, what is relevant is that the player in question behaves in a way that is detrimental to what the team is attempting to achieve with their defensive strategy. Full backs do not go chasing down wingers across the pitch in a zonal marking strategy if they can hand the man over. They look to ensure that their flank doesn't get exposed. Same goes for the situation described on the screenshot. Whatever the mitigating factor is the players behave in a way that is not logical and is clearly detrimental to the team. You don't need to see the pkm to know that the player with the ball will make the easiest through ball in the world to a striker that can go one on one without disruption. No defensive strategy IRL would allow this.

Poor decision making and anticipation?

What strategy is the manager using? Is he playing the offside trap?

As stated above, yes he was. This kind of poor judgment should not occur at this level, heck, i doubt we'd even see something like this in non league football. I've only ever played for a pub team and I'm not a defender but even I would make a better decision than the defender in his example.

[crouchaldinho]

Full backs do not go chasing down wingers across the pitch in a zonal marking strategy if they can hand the man over.

He is a player in possession. You don't mark a player in possession' date=' you tackle him! I'm afraid that you are getting confused about what marking does in this particular instance. What the fullback does has got almost nothing to do with zonal marking. I say almost nothing because the fact is that in zonal marking the player's priority is 1) The ball, 2) his teammates, 3) his opponents, in that order.

Closing down and marking are two separate things and I think it is important to make that distinction.

As stated above, yes he was. This kind of poor judgment should not occur at this level, heck, i doubt we'd even see something like this in non league football. I've only ever played for a pub team and I'm not a defender but even I would make a better decision than the defender in his example.

Poor decisions happen week-in, week-out, up and down the country at every single level.

We don't even know what happens in this instance? Was a goal conceded? What did the play result in?

We also have the factor of an injured midfield player to put into the equation as well, with no real idea about the intention of the fullback and what he actually ends up doing.

Even if we debate the point, it's still proof of absolutely nothing until we can see a video of the incident.

If we are to assess the claim that zonal marking does not work as it should, then we need some proper evidence, and a PKM would be a good start.

Regards,

C.

[Äktsjon Männ]

He is a player in possession. You don't mark a player in possession, you tackle him!

But he does not tackle and instead goes chasing after the player across the pitch. What matters here is if he considers the player in possession his responsibility after failing to clear the danger on his side of the pitch. In a zonal marking system - and again it's not relevant if the full back is defending against the man with the ball or not - he should not leave his flank exposed unless the covering centre backs aren't there - because the aim of this strategy should be to avoid getting pulled around and leaving gaps. Just watch real football, the full backs almost never get dragged across the pitch, if they fail to tackle they'll look to hand the man over.

I'm afraid that you are getting confused about what marking does in this particular instance. What the fullback does has got almost nothing to do with zonal marking. I say almost nothing because the fact is that in zonal marking the player's priority is 1) The ball, 2) his teammates, 3) his opponents, in that order.

Closing down and marking are two separate things and I think it is important to make that distinction.

Closing down is closely related to marking. The aim of marking is to deny the player the opportunity to get on the ball and failing that to be in a position to deal with the player after he's received the ball. If by trying to deal with the man in possession you get pulled away and make it impossible for yourself to mark another player entering your zone then you're the one whose responsible for the system failing - unless the cover isn't there. In which case someone else is responsible. Setting up a defensive strategy in reality isn't about reading a theory in a book and giving out a few basic instructions to your players. It's something that is worked on constantly in training and as a result every player must know his responsibilities and duties within a system. You don't train marking and closing down as separate routines, they go hand in hand. Playing zonal marking means less pressure on the ball, by default. This is, in general, represented in FM as well.

Poor decisions happen week-in, week-out, up and down the country at every single level.

We don't even know what happens in this instance? Was a goal conceded? What did the play result in?

We also have the factor of an injured midfield player to put into the equation as well, with no real idea about the intention of the fullback and what he actually ends up doing.

Even if we debate the point, it's still proof of absolutely nothing until we can see a video of the incident.

If we are to assess the claim that zonal marking does not work as it should, then we need some proper evidence, and a PKM would be a good start.

The poster of this screen states further up the page that a goal was conceded after a through ball to the striker. Which is the only logical outcome. If it weren't then you'd also have to start questioning the attacking mechanics of this ME. The injured midfielder is lying there and is not involved in play so why should his presence be relevant in any way? Poor decision making is one thing, totally illogical movement that serves no apparent purpose is another. Running away from the striker furthest up the pitch failing to use the opportunity to play him offside falls under latter category especially as there is no apparent reason for him to do so. Something's making him fail to mark his player (and it is his player as he is in his zone and is the most obvious threat) which suggests there's a flaw in the mechanics somewhere. pkm would surely help the developers to fix the problem but the screenshot is enough evidence to judge that in this instance the things aren't working quite as well as they should.

I'll look to provide pkm's of specific incidents personally if I get down to playing the game extensively. At the moment I just don't have the motivation to carry on with my save as all the match engine flaws make it very hard for me to stay interested.