Defending Corners

After seeing both Arsenal and Fulham concede from corners despite employing different systems to try and combat the dead ball situation, I feel inclined to discuss what kind of defending at corner kicks will be the most sensible.

The obvious candidate which is the most widely used system is to do man marking. There must be reasons why it is so popular and the biggest reason is that every man has his opponent to mark and there is no confusion. Every player has his responsibility and there is no way to shirk it. Once the ball is directed towards the man you are marking, you challenge for it. Simple enough instructions.

Zonal defence is where each player has a certain area around him that he is supposed to guard. Any ball that fly into his territory will be challenged for by him. This ensures that every dangerous area is being defended and eliminates the problem of a man losing his marker and getting free.

Arguments for zonal defence:
As mentioned above, zonal defence is a very thorough system. No matter where the ball goes, there will be a player stationed there. Its advantage over man marking is also because man marking requires huge concentration as the opponent can slip away right before the corner is put in. The correct run coupled with the correct delivery can see the opponent get a free header. The results can be disastrous even with an alert defence. As in the weekend game, Fulham, who is normally quite good at defending set plays, allowed Giroud a free header from which he scored. Looking at the replays, the defender could probably have done better but Giroud was just too slippery. He squeezed in between two players at just the right time and the defender just could not squeeze through on time. This is one fatal flaw in man marking that zonal marking could have solved and Giroud exploited it to the fullest.

Arguments for man marking:
Zonal defence can get even more messy than man marking some times, especially if it is not executed properly. If the space between the defenders is too big, it will give opponents free space to work with. Players can also get confused about whether to go for the ball if it is not that near to them as there are no markings for them to take note of. If defenders all leave it to their team mates to challenge for the ball, the opponent will have a clear sight of goal. However, this problem is easily solved. Just drill the defence properly and a solid defence will not face such a problem.

The more major issue arises because of the stationary position defenders are in during zonal defence. When man marking, the defenders run with the opponents and thus garner the speed to garner enough momentum to launch a high leap. Zonal marking gives the opponent a huge advantage in this aspect. Any opponent also can run into any space and this might potentially cause a mismatch, with a huge opponent coming up against a smaller defender. Man marking allows them to choose their opponents and match up accordingly to ariel poweress.

The last problem for zonal defence comes about when two players both feel that the ball has been planted in their zone. Both players will leave the center of their zones and leave a lot of space for opponents to exploit even as the ball is cleared, as shown by the red patches on the diagram below.


Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages and neither of them are perfect. If forced to make a choice, I will go with the zonal defence system without the two men at the posts as that will better allow the players to counter attack. Zonal defence to me will be more reliable as long as enough players are stationed in the box and know their duties well enough. Hopefully, this move will pay dividends for the teams that employ it and it will not be derided by people as much.