The Zonal Marking Debate

We all have our preferences and we all know how the pundits like to point the finger every time the Liverpool defence concede from a set piece. I'm sure you all remember the Cahill incident on two occasions last season which i personally found almost unbearable, how did we allow it to happen twice? It was almost identical.

Despite this i still myself believe in our zonal marking system, I'm convinced it works more times than not and that it is basically used as a scapegoat or excuse when we concede.

Carragher has been commenting on the matter quite recently in the news, he was quoted saying;

"People always say when you man-mark you know whose fault it is when the goal goes in. But because we know the zonal system a bit better than you guys, we know who's at fault when someone's not done their job, and we talk about that on the training ground to put it right. "

The defence themselves often show great support towards the system and the way the manager enforces it but with the frequent mistakes do we need a change or just more work?

Carragher went on to say:

"We've been using that system for a long time so everyone should be comfortable with it. Personally I've been doing it for five or six years with the manager, and for a few of them we've had one of the best records in the Premier League. It's about players wanting to head the ball and being aggressive in the box."

Carragher there suggesting that maybe the defence needs to be more confident in it's decisions when zonal marking.

So are you a fan of the zonal system? Or are you a supporter of man marking?