Hassle Opponents / Mark Tighter

M

miguelalves

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
677
Reaction score
0
Points
16
This is some kind of thought but also an attempt to shed some light on this issue. So, let's consider TI and leave PI and OI:

Hassle Opponents - this is the instruction that tells our team to press hard on opponents, meaning that our players will leave their position and go after the opponent player with the ball.

Mark Tighter - it's a zonal marking telling the player to the mark the opponent (tighter) when he enters our player range of action.

Now, considering these two descriptions, I'm wondering that these two instructions create a conflict when in use together: I'm telling the players to leave their positions to press the opponent and at the same time I'm telling them to stick to ther positions and mark tighter when the opponent is near.

The question is about this being conflicting or not.
 
So, 89 views and not a single opinion. Starting to wonder if people understand instructions and go for blaming the game when things doesn't work.
 
awalker14 said:
So your saying that you can only zonal mark in this game unless you set each individual player to man mark?
Click to expand...

No, I did not say that. Mark tighter is a zonal marking instruction. It becomes a man to man instruction if you set an opponent player to be mark man to man.
 
Hassle Opponent is an instruction for the nearest man to close down the player with the ball; the space he leaves will be filled by the next defender while he inherits that position's instructions.

Mark Tighter, like you've said, instructs everyone to stick closely to any player who come near them but only within their defensive zone (which is dependant on Mentality)

Whether of not this creates a conflict is entirely based on the situation.
P.s. I coach a local team and have FAI coaching badges, here's a quick example of how I defensively train my players (by FAI standards and having studied Italian Zonal Marking)

Simple 1 striker vs a standard back 4.
View attachment 334206Note: Green Boxes represent making 'zones'
Attacker has the ball

Since the attacker is in neither C or D's zone, and you've instructed them to "Hassle Opponents", they must decide who charges forward. If you had selected "Stand off Opponents", they'd maintain their defensive shape while waiting for the attacking to come close so their could take him on themselves.

I don't know how FM dose it, but in real life, the wide defender always guards the wide channel, anticipating a one-two out wide as the FB comes infield to stop the attacker. So C, the closer of the two CBs, breaks away from the line to engage the attacker.
View attachment 334205
As C moves to hassle the attacker, B & A drift in field to cover the space left over, while still taking responsibility for their zone. D stays wide of the attacker but drops deeper to cover the inside channel between B and C.

This is a practical example of how "Hassle Opponents" + "Mark Tighter" works in practice.
I use the combination in FM with my teams but you need players with good positioning, Teamwork and Decisions. Other important attributes and (Composure, Anticipation and Work Rate)





P.S. Unless you specifically tell a player to mark another player, you're adopting a zonal marking system. If the player has to decide for himself, he's defending within his zonal responsibilities and trusting his team-mates to defend their zones.
 
By the way, this system is notoriously vulnerable to one-twos from a pair of strikers. If facing two front men, you need to employ a DCM to Man mark one of the strikers, otherwise they will pull the CB out of position and then just one-two it around him while the other CB looks on helplessly, having not had enough time to move into the space and cover.
 
Great :D thanks.

One problem might be the reality (your coaching) meeting FM, being that the problem is in FM translating the reality :)
I would like to take the opportunity looking deeper into your screenshots and a couple a questions are coming up:

a) which instruction over rules the other ?: will a player chooses to Hassle first or to Mark Tighter ?
b) At the 2nd screenshot, player C decides to close down / hassle the attacker, that's ok, but as you said, player D drops and cover the space opened by player C. But this is not Mark Tighter, I guess. Being Mark Tighter a zonal marking, then the player should defend more his position, more like a composure of expectation... right ?

With Mark Tighter it's like telling a player to hold more his position until the opponent enter his position range of action (leading also the team to keep a better defensive shape), that's why I'm having this terrible doubt.
 
Is Zonal Marking not more aimed at set pieces? Just because your playing your position i wouldnt call it zonal marking?

My team (real life) man mark on set pieces? And when not in set pieces they are just playing where we have told them to play?

I wouldn't call it zonal marking though?
 
According to SI, Mark Tighter is zonal marking. It becomes man-to-man only when a specific player is set to be marked.
 
That just sounds weird to me, I always thought they are the complete opposite to eachother? Either mark tight man to man..Or Zonal? lol Oh well, We all have our own ways of seeing tactics..Football would be boring if we all thought the same! haha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Top