Imagine you are the coach of Victoria Plzen, you are about to play Barcelona in the Champions League. Lionel Messi is without doubt their main man - he can destroy your team, your tactics and your dreams in one lethal pass. Doesn't really matter what type of formation you play.

You decide to play a DM, whose main objective is to stick with Messi the entire match - regardless of where he goes. (I know this particular example may not be the best, as Barca have any number of players capable of playing the killer ball through defence, but I'm sure you get my point). He is on Messi everytime he gets the ball (hopefully even preventing the ball from getting to him in the first place).

I've seen in some matches a DM will stick with an AM/ST generally during a counter attack, but kind of drops back once they pass half way or wander off to the wings.

Most AFL teams generally use this as a key tactic - using one of their "run with" players to just stick on the opponent no matter where they go. Always maintaining touching distance and never giving their direct opponent an opportunity to receive the ball in space.

I know, as a fan, it's boring to employ such a tactic - but surely the idea of getting some sort of result against a dangerous opponent would make it worth it.

So, my question - why don't football teams use this strategy? Maybe there is a major flaw with this idea, which I cant think of!

One concern is that to man mark Messi creates numerous oppurtunities for his team mates. Messi may drag his man marker into areas of the pitch that create space and gaps for his team mates while congesting the opposing teams defensive areas.

I agree, with my particular example marking Messi just means that someone like Xavi, Fabregas etc can fall into and take over.

Maybe using the example of Nicky Carle with Sydney FC is more appropriate - he's Sydney FC's no. 10, their main creative force. Put a man on him and you negate the majority of SFC's forward thrusts. Especially considering they may not have someone capable of filling his shoes, even if someone else does have more space to work in as a result.

Playing with 2 CDM's (one to "tag" and one to plug the hole between defence and mid's) should do the trick.

Ive only been playing the game for a few years and at quite a low level but man marking is all I do. The coach generally picks out the other sides best midfielder and I just make sure they dont get the ball. I hate it but it works. As stated above it wouldnt work against quality opposition but even at lower levels of professional leagues I'm surprised its not utilised more.

If you play man marking (in the sense one player following another player all game long) you may as well forget about your team keeping their shape. Man marking is generally used but players need an ability to pick up players as they come through and communicate to other players who to pick up. Higher level teams can do this extremely well and there isn't really a need to man mark in the way you describe, as they are very effectively marked and keep their shape.

At least that's how I see it.

THIS...and also, once you have decided to play this style of game you have defeated yourself, any coach who changes all of his strategies and tactics and concentrates on one or two players has conceded defeat. by keeping your shape, tucking in and picking up players as they make runs you are frustrating them as long as your team communicates well enough and doesn't panic.....

Thanks guys... That's helped make it a little clearer for me.

Lesson learnt - stop watching AFL. :lol:

:lol: I could've told you that before your question mate...

In all seriousness, IMO there's definitely room for a man marker on occasions, and I've done it myself as a player a few times over the years, quite effectively tbh. As a coach I've never done it though, but seen it done with some effect on about 5-6 occasions.

Again, as a coach (not at a high level by any means), I've been more likely to instruct the team to play "away" from the influential opposition player, or to close down if he gets the ball. So more zonal that man-marking I guess.

I remember Paul Wade (look him up, you sound young) doing a good man marking job on Maradona in 1993, and the one time he lost him, which wasn't actually his fault, Maradona set up the goal for Balbo.

Man marking used to be alot more common. There is the example above and there are some good stories about bobby charlton and franz beckenbauer marking each other out of the game (google it).

Why its not used now days is because football tactics have developed to where its no longer required (afl use very rudimentary tactic and are years behind football). In the past players would mark their direct opponent. As mentioned above most teams now days use zonal marking meaning your players arent dragged out of position and its alot harder for the opposition team to create space. Furthermore with a player as good as messi even if he is man marked players have the quality to put balls at his feet or into space and he has the ability to beat his direct opponent.

That said, in amateur/semi pro leagues where teams aren't as structured it probably is a viable tactic.

Man marking doesn't work because the player marking is reactive to whatever the opposition player is doing. In most professional teams there are patterns of play and this will mean that the player being marked is always going to be two steps ahead. Remember it only takes 1 second or 1m for a good player to do something dangerous. This is why the best form of defense is team defense.