Zonal marking just doesn't make sense to me
You get two types of defensive tactics when it comes to set pieces(free kicks and corners), you get man to man and zonal marking. Personally I prefer man to man, because it means sticking to players and not giving the attacking team any advantages or open spaces to attack the ball. Zonal marking on the other hand gives the attackers the run on all of your defenders, it also means that the attackers have so much space to run into and attack the ball.
My understanding of zonal marking is that it is a tactic whereby players are assigned a "zone" to defend, generally in and around the 6-yard box. Think of it as being confined to a square space of two yards all around you and this is your area/zone that no one is allowed to come into and win the ball. This tactic can be an effective way of defending set pieces, in a fantasy world! Below I have listed my reasons for not liking zonal marking.
Attackers will always have a run on defenders.
Even if you have defenders who tower over the attackers, I still think this tactic is flawed, because of the simple reason that the defenders are routed to the spot when the ball comes in. The attacking players are not routed and will always get the upper hand on the defender by running onto the ball. We all know that you will jump higher if you start with a run up. I guess the defenders could also start with a run, but they would literally have to start from inside the goals.
Defensive players leaving their "zone" to clear the ball.
If I am defending a corner and I see the there is an attacker 2-feet in front of me, who is unmarked, I am going to move toward him, leaving my "zone", to make sure he doesn't get to the ball first. Now all it takes is a second attacking player player waiting to take up my empty zone and have a free header at goal. I will be to blame for the goal, because I didn't stay in my zone and other players, even if they saw this danger, may have decided to stick to their zone instead of covering the now open space left by me.
Having a mismatch in the area.
I say mismatch because generally your center backs, your bigger players, are place between the penalty spot and the back post. This is because this area is where you are most likely to concede from. Cool, so we have covered those zones while other zones are covered by the rest of the team. So in essence, and you can watch how Arsenal F.C. defend set pieces to see the flaw in this tactic, this leaves the attacking team with the rest of the box to do what ever they want. What happens when you end up having one of your shortest players marking their best player when it comes to heading the ball. The attacker is going to win at least 8 out of 10 times.
Man to man is just better!
Man marking is better, because defenders are not at a disadvantage from the start. The attackers will not have the run on them if the defenders mark up properly. There is no issue of staying in one area. Players will need to be aware and spot the dangers. You can also always ensure that your strongest defenders are marking their strongest attackers of the ball.
This is my reasoning for choosing man for man. If you feel different, leave a comment below. I would love to hear differing opinions on this matter.