Roberto Di Matteo- Another One Bites the Dust

Games: 42
Wins: 24
Draws: 9
Losses: 9
Win Percentage: 57.14    

This is Roberto Di Matteo's short managerial record at Chelsea following his sacking this morning. He lasted 262 days as Chelsea boss, longer than his predecessor Villas-Boas (256), Grant (247) and Scolari (223). In  his 262 days he managed to lift the FA cup and the much coveted Champions League trophy, so was it right for him to get the sack? or just further evidence of Roman Abramovich's short sightedness?

Well lets first consider this season on its own, being his first year as official Chelsea manager, rather than caretaker manager. After an impressive start to the season winning seven of their first eight games, the Blues have won only two of their last eight games. They sit third in the Premier League, four points behind leaders Manchester City, who they host on Sunday. This season was always going to be tougher than the last, setting high expectations following their Champions League win, as well as losing key players like Didier Drogba and facing the inevitability of having to faze out older personnel such as Frank Lampard. The signings of Eden Hazard and Oscar, who have formed a formidable partnership, along with Juan Mata seemed to be the key to this Chelsea transition, however the lack of striking options has placed even more pressure on the misfiring Fernando Torres. The club have undoubtedly taken a different direction to previous years, seeking not only to win, but win in style. However their dip in form, particularly their struggle to qualify for the knockout stages of the Champions League has led to Di Matteo's demise.

Supporters of Di Matteo would point to the fact that there were certain factors beyond his control, ie the lack of John Terry in the team, which has meant that Chelsea have conceded 20 goals in 10 games, although adaptability is an important trait in a top manager. 'Robbie' was always going to struggle to get Mr Abramovich's backing, as I think it's fair to say nobody expected Chelsea to finish the season as strongly as they did, and the plan was only for Di Matteo to stabilise the club until the end of the season. Their success in the Champions League meant that the Chelsea owner was almost forced to hand the Caretaker boss a permanent contract, without him being his first choice. The very fact that the contract was only two years, suggests that he wasn't a long term solution, and I'd go so far as to say the Russian billionaire was almost looking for Di Matteo to slip up in order to implement his master plan.

The timing of the sacking seems somewhat strange with a massive game on Sunday, and some commentators would have thought the club could have waited until January to replace Di Matteo. It seems that Chelsea have a natural replacement lined up in Rafa Benitez, who lives in England and would be ready to begin almost instantly, although this may just be for an interim period, with Pep Guardiola (still on sabbatical) still seemingly Abramovich's first choice.

              

The issue almost inevitably comes back to that of stability being the key to success, however when you have spent billions of Pounds as the Chelsea owner has, impatience can be expected.  Perhaps a more proven young manager (Guardiola) would be afforded more time to mould the club and perhaps Abramovich sought to speed up this process, feeling that although Di Matteo created a togetherness and stability at the club, he wasn't the visionary that Chelsea were looking for. Perhaps this is true, and there may well be question marks surrounding Di Matteo's ability to adapt when in losing positions, but Chelsea fans will not be filled with confidence after the sacking of a ninth manager in eight years, particularly that of a Chelsea legend and someone who brought them two bits of silverware in less than a year,  and if the hierarchy at the club keep reacting like this to dips in form they will soon run out of managerial options.

Harsh? Probably..Strange timing? Yes... Surprising? No..

Let us know your thoughts and opinions in the comment box below!

Manchester City's Enigmatic Champions League Form

                                  

2011/12:

                                                                  Man City 1-1 Napoli
Bayern 2-0 Man City
Man City 2-1 Villarreal
Villarreal 0-3 Man City
Napoli 2-1 Man City
Man City 2-0 Bayern

2012/2013:

Real Madrid 3-2 Man City
Man City 1-1 Dortmund
Ajax 3-1 Man City
Man City 2-2 Ajax

Here are Man City's Champions League results from the last 2 years, results that despite Roberto Mancini winning the title have meant that he is facing more and more pressure. Last season, City finished 3rd in their group, behind Napoli and eventual finalists Bayern Munich, and despite the disappointment many commentators put this down to nerves, with it being the teams first experience of the Champions League. However, even a 3rd place finish seems unlikely this year, with City 2 points behind Ajax and still to play Dortmund away and Real Madrid at home. So how exactly is it that a team that finished with 89 points from 38 games in the league last year has only managed to amass 12 points from their 10 games in the Champions League over the last 2 years?

Zonal Marking: Misunderstood? or Doomed to Fail?

It seems like the zonal marking debate springs up every few weeks, when a team that uses the system concedes from a set piece. Most recently, Man City conceded from a corner in their 3-1 Champions League loss to a much smaller Ajax team. This sparked a post match debate with Graeme Souness stating that he saw "no benefits" to the system. I know what you're thinking, Souness thinks its bad, so it must in fact be good, but this piece will look into why zonal marking comes under so much criticism and whether this is justified.

Firstly, lets look at what zonal marking actually is. If you ask the average bloke in the pub, you will probably get the answer "the defenders mark zones instead of players", which might be right, but is a huge oversimplification and shows why some people may be quick to criticise the system without understanding it. The idea of zonal marking is to cover as much area as possible, whilst also being flexible, so that dummy runs by attacking players don't create large spaces in the box. Another key aspect of the system is that defenders are supposed to cover an area a set number of yards in front and to the side of their starting position, NEVER BACKWARDS. This means defenders can and should attack the ball if it enters their 'zone', therefore they have to be responsible for judging whether the ball is there to be won or not. Commonly, there will be a number of players in a line across the 6 yard box, a 'first man' to cut out any low balls, players at the edge of the area to deal with a ball that is cut back, and to help with attacking breaks, and if the goalkeeper so chooses, men on the post. This is a debate for another day, but I will say this; Managers often get the blame if a goal is scored with no men guarding the posts, however this often up to the goalkeeper, something that was evident for anyone that watched the last instalment of Being: Liverpool where Pepe Reina stated he preferred a player on the edge of the area, rather than at the far post, a fact echoed by Rafa Benitez when asked why he switched from having players on the post to not in between his first and second season (the transition between Dudek and Reina)

         

Like any method of defending set pieces there are variations of zonal marking, whether that be semi-zonal- where key danger-men are man marked and the rest are zonally marked, or a difference in the number of men on the 6 yard line, or at the posts, however the principle remains the same.

The key to zonal marking, as argued by Martin Keown (who is a massive advocate of the system) is flexibility. In a recent article, he wrote "If you are facing Andy Carroll and he moves into a zone where you don't have one of your best headers, then you need to switch to make sure you have your best man there. If two opposition players come into your four metre zone, you have to drag another player in to help you. If your standing with nobody to mark in your zone, move to the edge of it to deny someone space who might later try to run in there." This is an aspect that is often overlooked when analysing its flaws, and may go some way to proving that it is the players that are at fault when a goal is conceded rather than the system. Furthermore, by setting up in a zonal marking system, defenders can track the flight of the ball, rather than just focusing on the player they are marking. Finally, with the increased influence of European styles of football, ie where possession football is encouraged, the system (if worked on properly in training) can lead to a fast and effective counter-attack, rather than hoofing the ball clear and having to deal with a second wave of attack.



There are however, several drawbacks, or limitations to using zonal marking. The point that is most commonly cited when criticising zonal marking is that due to the movement of the attacking players, there is a chance of players being unmarked, when in between two potential zone, a problem that was all to evident when the 5ft 10 Niklas Mosiander snuck in behind Joleon Lescott (6ft 1 1/2) and Vincent Kompany (6ft 2 1/2) to give Ajax a 2-1 lead against Man City last week. Another problem is that players can attack the ball with a running jump which may give them an advantage in their leap.

Of course, an issue with zonal marking is that when it goes wrong, it goes REALLY wrong, and can lead to an unmarked header, naturally exposing it to criticism. The question often posed by supporters of the system is why is every goal conceded from man-to-man marking is not scrutinised in the same way as zonal marking. This was a point Rafa Benitez raised in typically candid fashion in this clip when questioned about the system during his time as Liverpool boss.

     

Benitez is one of the main proponents of zonal marking and the effectiveness of the system during his Liverpool reign can be seen in the table below, where Liverpool had the best defensive record from set pieces, two season running, whilst being in the top 4 of the list in 5/6 of his seasons in charge. Even the one year (2007/8) where Liverpool fell short of this high standard, they still conceded the same amount of goals as the 2010/11 season when Hodgson/Dalglish were in charge.

Courtesy of (http://www.rafabenitez.com/web/index.php?act=mostrarContenidos&co=1143)

This debate is unlikely to go away unless no goals are ever conceded from corners, but for some reason I think that isn't going to happen. Regardless of whether you favour zonal marking or the traditional man-to-man marking system, I'm sure you will agree comments like Souness's are a bit harsh. It seems that man-to-man is tried and tested and is the simplest route to go down, however if as a manager you are willing to take the risk of implementing zonal marking, and as long as you drill the method into the players well so that everybody knows their responsibilities, it can be a very effective tool.

Please feel free to leave your thoughts and comments in the box below!