isn't it a bit like zonal marking?

in that it only gets commented on when something goes wrong.

When a team that uses man-to-man marking, for instance, concedes from a corner you never ever hear commentators remark that man-to-man is to blame. But when teams using zonal marking concede from a corner commentators go on about it endlessly, despite the fact that statistically teams using zonal are no worse at defending corners than teams using man-to-man.

No-one ever says that a team did badly because they WEREN'T employing a technical director, but if a team that does emply one starts doing badly...

Posted By: mr carra, May 20, 10:12:15