The hallowed grounds of Turin have recently witnessed a rather unsettling phenomenon: a Juventus side, traditionally renowned for its ironclad defense, demonstrating an alarming fragility. Following a draw against Villarreal in the Champions League, the spotlight has once again intensified on the Bianconeri`s defensive vulnerabilities, prompting former World Cup winner Fulvio Collovati to voice a pointed critique that resonates with a broader tactical debate in modern football.
The Scholastic and Fragile Defense
Collovati, a man who understood the art of defending, didn`t mince words. He described Juventus` current defensive setup as “too scholastic” and “fragile.” This isn`t merely a casual observation but a technical assessment, implying a predictability and lack of adaptive robustness. The issue, he notes, isn`t new; it’s a recurring theme that plagued the team even in the previous season. One might ponder, in an era of sophisticated data analysis and highly specialized coaching, how a top-tier club like Juventus could consistently falter in such a fundamental aspect of the game.
Interestingly, Collovati dismisses the notion of a physical deficit. With players like Gatti and Kelly, known for their stature, and Bremer, widely regarded as one of Italy`s premier defenders, the personnel, at least on paper, seem more than adequate. This suggests that the problem isn`t individual talent or physicality, but rather a systemic, tactical flaw. A team relying heavily on individual brilliance for offense, as Collovati hints at with mentions of Yildiz or Conceição, often indicates an underlying structural issue, which can manifest equally in defense.
The Zone Marking Dilemma: A Modern Scourge?
The crux of Collovati`s criticism, however, targets a specific tactical trend: the widespread adoption of zone marking on set pieces. “This fashion of zone marking is causing a lot of damage,” he declared, echoing a sentiment that periodically resurfaces among football purists and pragmatists alike. For decades, the debate between zone and man-marking has swung back and forth, each having its proponents and detractors.
Why Zone Marking?
Zone marking, particularly from dead-ball situations, gained traction for several reasons:
- Simplicity: It`s often perceived as easier to coach, requiring players to defend a specific area rather than tracking an opponent across the box.
- Shape Retention: It aims to maintain a defensive shape, preventing large gaps from appearing if individual markers are beaten.
- Anticipation: Defenders can focus on the ball`s trajectory and the space it will land in, rather than being dragged out of position by an attacker`s movement.
Yet, as Collovati suggests, this modern approach might have a critical Achilles` heel. The elegance of maintaining shape can often come at the expense of individual accountability. When no one player is directly responsible for a specific opponent, the blame for a goal conceded from a set piece can become diffuse, a collective failure rather than a clear individual lapse. It`s a bit like a committee decision – everyone`s responsible, so perhaps no one truly is.
The Case for Man-Marking: A Return to Basics?
Collovati`s solution is refreshingly old-school: “If we went back to defending like before, at least in these situations, it would be better. Everyone takes a man and assumes responsibility for the marking.” This isn`t a call for tactical regression, but perhaps a pragmatic acknowledgment that certain fundamental principles remain immutable. Man-marking on set pieces, while seemingly less “sophisticated,” offers undeniable advantages:
- Clear Responsibility: Each defender has a direct opponent. If that opponent scores, the accountability is clear.
- Aggression: It encourages a more aggressive, front-foot defensive approach, with defenders actively engaging their man.
- Psychological Edge: Knowing an opponent is specifically tasked with stopping you can be unnerving for attackers.
Of course, man-marking isn`t without its challenges. Attackers can use blocks, screens, and clever movement to create space for teammates. But the underlying premise is a direct confrontation, a duel where individual resolve and skill are paramount.
Juventus as a Case Study: A Wider Symptom?
Juventus` struggles, therefore, transcend mere results. They serve as a stark reminder of the delicate balance in football tactics. The pursuit of innovative, often more complex, defensive systems can sometimes overlook the raw effectiveness of simpler, more direct methods. Collovati`s critique is not just about one club`s predicament; it`s a commentary on a broader trend where the emphasis on collective zonal defending might be inadvertently stripping teams of that individual, desperate resolve to prevent a goal.
“Sometimes, the old ways are the best ways, especially when you`re trying to stop a ball from going into your own net.”
Is Juventus an anomaly, or are they simply the most prominent example of a widespread tactical vulnerability in modern football? As clubs increasingly chase marginal gains and tactical nuances, the timeless wisdom of individual responsibility in defense might be a lesson worth revisiting. For Juventus, the path back to defensive solidity might not lie in further tactical complexity, but in a simpler, more accountable approach, one where every player knows their man and their mission.
