Interview: Michael Cox, Zonal Marking

The graphs, diagrams and match reports on Zonal Marking are pored over by thousands of football fans the world over and have helped push tactical analysis towards the centre of mainstream football debate in the United Kingdom. Set up in January this year, the phenomenally successful website received an average of 210,000 visitors per week during the World Cup and counts tactical mastermind Jonathan Wilson among its many admirers.

Variously believed to be the work of either a particularly public-spirited professional coach or a crack team of disaffected former Opta employees, the force behind ZM is in fact one man: Michael Cox. He very kindly agreed to grant his first interview to Football Further

FF: A simple question to begin with. Why write about tactics?

The classic Zonal Marking tactical diagram

MC: On an ‘emotional’ level, it’s something that’s always interested me. There’s something of interest in almost every game, and you spot patterns and long-term trends that are actually more important, if less exciting, than one-off moments of magic.

On a less romantic note: because to create a successful blog/site, there has to be a niche, a particular area of interest. It seemed like a bit of a gap in the market. My favourite blogs are the ones that focus on specific areas: Les Rosbifs about English players abroad, or European Football Weekends about away trips. You know there’s going to be a constant theme, you know they’re the definitive source on that area, you know it’s going to be well-researched and display good knowledge. There should be more sites like that – down to really specific things. I love tactics, but if ZM already existed, I would have done it about something else; another niche area.

Your match analysis articles are incredibly detailed and often appear a matter of minutes after the final whistle. What is your routine when you analyse a match? And how do you make sure you don’t miss anything? 

I write down the teams in full, along with numbers. I also have a magnetic mini chalkboard thing with counters, which is better than drawing a diagram out with a pen. Then it’s just a case of making notes about everything that’s notable, and then finding patterns. People sometimes think that the site is a bit know-it-all, but it’s amazing the number of times that I note something like “the left-back gets drawn to the ball too easily,” and the opposition score by exploiting the space in behind the left-back within ten minutes. As for not missing anything, Sky+ helps! It also means you can go back and pause the game when the camera angle switches to views where you can see the whole pitch, to see what’s going on.

Interest in tactics in the United Kingdom has only really gathered pace since the publication of Jonathan Wilson’s book Inverting the Pyramid in 2008. Why have British football fans – and journalists – been so slow on the uptake?

Probably because no-one had done it well until Inverting the Pyramid, and Jonathan’s book was not just very detailed and fascinating, it was accessible, enjoyable and not like a boring coaching manual. It was a story. It probably took someone as good a writer as Jonathan to do that – just like when ‘underground’ music genres break through into the mainstream, it takes a good band to do it. There’s a hell of a lot of research that went into the book, a lot of it original. But it’s like any innovation or invention. After the wheel was invented, people probably wondered why no-one had done it before!

There’s a significant body of thought in the UK that asserts that the importance of tactics is wildly exaggerated and that games are really determined by more prosaic factors like hard work, effort and good old-fashioned luck. What do you say to people who tell you tactics don’t matter?

They certainly matter. They don’t matter as much as you’d think if you only read ZM, but then it’s a tactics website. (An oft-repeated complaint in the comments section is that ZM focuses on the tactics, when actually the game was decided by a refereeing decision, a lucky deflection etc. Which is entirely fair – tactics aren’t the only thing, or arguably even the main thing – but it misses the point: it’s a website about tactics. It would be like an article on a website about drums saying how good the drumming on, say, a Beatles track is, and people commenting, “But how can you ignore the guitars and the vocals?”) Tactics unquestionably do matter – you can see that simply by shifts in the way games progress following a substitution, and by trends that occur over the long-term. If it’s not about tactics, how come the pyramid has been inverted?

A common observation on ZM is that, for example, a team playing 4-3-3 will always be able to dominate a team playing 4-4-2 in central midfield and is therefore always likely to prevail against them. If that is the case, why do so many highly paid and well regarded coaches persist with what appear to be unbalanced formations? Can it really be that simple?

The tactics bible

There’s definitely patterns, although it’s never simply an x > y thing. With 4-3-3 and 4-4-2, 4-3-3 obviously tends to dominate the centre of the pitch, and that’s more important now than 20 years ago because there’s so much more focus upon possession than there was 20 years ago. 4-4-2 is a more direct system, but people can still be successful with it, in certain circumstances, and maybe only up to a certain level. Some managers are just set in their ways, some aren’t good at embracing change and understanding how the game has progressed. But using a new system is quite brave considering how little time managers are given these days, as it’s often a gamble to get a group of players to play a different way.

The success of ZM has prompted a marked rise in the number of people blogging about tactics. Do you think there’s room for detailed tactical analysis in mainstream football media – perhaps as a complement to traditional match reports – or will tactical writing always be confined to the wilds of the blogosphere?

There’s certainly a place for it. Whether it’s online or in print, it’s difficult to say without bringing in the wider issue of the decline of print journalism and the rise of online journalism. But it has to change slightly, simply because football viewing has changed so much in the past 15 years, and newspapers haven’t quite caught up. Fifteen years ago, you’d have two Premiership matches on TV each weekend, and for the rest you’d only get 5-10 minute highlights on Match of the Day. That was it – if you wanted to know more about the game, you’d have to either go to it, or you’d read about it in the newspapers. Nowadays, there are four games on [TV] a weekend, Sky do 45-minute highlights of every Premiership game, and you can watch pretty much every game on the internet through dodgy websites. So many more people are watching the game, that there’s less of a need for a report that simply says what happened. You need more – analysis, insight, etc. Sometimes I sit down and read a match report and think, “Why am I bothering? I watched the game, I don’t need to be told what happened.” That’s a slight exaggeration but is rooted in truth.

It’s great if there’s more interest in tactical stuff, but my favourite two blogs for tactical stuff are yours and Arsenal Column, both of which pre-dated ZM. (I also love Tim Hill, not sure when he started). That probably says a lot – I think writing about tactics is fairly niche. A few people have set up blogs that they’ve told me were inspired by ZM, which is a tremendously nice, but I think you have to be really into it. As I said before, I think the ‘success’ of ZM (not my words!) is not necessarily because of the subject matter itself, but because it was about something different, something in particular. The blogosphere is, I think, on the verge of being potentially really ‘big’ in football, as it has been in political coverage. There’s a lot of great writers and importantly, some pros who do great blogs too (proper blogs, not just online newspaper columns called ‘blogs’) like yourself, Iain Macintosh or Kay Murray.

It’s been said that the classic playmaker is a dying breed, but the World Cup featured plenty of influential creative players – including Xavi, Wesley Sneijder and Mesut Özil – who played in advanced, central positions behind a lone central forward. What’s changed?

I’m not sure I quite see them as a classic playmaker. They’re not like [Juan Carlos] Valerón, Rui Costa, and [Juan Román] Riquelme. Sneijder and Özil played very close to the forward, which might be a new role as you’ve discussed very nicely. Sneijder didn’t really do much playmaking, did he? He was essentially there as a goalscorer. Özil was superb, but he only did well when he was given space between the lines. Australia pressed high and left him free. Ghana let him wander in behind the midfield. England had no proper holding player. Xavi was a strange case. I don’t think it was his best position, but he was still incredible because he’s Xavi. Spain just played such a distinct possession-based approach that they could put a central midfielder in a number 10 role. I’m not completely convinced anything has quite changed in terms of the decline of the playmaker, although a lot of people disagreed with that piece in the first place. But I think they tend to be higher or deeper or more versatile than ten years ago.

Full-backs have become such important attacking elements in recent years that they often spend more time in the opposition’s half than their own. Why, then, do we keep referring to teams playing with a back four? Is it not time to accept that a 4-3-3 is really more akin to a 2-5-3, that a 4-2-3-1 is really a 2-4-3-1?

A proper playmaker: Juan Carlos Valeron

There’s a case for that. I’m a bit of a traditionalist though. On ZM for diagrams and notations I state that I take the side generally in their ‘defensive’ shape, where full-backs retreat into a solid back four. The exception comes when a side presses intensely, so that even when defending, they’re high up the pitch. Chile’s alternative shape, called 4-2-1-3 on ZM, was probably more of a 2-4-1-3. But I don’t really like that, the same way I don’t like five-band formations like 4-1-3-1-1 – it overcomplicates things. Even if 4-3-3 is wrong, people still know what it means, which is the main thing.

England’s failure at the World Cup was variously attributed to fatigue, lack of heart, lack of technique, lack of tactical flexibility and an inability to play anything other than blood-and-thunder 100mph Premier League football. How do you see it?

I thought tactics came down to it a lot, I stand by everything I wrote after the Germany game, because nothing has changed since then. [Fabio] Capello got a lot of things wrong. His basic mistake was that not one of his attacking players was in their favoured position, so it’s no wonder they looked lost. Tactically it was a complete disaster. The criticism of Capello has been tremendously harsh, though. He got things wrong, but you have to have faith that a manager as experienced and as successful as him can learn from his mistakes.

Assuming that studying tactics so intently has not completely diluted your passion for the game as a spectacle (!), which teams do you enjoy watching?

No, quite the opposite! People often ask if it makes football less enjoyable, but it’s not the case. Games that many people find boring, I find fascinating, and the more knowledge you have about football, the more you enjoy it. I’m convinced of that. Last season I had two particular favourites – Roma, who had a tremendous, unique formation that worked brilliantly, and a wonderful free-flowing approach to the game. Benfica were also a great side – [Óscar] Cardozo, [Javier] Saviola, [Pablo] Aimar, Ángel di María and Ramires in the same team, with [Maxi] Pereira and [Fábio] Coentrão attacking from full-back. Tremendous. I also like Zenit St Petersburg and Palermo at the moment.

What is it about Zenit and Palermo that particularly floats your boat?

Zenit are interesting because of their system: a striker who drifts to the flank and allows space for midfield runners. Danny is also a great player to watch; frustrating and underwhelming, but very, very talented. Palermo is mainly because of [Fabrizio] Miccoli and [Javier] Pastore, who are two of my favourite players around at the moment.

What advice would you give to people who want to develop their tactical understanding of the game?

Read ZM! No, I think there’s only two key ways: 1. Watch a lot of football; and 2. Read a lot of good writing about it. The emphasis falling on point one.

You can follow Zonal Marking on Twitter and read more of Michael’s writing at The Guardian and FourFourTwo.

15 Responses to “Interview: Michael Cox, Zonal Marking

  • Fascinating stuff. If I may pose a question of my own – are these interviews really carried out in person, or is it all done in writing?

  • […] Link des Tages: Fußball und… Taktikanalyse Veröffentlicht am Mittwoch, 8. September 2010 von manu| Einen Kommentar hinterlassen Bitte für heute abend durcharbeiten und zusammenfassen. […]

  • […] the world of politics.The GameRohan Ricketts: The truth about sex and footballers.Football Further: Interview with Michael Cox of Zonal Marking.FifaEuropean clubs have appealed to football’s authorities to […]

  • Great questions, great anwsers.

    Through the past 6 months I have gone on a quest of learning more about football tactics. One of the ways I have done this has been through constant reading, then trying to apply my knowledge to what I can see on the pitch, with varied success. But then discussing these findings with people.

    I totally agree that close analysis of the games can turn dull games into fasinating ones. Instead of passively waiting for end to end excitement. Many found the World Cup boring, but although it wasn’t the greatest of competitions, because for the first time I was really looking at the game in greater detail. Although I did find some of the England games more painful.

    Although my aspiration to learn more about football was so that I can recreate such tactical knowledge in the Football Manager games that I write about. I got to say the basic priniciples have transferred well (unfortantely not perfect). When re-creating tactics I often will look at articles that have been published by yourself, zonalmarking and a like. I think that the knowledge is valuable to those who want to become better at the game and it is why I will often direct my readers, followers into the direction of your articles.

  • […] Interview: Michael Cox, Zonal Marking “The graphs, diagrams and match reports on Zonal Marking are pored over by thousands of football fans the world over and have helped push tactical analysis towards the centre of mainstream football debate in the United Kingdom. Set up in January this year, the phenomenally successful website received an average of 210,000 visitors per week during the World Cup and counts tactical mastermind Jonathan Wilson among its many admirers.” (Football Further) […]

  • kt:

    First ever interview, is he the Queen or something? I would have liked to learn more about his background, how he became such an expert on tactics, how he finds the time to do it (trust fund)?
    I’d also love to see a 1 on 1 where he takes Capello through where he went wrong at the World Cup.

  • David:

    I agree with kt. I’d love to know more about Mr. Cox’s background. Has he ever played or coached? Is he a journalist? Otherwise, a great read.

  • kd:

    @david / kt
    It’s up to him how much he wants to share, though I agree it would be nice to hear more about his background.
    Prior to launching Zonal Marking, he was shortlisted for Sports writer of the year at the 2009 Student Media Awards:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/student-media-awards-2009/shortlist

  • Adam:

    Excellent interview, Tom.

  • […] Ich habe keine Ahnung, wie intensiv sich die Betreiber von Taktikblogs mit fußballtheoretischen Fragen befassen oder befasst haben. Ob sie Trainerlizenzen haben, seit Jahren als Scouts tätig sind, die einschlägige Literatur aus dem Effeff kennen oder eben „nur“ gebildete Laien sind. Letztlich ist das zwar irrelevant, wenn die Inhalte gut sind (was ich auf Basis der Analysen und deren Vergleich mit meiner eigenen Wahrnehmung – die wiederum die eines Laien ist, klar – beurteile), und doch muss ich zugeben, dass ich zunächst ein wenig irritiert war, als ich vor einigen Wochen las, der Mann hinter Zonal Marking, Michael Cox, sei zwar schon immer an Taktik interessiert gewesen, hätte aber genauso gut und wohl auch gern über etwas anderes schreiben können, wenn er einen Markt dafür gesehen hätte: „On a less romantic note: because to create a successful blog/site, there has to be a niche, a partic…„ […]

  • hwk:

    With ZM, 11 tegen 11, etc. etc. I started to read a lot about football (And I think it’ll be too much at some point).
    But Mr. Cox is right, you start to enjoy the game on a different level. Hard to understand for some people (fans who like the magic of the superstars and ‘old’ people).

    When we talk about playmakers like Özil and Sneijder, we should also talk about playmakers like Pirlo, Xavi, Alonso …
    A lot of teams play with two playmakers: Germany did against Turkey with Özil and Kroos, Schalke second half against Tel Aviv with Jurado and Rakitic.

    It’s like some ‘systems’ are changing to 4-2-4 with a playmaker in the midfield and on in the attacking front. but this are just numbers 4-2-4, 4-3-3, 3-4-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-2-1-3, 3-3-1-3 call it how you like it.

  • […] Cox, Herausgeber von Zonalmarking, erklärt es folgendermaßen: „Bei einem Spiel 4-3-3 gegen 4-4-2 tendiert das 4-3-3 immer dazu, die Spielfeldmitte zu kontrollie… (Anm. d. Red.: Das 4-3-3, was Michael Cox meint, ist identisch mit dem, was wir Deutschen unter […]

  • Ed:

    With regard to the notation of full-backs, they are considered defenders as their primary brief is still to defend – even if they are increasingly positioned in more advanced on-pitch areas than their centrally located counterparts. When devising models of formations we classify players based on an understanding of their roles as much averaged coordinate positions. Formations are therefore epistemological as well as ontological: our understanding of player responsibilities mediates representations of what physically occurs on the pitch. There’s further explication of this perspective here: http://worldcupcollege.com/2010/06/18/formations-cartesian-coordinates-or-dasein/

Leave a Reply

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Archives
Wikio - Top Blogs - Football