retired_liv1

My opinion on tight marking is that, if you have a great centre back that can have that striker in the bag then select him as tight marking as you dont want him to have any space at all. I would suggest that you would also have to have man marking ticked. Im not too sure of the effects tight marking would have when your DC is on zonal, never tried that maybe someone can shed some light, but it defies logic to me to have Zonal and Tight.

retired_management team

Another point of view is: it depends on the physical qualities of the players. If you play a slow and tall striker it is wise to tight mark him and maybe man mark him. If you play against small and fat striker who roams about it is wise to play zonal as he will take your DCs out of position.

Generally it is a good idea to man-mark and tight-mark a striker who is physically inferior (when your DC has better jumping, pace, acceleration and strength) as your DC will harass him all over the place.

I now play in the Conference where the physical attributes are really important as technical skill is limited. That is why I decide how to defend based on physical qualities.

retired_Balanchinegal

I tend to have the back four on tight man marking and the rest loose zonal.
I don't select a single man to specifically mark as I've done before and never really seemed to make a difference, plus, he (the oppo striker) would usually pull my Defenders out of position and create big gaps.
Gaps = mayhem.

Alpine

More often than not, I tend to stick with Zonal. However I always seem to be conceding in the late minutes of the game, and they always come from wide. Obviously you can stop this with a lot of tweaking, packing the midfield, changing time wasting etc etc. But the main thing I do, is have the full backs, and wide men, man marking. Just seams to cut out a lot of opportunities from wide, and mainly stops them finding space, in behind the defence.