On the other hand, just ask Arizona that got shut down by Clemson's zone.
Zone Defense doesn't work?
- Thread starter uk78
- Start date
Ask the danglers, they will tell you it doesn’t work, when they come up for air.
I will say this. Oregon’s match up zone got them beat them playing Creighton. But overall, being able to change defenses will win games for you.
Yeah, I agree with this. I don't think you have to play a zone as your primary defense necessarily, though it can work when it is done well. But the main thing is, as you say, the ability to change defenses to disrupt the offensive rhythm of an opponent that is scoring fairly easily against your usual defense. Teams that are able to insert another defense quickly are usually very effective.
Cal being a one trick pony should be a fire-able offense in of itself. Cant teach a simple zone defense as a HOF coach is an embarrassment to his profession. He joked about it how they didn’t know what they were doing and thought it was cute, rather than a dereliction of his duties.
This is the answer. Teams that can and do switch it up have the most success. Teams that only play zone, thst only play man, that only play …, are more predictable and thus easier to beat.
True even if 90% of the time you play 1 defensive style.
You’ve got to have some versatility on both ends of the court.
It is VERY easy to switch defense both between and during possessions, based on a verbal command or hand signal. You can even have a captain on the floor signal the change.,
The key is to practice and perfect doing it.
Switch to a zone every 7-8 possessions.. Just to change it up occasionally. But sometimes that can still backfire.
But if you ONLY play 1 style of D it's easier to game plan against.
But if you ONLY play 1 style of D it's easier to game plan against.
Yes. A pitcher cannot be successful long-term with only one pitch.
I have been saying all year, this UK team was built to run a 1-3-1 and 1-2-2 and mix it with man to man. None of that is hard to teach. 1-3-1 you teach 2 guys how to play the point and the back on that. The other 3 are play a standard 2-3 zone for the most part. 1-2-2 is a little tougher but still does not take forever to teach. You had bradshaw and Z that could have been the top 2 and Mitchell, Adou and UGO to do the botton. Burks could have learned both easily. We could have done the 3-2 (like we did a couple of times in the 80s with Bowie on top and turpin and walker down low with guards on the wings. Just too easy.
It works sometimes. Other times man to man is better. Obviously, the right think to do is adjust to give yourself the best advantage against opponents and situations.
What little we play zone we are so inactive it is pointless to do it. They definitely feed off the coaches lack of commitment to it.
Cal has cost us quite a few games by not utilizing a zone, and I'm almost certain he cost us a championship.
Its always been an assinine idea to make yourself one dimentional.
Its always been an assinine idea to make yourself one dimentional.
Yes, it would be beneficial for Cal to at least sprinkle in a zone when needed, or at least have the capacity to do so...
However, the Oakland game would have not been the one to play zone. The zone encourages outside looks, and the way Oakland/Goehlke shot from deep (mostly on highly contested shots), the last thing a defense should do in that situation is to play zone.
Also, I wasn't upset with our defense. UK lost because Shep and Dilly shrunk in the moment and didn't handle the pressure well. They shot a combined 3-14 (had plenty of open looks that they missed badly), were very timid, and Reed looked like he had never played the game of basketball before (what was up with him throwing two passes into the seats?)...was one of the few times I actually wanted Edwards in over them, because at least he was playing aggressively and wasn't shrinking in the moment.
However, the Oakland game would have not been the one to play zone. The zone encourages outside looks, and the way Oakland/Goehlke shot from deep (mostly on highly contested shots), the last thing a defense should do in that situation is to play zone.
Also, I wasn't upset with our defense. UK lost because Shep and Dilly shrunk in the moment and didn't handle the pressure well. They shot a combined 3-14 (had plenty of open looks that they missed badly), were very timid, and Reed looked like he had never played the game of basketball before (what was up with him throwing two passes into the seats?)...was one of the few times I actually wanted Edwards in over them, because at least he was playing aggressively and wasn't shrinking in the moment.
Unless your name is Mariano Rivera and the pitch was his cut fastball.
You can be good only playing man to man but you have to be well coached and have the right players. If your players can stop dribble penetration, defend the rim, rebound, and know which players you have to double and when and which guys you can leave, then you can play just man to man.
But a bunch of freshmen aren't likely to be able to do all that.
Every coach worth a crap has the ability to be multiple on defense. Zone being your primary defense doesn't work 99% of the time but it's a great tool to have in the toolbox.
The truth is we shall never know because Cal never had them practice any zone enough to be any good. Yes, Goehike was hot but look at the way he was shooting, it was always on the move. What would have happened with the stationary 3's a zone offers instead? Again, we will never know because there was no adjustment to any of the cross screens that Oakland utilized to get him his shot. The zone would have possibly minimized the cross screen. Again no adjustments allowed what occurred.
Let's not forget our man defense was bad all season.
There are plenty of teams that have had success playing zone, even the great A hole Bobby Knight played it from time to time. Not having a zone as an option is just part of being a lazy coach who is not prepared. Roll the ball out Cal doesn't prep for anything.
It’s not a guarantee that someone shoots as well against a zone than they do man to man. Against man to man you are cutting all over the floor, running off screens and constantly shooting the ball in a rhythm of which when you have found it as a shooter it’s almost impossible to miss. I’ve been on heaters where all I had to do was get the ball out of my hands and knew it was going in. Just breaking up that rhythm is key which if switching from man to zone or zone to man the catch and shoot will be a different rhythm (if only slightly) and enough to force an adjustment on the players part and the teams part for getting him those same looks.
Jim boeheim won one championship in 40 years with it
You should run zone when you are smaller..its not a magical mysterious defense that some claim
Has a team won a game in the tournament that ran some kind of press, so we can then claim that's the real solution? If we're just picking random samples
You should run zone when you are smaller..its not a magical mysterious defense that some claim
Has a team won a game in the tournament that ran some kind of press, so we can then claim that's the real solution? If we're just picking random samples
Cal won't run a zone, until he does. And then when he finally does, he shuts it down as soon as the opponent scores 1 time.
"There Bennies, I ran your zone. The other team scored. See?"
Cal is completely fine with running man all game and watching his opponent score 100+, though.
Two things we can be fairly sure of about Cal and zones is #1 he doesn't know how to teach a zone which leads us to #2 why he won't play one, which makes sense. So our only alternative is to bring in a defensive whiz to teach zone and a good man defense, (Cals not very good at teaching man either but thinks he is) to go along with our newly found offensive coach.
Yep, that is definitely the key. If the coach is saying "OK, we may try this if we have to," nobody will commit to it or really even care to put forth the effort needed to make it work. And, of course, when our guys give up a 3, Cal says "See?! That's why we don't run it." I do understand the point behind it, knowing guys need to be able to play man to man at the next level and guarding your man is the most important part of learning to play defense. But when it's just not working, and painfully so, you must have a plan. And that's where Calipari’s stubbornness comes into play. Teams know the only way he's playing a zone is when his team is getting beat, so why prepare for it? Texas A&M and Oakland both knew exactly how to prepare for UK.
How many times does it have to be said the zone is used only as a back-up change up defense when your team can't guard a fence post and some teams just don't like playing against a zone think Kentucky against Oakland.
Similar threads
