On the other hand, just ask Arizona that got shut down by Clemson's zone.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If u can't shoot it doesOn the other hand, just ask Arizona that got shut down by Clemson's zone.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.,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.
Yes. A pitcher cannot be successful long-term with only one pitch.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.
Unless your name is Mariano Rivera and the pitch was his cut fastball.Yes. A pitcher cannot be successful long-term with only one pitch.
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.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.
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.On the other hand, just ask Arizona that got shut down by Clemson's zone.
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.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.
On the other hand, just ask Arizona that got shut down by Clemson's zone.
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.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.
There’s hundreds of coaches that run man that have won 0 championshipsJim 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