As I star this thread, I feel like one of the men of Hickory in Hoosiers who think they are smarter than the high school basketball coach. Bad way to start...
The last two coaches were absolutely stubborn about playing exclusive man to man. BG and AM would snap out of the zone as soon as the first 3 was swished. I'd love to see the total number of minutes played in zone during the last 15 years. I would guess less than 75 minutes total. (5 minutes a year). OP on the other had seemed to be brilliant at throwing a full court press and/or zone at times to throw the other team off balance.
Friday night, I saw AG switch to a zone in the second half and cringed. Ball State was firing up 3s at a scary pace, but the UD defense was playing ole defense against the dribble penetration. Did anyone else wince in pain also? AG did not stay in the zone for long.
Most coaches hate playing zone D. They like to play their man to man with zone principles. AM had a very difficult time getting his first two teams to play his defensive philosophy. The last classes master his defensive scheme with great results.
Conversely, UD teams going back to the
Donoher era have always struggled against zones. There were a couple of exceptions of course.
Let's start a zone vs. man to man discussion.
My two cents.
1. I would like to see it used once in a while to disrupt the flow of the other team. I'm not into the Syracuse or John Cheney 100% zone effect.
2. I think zones are more effective with taller players especially at the guard position. DD with long arms would fit into a zone scheme. Kostas clearly would.
3. Zones are worthless against teams that have great outside shooters, like Davidson and St. Bonaventure.
4. Teams playing zone are vulnerable on the glass.
5. Since you have practice zone offense, shouldn't you practice zone D as well and become somewhat respectable playing it
6. A zone aligns better with a full court trapping press
For what it is worth.
