2 / 3 Zone
- Thread starter lunker35
- Start date
First of all, we weren't playing a 2/3 zone, we were playing a 3/2. And it was abandoned because of the inability to keep Cockburn off the boards on misses, and the open threes generated when the brought a man to the free throw line or elbow (behind the front 3) who then kicked the ball out to an open man for yet another 3 point shot.
Those IL fans were not paying much attention.
First like said above, it was not a 2-3, it was a 3-2, you could call it a 1-2-2 if you prefer.
Second, we did not start the 2nd half in man to man. If we did, we might have won the game. We switched to it, I believe with 11 minutes to go after Cockburn made a layup that put them up by 5. We were outscore 25-5 in the zone. By that time IL was so in the flow you could have had 6 players on the court and we'd still have lost the game.
First like said above, it was not a 2-3, it was a 3-2, you could call it a 1-2-2 if you prefer.
Second, we did not start the 2nd half in man to man. If we did, we might have won the game. We switched to it, I believe with 11 minutes to go after Cockburn made a layup that put them up by 5. We were outscore 25-5 in the zone. By that time IL was so in the flow you could have had 6 players on the court and we'd still have lost the game.
We did start the second half in man I believe. That lasted about two possessions though and then we were back in the zone. But right away, you could tell that Illinois' approach to the zone was completely different - almost as if they had done some coaching at half time.
See my other post, but yes, we played the 3-2 zone in the 1st half due to foul trouble, started the 2nd half in man, and then had to abandon it after we gave up 8 points in 3 possessions. We then switched back to zone, which worked for a brief time before they figured it out, then switched back to man, which also worked for a brief time before they destroyed us.
Collins has no faith in his zone. It has worked pretty well especially against Michigan State but when a team hits a few threes or a few offensive putback he runs like heck away from it. This team is not good defensively man to man. He should probably just work on the zone and stick with it.
I don't know if I agree with the statement that our team is not good man-to-man. I think many of our players are good man-to-man. We just have a few players that are liabilities in man-to-man defense - Kopp is the primary example that comes to mind. Zone defenses can tend to compensate for lineups where there is one or two weak links if they were to play man defense.
I think a more accurate statement is that Collins doesn't have faith in certain line-ups to play man-to-man successfully, which is why he plays zone on occasion.
If anything, I think he tends to stick with zone a little too long. I actually like the idea of switching up defenses a little more frequently, perhaps every 6-7 possessions. I don't think it is good for the players to switch defense more frequently, as it can lead to miscommunications and breakdowns if one player forgets to switch. But staying with zone or man too long can allow the other team to adjust over time. Mixing it up is a good thing.
I think that only the most athletically gifted teams in the NCAA can afford to go man-to-man all game long.
I agree with Lunker. NU built a 15 point lead using the 3-2 zone with Buie and Audige on the bench. Both started the second half with NU in a man D. Buie drove recklessly to the baseline on the first possession and Audige jacked up a few bricks-15 point lead gone in a few minutes
Similar threads
