coachmccormick
Admin
Admin
| Posts: 623 |  |
Karma: 0
|
Re:Zone Offense question - 2008/01/07 19:03
It depends on personnel and how you attack. Most zones work because players get passive and stop moving. If that happens, your alignment or philosophy does not really matter. If you stay aggressive and move the ball, again, your alignment should not matter that much.
We faced a team who ran a 2-3 set against a 2-3 defense. They executed better against a zone than any team I have seen. They utilized both corners and the high and low post. When the ball was moved quickly from side to side, they always caught the defense out of position.
Whether you start matched up with the zone or not, you always attack open spots. If I have the ball and I attack with the dribble, I am attacking a gap, whether I start matched up with a defender or not. If I cut, I cut into an open area whether I am matched with the defender or not. In many ways, it's sematics.
My team right now starts with a four-out against a zone. However, you could say it is a 2 -3 alignment or even a 2-2-1 alignment, depending on how technical you want to get.
I think the philosophy is the same: man or zone, if you can get 2 players to guard 1, somebody is open. Now, how you create these situations differs, whether you set a lot of screens and force two players to go with the cutter, leaving the screener open, or you dribble penetrate to draw help and kick to the open man or you get the ball into the post and draw a double team and kick.
The point that I always find interesting is that against man defense, many teams try to create spacing to isolate a player 1v1, especially on the block. However, somehow this principle does not hold against zones. If I can get my post player isolated 1v1 on the block against a zone, I think that is good offense, just as I do against man defense. I think zones trick players into thinking they can only pass to players in wide open space. But, what's the difference between a post isolated 1v1 in man versus in zone?
|
