D
Dr. Martin2
Guest
Congrats to USA, well deserved!
U
usagre2
Guest
i come out of this tournament with a greater respect for turkey for standing up to the usa for 30 minutes. no other team came close to accomplishing that.
and although i have classified the 2006 greece upset as a fluke or a miracle i do that because i don't think they could have duplicated that performance. like a once in a life-time. but that doesn't diminish in any way the fact that they actually did it. and as the years roll by and that remains the only blemish in the coach k/ colangelo era, those greek players and coaches should be praised for doing what the rest of the world has been futile in accomplishing.
and although i have classified the 2006 greece upset as a fluke or a miracle i do that because i don't think they could have duplicated that performance. like a once in a life-time. but that doesn't diminish in any way the fact that they actually did it. and as the years roll by and that remains the only blemish in the coach k/ colangelo era, those greek players and coaches should be praised for doing what the rest of the world has been futile in accomplishing.
H
Herkus2
Guest
It's amazing how the rest of the basketball world hasn't moved from where it stood at 22 years a go.
In 1992 Olympics in barcelona for the first time US gathered their best ever squad made up of best players at that time in NBA. They crushed every team. Only a handfull of europeans played in NBA back then. 22 years on, every major basketball nation in the world has more than a few players in NBA. Yet the result is all the same.
My question: where did it go wrong for other teams that they are so powerless against US?
By no means I'm blaming US, but do you think europeans and other continents' teams are doing something fundamentally wrong if the gap in 22 years hasn't decreased?
In 1992 Olympics in barcelona for the first time US gathered their best ever squad made up of best players at that time in NBA. They crushed every team. Only a handfull of europeans played in NBA back then. 22 years on, every major basketball nation in the world has more than a few players in NBA. Yet the result is all the same.
My question: where did it go wrong for other teams that they are so powerless against US?
By no means I'm blaming US, but do you think europeans and other continents' teams are doing something fundamentally wrong if the gap in 22 years hasn't decreased?
B
Bad Boys 28822
Guest
USA still has 90% of the elite players. USA also has the best coaches.
I said this before, but European coaches simply are not used to handling elite talent. They're too often absorbed showing how smart they are that they forget to let the players play. So many of the best coaches in Europe learned from studying American coaches. The problem is they only study the plays. They don't look at how the top coaches handle their players.
American coaches learned long ago that the more gifted your players are, the less actual "coaching" you should be doing. You are there to make your players look good. Your players are not there to make you look good. There is no set offense in basketball that scores more baskets than a fast break. Your main objective in any game is to score more points than the opponent. You have two very simple goals: to increase the rate that you score points, and to decrease the rate your opponent scores points. Your goal is not to achieve the most passes per possession or to hold the ball for the longest time.
Coach K is known as one of the best basketball coaches ever. He's won championships at Duke with both great talent (1991/1992/2001) and almost no talented players at all (2010). He's adaptable, which is why he's so well respected. He learned his management skills from the original Dream Team and NBA coaching legend Chuck Daly, who was never an elite strategist but was an outstanding manager and motivator of players.
How does coaching relate to talent? I believe they feed into each other. European talent is often stymied by the restrictions placed on them. Their creative freedom to grow as individuals is often held back in the developmental process while they get instructed like soldiers.
The players that make it over here to become elite are the creative ones (Pau/Dirk/Manu) that don't get that aspect coached out of them at an early age.
here is the list of the most efficient players in the NBA from last season, determined by PER:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics
25 of the top 30 players on this list are American, and Nowitzki is the highest ranked foreigner at #12. Other four are Dragic (#20) Pekovic (#23) Ginobili and Noah (both tied for #29). And by including Noah I'm being generous because he was born and developed here.
I appreciate that the NBA is much more multinational than it used to be, but the elite talents are still grown here. When another country has its "golden generation," it's mostly luck. Argentina has nothing in reserve to replace their stars, Spain has a steady stream of talent but Pau Gasol is still their first and only elite player (Rubio has a small chance), and the same goes for France and Tony Parker. Germany and China went from irrelevant to relevant and then back out of existence with Dirk and Yao.
On the other hand, the USA can send 4-5 different teams to Rio in 2016 and be reasonably certain of winning gold, meaning there is an American talent pool of 50-60 players at any given time capable of forming a dominant 12-man national team. The rest of the world is decades behind in depth.
The next step for the rest of the world will take place when a country challenges the US and beats them, and then the next generation from that country does the same.
Last edited by a moderator:
U
usagre2
Guest
excellent post especially interesting is your take on european coaching. it will be extremely interesting to see how david blatt will fair with cleveland.
although he is american he clearly comes from the european school. will he handcuff lebron, kyrie, and kevin love by incorporating some rigid form of offense?
i doubt it. he seems like a bright guy who will realize that a little guidance from him will be enough.
H
Herkus2
Guest
Agreed. I think coaching is one of the key areas. I don't think there is any national team in Europe coached by credible american.Would it be wise for europeans to hire more american coaches so that some of that mentality would start penetrating their habits on the couurt. I think also defence. Americans defend on totally different level. They just don't allow others to move so easily. Scoring for others become so difficult.
Untill and unless the rest of the world catches with US, I see no chances for basketball gaining popularity on wider audiences.
B
Bad Boys 28822
Guest
David Blatt is European basketball's greatest hope, as funny as that sounds because he is not European and he is a coach and not a player. But he has a chance to be an example to other European coaches that you don't need to micro-manage everything to win games. Basketball is played best when it is played on instinct.
B
Bad Boys 28822
Guest
Defense is a sore point with me as well. Zone defense is fundamentally weaker than man to man defense, because there always gaps. In America you only play zone from a position of weakness, because you do not have the players to defend properly. It doesn't matter how well your zone is coached, it is still a zone and zones are less and less effective as you start dealing with older and more skilled players. The more man defense you play, the better your defensive chemistry is, and the more aggressive you defend, the more chances you have to turn that defense into easy baskets.
In the NBA, zone defense is used as a surprise tactic (most effectively used by Dallas vs Miami in the 2011 finals), but in twelve years since it has been allowed, no team has ever been successful using it as a base. At the elite college level, only one major school (Syracuse) out of several hundred uses zone as a base, and most Syracuse players do not succeed in the NBA (Carmelo, Coleman and and MCW being the lone exceptions over 35 years).
This goes back to my point about coaches that want every possession to be set plays: in a high level game, you are not playing against air. You are playing against a defense that wants to disrupt you. Your pretty offensive 5-on-5 plays will not succeed nearly as often as a high level team that plays for steals and rebounds, and tries to score quickly while they have advantages of 2v1 or 3v2. And the longer you hold the ball, the more opportunities your opponent has to take the ball from you before you can shoot it.
Serbia was the best halfcourt offensive team in the 2014 World Cup. I will happily admit that. They had the benefit of being together longer and ran more structured offense with shooters and passers at almost every position. They scored on their first 7 shots in that offense. But that didn't last for even a quarter. USA was eventually scoring far more frequently because they defended better and were able to force ten times as many fast break chances. The difference in efficiency between USA's transition offense and Serbia's halfcourt offense was 26 points by halftime.
Last edited by a moderator:
N
NorCal2
Guest
I don't think he will. He is known as someone who changes his strategy depending on his personnel. Plus, he is a first time NBA coach and even though he comes in with impressive credentials, he has to know that he is stepping into a situation where he is coaching the best player in the world and coaching a team that is favored to win the championship. If he comes in and stymies the offense through too rigid of sets he knows he'll be fired. It's an exciting but stressful situation to be in. I think he'll do well.
J
Joško Poljak Fan2
Guest
I'll try keeping it short.
There can be occasions of "over-coaching", however your understanding of the strict set plays is nevertheless lacking.
The point of set plays is to bring stability to the team, avoid the negative runs as much as possible, enable the easiest shots with the least effort possible and save on tiredness that can be alternatively spent on defense.
Now, the way you imagine set plays "euro style" is phase1 going to phase2, all the way to phase 12 and phase 20 if there would be enough time for that and that's about as wrong as an "euro" claiming NBA consists only of ISO, P&R and 1on1.
You do have to understand phase1 all the way to phase10 to properly execute a set play, but that never meant phase2 isn't supposed to develop into phase2B or C or phase3 suddenly developing into P&R or such. Most set plays only provide sort of a tree of various options, while of course you need the players good enough to recognise oppurtunities within that aka read the game, which in the end can mean a total opposite than what the coach was instructing. Most people notice coach getting pissed off by rushing a move within a set play too fast, while those correct "reads" that completely brake the play go unnoticed.
When you've got a big quality edge, just as the team US had you might never need a phase10 in your book, keep it simple and even if the situation leads to phase3 of the set play you can still relax, play a simple P&R, or just spread the floor pass the ball and watch the defense crack at some point, however those plays were damn existant this year. You've got a great example what happens when players are just let loose in 2004.
I agree with all those claiming that of course there is no need for some complicated set plays when the easy ones work, it would take an imbecil to insist on those, but whenever you don't have a clear quality edge or whenever you want to make the game easier for yourself, some simple set plays can do wonders at utilising the most out of your team for the least effort invested. If there is anything I am sure about basketball, I'm sure about that one. I've seen dozen of games of better teams on paper failing to read the game in defense as obviusly they were never forced to play complex offenses, making their 2 class worse opponents look great along.
That's exactly what coach K aknowledged and adapted to it, he is afterall a sensational coach, he managed to establish the difference in game that kind of resembles the true quality difference of individuals of team US and others and it's easy to forget the biggest differences between 2004 and 2014 teams - preparation, gameplan and execution, to keep it short.
Last edited by a moderator:
J
Joško Poljak Fan2
Guest
well obviously I won't be able to keep it short
Zone defense a sign of weakness, well I don't imagine a player saying that loud.
Surely there are pro's and con's and zone everytime represents some noticable risks that never should be neglected, but... you can work with it in some enviroments on some particular players, with PG's that lack theorethical understanding of the game. It still doesn't mean it'll bring succes, but zone is meant for disruption in the first place.
Start with a full court press, waste some 6-8 seconds of their time, it'll take a bit more untill the opponent will realize "it's a zone" on some occasions even more, mix that with different types of zones... and than you've just about narrowed their options by a lot considering the short time span... In case you've got players able to box out the rebounders (major issue as after being in a zone setting, after the shot you basicaly have to transform from covering the space into finding your man and staying in front of him for the rebound) that can definately work on 2-3 possesions. Switch back on man to man defense on the timeout (i just love whenever that happens) and switch back with a slightly different zone after 4-5 more plays to do it all again. Or even switch between one offense into zone and back again (yup, some teams train that, although it's highly risky thing to do)
There could be a discussion about the zone being a legit defensive tactic, that's true, especialy in NBA there is a lot less reasons for it than in int-ball but as a surprise move it can sometimes work on longer periods, playing against some specific players it might just be that one thing you'd use succesfully to make a slight difference.
If my memory serves me right didn't the Mavericks use zone in the playoffs occasinaly? and from my memory it worked out great for them on numerous occasions, even If I'm not sure if that was their championship season or not...
B
Bad Boys 28822
Guest
I noted all of those things in the above post you quoted.Joško Poljak Fan;929737 said:well obviously I won't be able to keep it short
Zone defense a sign of weakness, well I don't imagine a player saying that loud.
Surely there are pro's and con's and zone everytime represents some noticable risks that never should be neglected, but... you can work with it in some enviroments on some particular players, with PG's that lack theorethical understanding of the game. It still doesn't mean it'll bring succes, but zone is meant for disruption in the first place.
Start with a full court press, waste some 6-8 seconds of their time, it'll take a bit more untill the opponent will realize "it's a zone" on some occasions even more, mix that with different types of zones... and than you've just about narrowed their options by a lot considering the short time span... In case you've got players able to box out the rebounders (major issue as after being in a zone setting, after the shot you basicaly have to transform from covering the space into finding your man and staying in front of him for the rebound) that can definately work on 2-3 possesions. Switch back on man to man defense on the timeout (i just love whenever that happens) and switch back with a slightly different zone after 4-5 more plays to do it all again.
There could be a discussion about the zone being a legit defensive tactic, that's true, especialy in NBA there is a lot less room for it than in int-ball but as a surprise move it can sometimes work on longer periods, playing against some specific players it might just be that one thing you'd use succesfully to make a slight difference.
If my memory serves me right didn't the Mavericks use zone in the playoffs occasinaly? and from my memory it worked out great for them on numerous occasions, even If I'm not sure if that was their championship season or not...
Zones are useful when used tactically, but they are never a good base defense for a high level basketball team. Dallas indeed used it during their championship run, but only in small doses to change the tempo of the game.
U
usagre2
Guest
when referencing the 2004 usa team people have to understand that unlike any nba/usa team before it or since it, that team was doomed to fail no matter what due to its nonexistent outside shooting. that was serious component that was somehow overlooked in the creation of the team. their failure had nothing to do with defense or a lack of some sort of structured offense. teams zoned them and limited them offensively significantly.
J
Joško Poljak Fan2
Guest
Well, since I've been talking about "reading the game" beforehand, I agree that team was pretty much doomed to fail. There were some terrific scorers, but alongside with that terrible players as well, let alone playing in the same team with only one ball.
I agree that the zone messed them up, however that's exactly an arguement in favour of a structured offense. Zone is a risky defense whenever the opponent knows how they'll approach it, but also potentialy the best defense out there when they're let to improvisation only. A pass is always the fastest way the ball can move and when you've got opponents covering space it's basicaly a matter of fast reactions with as little hesitation and fast passing that make craking it seem obscurely easy, but in order to achieve that all 5 players on court must know what they're doing out there otherwise it can turn into 1 on 5 game with pretty much predictable outcome on average. 2004 team should handle it even if there were quite some players I personaly don't value much. It had exactly a lot to do with game organisation as far as I am concerned.
That was only a comparison between the well structured US team and US team based on inspirations and individuality, that's why I mentioned 2004, because that team is the only one that reached that low bottom.
One good example of the benefits of a structured offense was the way France attacked Marc Gasol. He is a great defender in the paint, has some standing span, mass, footwork and decent timing, getting him out of the game attacking him under the rim is quite unlikely. However he was heavily exposed at eurobasket2013 I expected Orenga and Spanish staff would work it out for this occasion, but they've surprisingly failed.
phase1: C or PF which Marc is guarding stepping out high, setting a screen for a penetration into the middle/FT lane, Marc will ussualy be late
phase2a1: if Marc is late and screen is good: opened 3 pointer
phase2a2: if Marc is late, screen is good but the opponents read it (let's say they will do that the 2nd time around, if they'd be retards it would take a timeout to clear things out ), the other "high/upper positioned" defender switches, following a pass to the side and another option that comes out pass it further to corner (depends on situation, depends on a player, multiple variants there, but the defense 90% broke at that point)
phase2b1: Marc is late, screen is no good, guard gets over the screen that still gives the PG an edge for a one tap penetration, 2b1a-d break Gasol as he is moving in the wrong direction, layup, mid-range shot (rarely contested as Marc will go for boxing out his C/PF that must have rolled in if read correctly) kick it out right
phase2b2: Marc is late, screen is no good, guard gets below the screen, let the C/PF fade back, pass him the ball and let the left wingman receive the ball high
phase2c1: Marc isn't late, pop's up high, defender goes above the screen, pass to "rolling" C/PF inside Marc won't keep up in 90% of the cases
phase2c2: Marc Isn't late, defender goes below the screen, attack left/right (naturaly choose Marc's side) or step back for a shot
phase3: doesn't work out PG and left wingman switch places, LW receives the ball high, Marc is already up high in the perimeter another screen, basicaly the defender has to get under this one as Marc will be left behind, but with a screen that aims exactly at closing that very way, Marc gets attacked by LW again and... 39746 more options appear, oversimplifying a bit= you're getting almost the same options as above once again
Those plays weren't random, and weren't there(could be that I failed to notice them) in the group stage game and also aren't a classic P&R most fans would call them, those were waaaaay away from coincidental happening or individual inspiration. Of course even the upper oversimplified version in reality isn't all that simple. Even if it looks easy, all those versions I've listed above, as well as the ones I didn't, are runned throughout on practices over and over again, as pretty simple, they're just way easier to execute that way.
The preferable way, of course, is to get Marc on Diaw as Gobert and Lauvergne aren't as effective in executing those (as we're talking about "reading the game and set plays" you'll notice Gobert always being up there for a screen but Diot and Heurtel lots of times neglecting that option either as he was in the way of setting the screen on the side instead of the middle, or exploiting the fact they got Marc away from the rim already anyway; personaly I don't think he always understood entirely what's going on there). Preferably you also need a screen down low to get Marc on Diaw, which kind of means I've left out the first phase in the upper description and it's numerous different variables.
And when Orenga comes out with that brilliant idea to put both Gasol's in the game (obviously Pau's lateral quickness is better than Marc's, yet nevertheless simmilary exposed at PF vs. Diaw) you've got yourself a well structured gangbang party - which is exactly what happened towards the end of that game, with the same options running on Pau instead of Marc. Marc on Gobert and Pau on Diaw, while god knows the French wouldn't be running that against Ibaka on PF let alone Ibaka/Reyes combo (let's leave the offensive variables that come out of that for some other day). Collet must have been crying of joy when he saw that happening. Obradović (a reknowned Serbian coaching legend that is a synonim for a structure in offense in europe) must have been cursing and turned off the TV at that point.
And that's a part of the game where individual talent can never ever make up for well thought structured offense, as players themselves won't be able to notice that oppurtunity on court instinctively, repeat it over and over again unless all 5 of them know exactly what's going on at that very same time and be aware of all those options they've practiced beforehand. And since they did, execution comes naturaly than and is actually easier than it seems, improvisation would've taken a whole lot more energy, luck and worse shots.
I am not sure if I just haven't noticed it or it was indeed missing, yet Spaniards were basicaly trying to achieve the same effects that a well structured offense provides with their speed and numerous passes, with their game plan consequently rarely developing far from that basic phase1 start as continuation was left to improvisation to a large degree. They've let both Gasols being exposed on defense high up on the perimeter while at the same time haven't run a single easy play to let either of them receive the ball down low where they, I think we all agree on that, have so much advantage and so many options against the likes of Pietrus, Gobert and Lauvergne, it's sickening to imagine those 3 survived.
If Spain and France were to play someday random without prior notice, Spain wins by 20 easily. If they meet again after I've believed Spain won't surely commit the same mistakes after EB13 and they did, with the same coaches involved (obviously won't happen as Orenga resigned) It might as well be the very same story over again as far as I am concerned.
I'm too lazy to do it, so basicaly I am hoping somebody else would go through that game over again and count those various executions of that set-play mentioned above and potentialy make a (mostlikely not too short) video out of it.
One more interesting thing while we're at it, quite a lot of teams were built to use that PF/C stretch advantages one way or another, Serbia with Bjelica, Slovenia with Balažič and Zupan, Lithuania with Lavrinovič bros... however when you've got Farried at PF (also props to Gay) that philosophy turns from an advantage into a complete waste of time.
I agree that the zone messed them up, however that's exactly an arguement in favour of a structured offense. Zone is a risky defense whenever the opponent knows how they'll approach it, but also potentialy the best defense out there when they're let to improvisation only. A pass is always the fastest way the ball can move and when you've got opponents covering space it's basicaly a matter of fast reactions with as little hesitation and fast passing that make craking it seem obscurely easy, but in order to achieve that all 5 players on court must know what they're doing out there otherwise it can turn into 1 on 5 game with pretty much predictable outcome on average. 2004 team should handle it even if there were quite some players I personaly don't value much. It had exactly a lot to do with game organisation as far as I am concerned.
That was only a comparison between the well structured US team and US team based on inspirations and individuality, that's why I mentioned 2004, because that team is the only one that reached that low bottom.
One good example of the benefits of a structured offense was the way France attacked Marc Gasol. He is a great defender in the paint, has some standing span, mass, footwork and decent timing, getting him out of the game attacking him under the rim is quite unlikely. However he was heavily exposed at eurobasket2013 I expected Orenga and Spanish staff would work it out for this occasion, but they've surprisingly failed.
phase1: C or PF which Marc is guarding stepping out high, setting a screen for a penetration into the middle/FT lane, Marc will ussualy be late
phase2a1: if Marc is late and screen is good: opened 3 pointer
phase2a2: if Marc is late, screen is good but the opponents read it (let's say they will do that the 2nd time around, if they'd be retards it would take a timeout to clear things out
), the other "high/upper positioned" defender switches, following a pass to the side and another option that comes out pass it further to corner (depends on situation, depends on a player, multiple variants there, but the defense 90% broke at that point)phase2b1: Marc is late, screen is no good, guard gets over the screen that still gives the PG an edge for a one tap penetration, 2b1a-d break Gasol as he is moving in the wrong direction, layup, mid-range shot (rarely contested as Marc will go for boxing out his C/PF that must have rolled in if read correctly) kick it out right
phase2b2: Marc is late, screen is no good, guard gets below the screen, let the C/PF fade back, pass him the ball and let the left wingman receive the ball high
phase2c1: Marc isn't late, pop's up high, defender goes above the screen, pass to "rolling" C/PF inside Marc won't keep up in 90% of the cases
phase2c2: Marc Isn't late, defender goes below the screen, attack left/right (naturaly choose Marc's side) or step back for a shot
phase3: doesn't work out PG and left wingman switch places, LW receives the ball high, Marc is already up high in the perimeter another screen, basicaly the defender has to get under this one as Marc will be left behind, but with a screen that aims exactly at closing that very way, Marc gets attacked by LW again and... 39746 more options appear, oversimplifying a bit= you're getting almost the same options as above once again
Those plays weren't random, and weren't there(could be that I failed to notice them) in the group stage game and also aren't a classic P&R most fans would call them, those were waaaaay away from coincidental happening or individual inspiration. Of course even the upper oversimplified version in reality isn't all that simple. Even if it looks easy, all those versions I've listed above, as well as the ones I didn't, are runned throughout on practices over and over again, as pretty simple, they're just way easier to execute that way.
The preferable way, of course, is to get Marc on Diaw as Gobert and Lauvergne aren't as effective in executing those (as we're talking about "reading the game and set plays" you'll notice Gobert always being up there for a screen but Diot and Heurtel lots of times neglecting that option either as he was in the way of setting the screen on the side instead of the middle, or exploiting the fact they got Marc away from the rim already anyway; personaly I don't think he always understood entirely what's going on there). Preferably you also need a screen down low to get Marc on Diaw, which kind of means I've left out the first phase in the upper description and it's numerous different variables.
And when Orenga comes out with that brilliant idea to put both Gasol's in the game (obviously Pau's lateral quickness is better than Marc's, yet nevertheless simmilary exposed at PF vs. Diaw) you've got yourself a well structured gangbang party - which is exactly what happened towards the end of that game, with the same options running on Pau instead of Marc. Marc on Gobert and Pau on Diaw, while god knows the French wouldn't be running that against Ibaka on PF let alone Ibaka/Reyes combo (let's leave the offensive variables that come out of that for some other day). Collet must have been crying of joy when he saw that happening. Obradović (a reknowned Serbian coaching legend that is a synonim for a structure in offense in europe) must have been cursing and turned off the TV at that point.
And that's a part of the game where individual talent can never ever make up for well thought structured offense, as players themselves won't be able to notice that oppurtunity on court instinctively, repeat it over and over again unless all 5 of them know exactly what's going on at that very same time and be aware of all those options they've practiced beforehand. And since they did, execution comes naturaly than and is actually easier than it seems, improvisation would've taken a whole lot more energy, luck and worse shots.
I am not sure if I just haven't noticed it or it was indeed missing, yet Spaniards were basicaly trying to achieve the same effects that a well structured offense provides with their speed and numerous passes, with their game plan consequently rarely developing far from that basic phase1 start as continuation was left to improvisation to a large degree. They've let both Gasols being exposed on defense high up on the perimeter while at the same time haven't run a single easy play to let either of them receive the ball down low where they, I think we all agree on that, have so much advantage and so many options against the likes of Pietrus, Gobert and Lauvergne, it's sickening to imagine those 3 survived.
If Spain and France were to play someday random without prior notice, Spain wins by 20 easily. If they meet again after I've believed Spain won't surely commit the same mistakes after EB13 and they did, with the same coaches involved (obviously won't happen as Orenga resigned) It might as well be the very same story over again as far as I am concerned.
I'm too lazy to do it, so basicaly I am hoping somebody else would go through that game over again and count those various executions of that set-play mentioned above and potentialy make a (mostlikely not too short) video out of it.
One more interesting thing while we're at it, quite a lot of teams were built to use that PF/C stretch advantages one way or another, Serbia with Bjelica, Slovenia with Balažič and Zupan, Lithuania with Lavrinovič bros... however when you've got Farried at PF (also props to Gay) that philosophy turns from an advantage into a complete waste of time.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
CHBB2
Guest
well obviously I won't be able to keep it short
Zone defense a sign of weakness, well I don't imagine a player saying that loud.
Surely there are pro's and con's and zone everytime represents some noticable risks that never should be neglected, but... you can work with it in some enviroments on some particular players, with PG's that lack theorethical understanding of the game. It still doesn't mean it'll bring succes, but zone is meant for disruption in the first place.
Start with a full court press, waste some 6-8 seconds of their time, it'll take a bit more untill the opponent will realize "it's a zone" on some occasions even more, mix that with different types of zones... and than you've just about narrowed their options by a lot considering the short time span... In case you've got players able to box out the rebounders (major issue as after being in a zone setting, after the shot you basicaly have to transform from covering the space into finding your man and staying in front of him for the rebound) that can definately work on 2-3 possesions. Switch back on man to man defense on the timeout (i just love whenever that happens) and switch back with a slightly different zone after 4-5 more plays to do it all again. Or even switch between one offense into zone and back again (yup, some teams train that, although it's highly risky thing to do)
There could be a discussion about the zone being a legit defensive tactic, that's true, especialy in NBA there is a lot less reasons for it than in int-ball but as a surprise move it can sometimes work on longer periods, playing against some specific players it might just be that one thing you'd use succesfully to make a slight difference.
If my memory serves me right didn't the Mavericks use zone in the playoffs occasinaly? and from my memory it worked out great for them on numerous occasions, even If I'm not sure if that was their championship season or not...
Well, since I've been talking about "reading the game" beforehand, I agree that team was pretty much doomed to fail. There were some terrific scorers, but alongside with that terrible players as well, let alone playing in the same team with only one ball.
I agree that the zone messed them up, however that's exactly an arguement in favour of a structured offense. Zone is a risky defense whenever the opponent knows how they'll approach it, but also potentialy the best defense out there when they're let to improvisation only. A pass is always the fastest way the ball can move and when you've got opponents covering space it's basicaly a matter of fast reactions with as little hesitation and fast passing that make craking it seem obscurely easy, but in order to achieve that all 5 players on court must know what they're doing out there otherwise it can turn into 1 on 5 game with pretty much predictable outcome on average. 2004 team should handle it even if there were quite some players I personaly don't value much. It had exactly a lot to do with game organisation as far as I am concerned.
That was only a comparison between the well structured US team and US team based on inspirations and individuality, that's why I mentioned 2004, because that team is the only one that reached that low bottom.
One good example of the benefits of a structured offense was the way France attacked Marc Gasol. He is a great defender in the paint, has some standing span, mass, footwork and decent timing, getting him out of the game attacking him under the rim is quite unlikely. However he was heavily exposed at eurobasket2013 I expected Orenga and Spanish staff would work it out for this occasion, but they've surprisingly failed.
phase1: C or PF which Marc is guarding stepping out high, setting a screen for a penetration into the middle/FT lane, Marc will ussualy be late
phase2a1: if Marc is late and screen is good: opened 3 pointer
phase2a2: if Marc is late, screen is good but the opponents read it (let's say they will do that the 2nd time around, if they'd be retards it would take a timeout to clear things out
phase2b1: Marc is late, screen is no good, guard gets over the screen that still gives the PG an edge for a one tap penetration, 2b1a-d break Gasol as he is moving in the wrong direction, layup, mid-range shot (rarely contested as Marc will go for boxing out his C/PF that must have rolled in if read correctly) kick it out right
phase2b2: Marc is late, screen is no good, guard gets below the screen, let the C/PF fade back, pass him the ball and let the left wingman receive the ball high
phase2c1: Marc isn't late, pop's up high, defender goes above the screen, pass to "rolling" C/PF inside Marc won't keep up in 90% of the cases
phase2c2: Marc Isn't late, defender goes below the screen, attack left/right (naturaly choose Marc's side) or step back for a shot
phase3: doesn't work out PG and left wingman switch places, LW receives the ball high, Marc is already up high in the perimeter another screen, basicaly the defender has to get under this one as Marc will be left behind, but with a screen that aims exactly at closing that very way, Marc gets attacked by LW again and... 39746 more options appear, oversimplifying a bit= you're getting almost the same options as above once again
Those plays weren't random, and weren't there(could be that I failed to notice them) in the group stage game and also aren't a classic P&R most fans would call them, those were waaaaay away from coincidental happening or individual inspiration. Of course even the upper oversimplified version in reality isn't all that simple. Even if it looks easy, all those versions I've listed above, as well as the ones I didn't, are runned throughout on practices over and over again, as pretty simple, they're just way easier to execute that way.
The preferable way, of course, is to get Marc on Diaw as Gobert and Lauvergne aren't as effective in executing those (as we're talking about "reading the game and set plays" you'll notice Gobert always being up there for a screen but Diot and Heurtel lots of times neglecting that option either as he was in the way of setting the screen on the side instead of the middle, or exploiting the fact they got Marc away from the rim already anyway; personaly I don't think he always understood entirely what's going on there). Preferably you also need a screen down low to get Marc on Diaw, which kind of means I've left out the first phase in the upper description and it's numerous different variables.
And when Orenga comes out with that brilliant idea to put both Gasol's in the game (obviously Pau's lateral quickness is better than Marc's, yet nevertheless simmilary exposed at PF vs. Diaw) you've got yourself a well structured gangbang party - which is exactly what happened towards the end of that game, with the same options running on Pau instead of Marc. Marc on Gobert and Pau on Diaw, while god knows the French wouldn't be running that against Ibaka on PF let alone Ibaka/Reyes combo (let's leave the offensive variables that come out of that for some other day). Collet must have been crying of joy when he saw that happening. Obradović (a reknowned Serbian coaching legend that is a synonim for a structure in offense in europe) must have been cursing and turned off the TV at that point.
And that's a part of the game where individual talent can never ever make up for well thought structured offense, as players themselves won't be able to notice that oppurtunity on court instinctively, repeat it over and over again unless all 5 of them know exactly what's going on at that very same time and be aware of all those options they've practiced beforehand. And since they did, execution comes naturaly than and is actually easier than it seems, improvisation would've taken a whole lot more energy, luck and worse shots.
I am not sure if I just haven't noticed it or it was indeed missing, yet Spaniards were basicaly trying to achieve the same effects that a well structured offense provides with their speed and numerous passes, with their game plan consequently rarely developing far from that basic phase1 start as continuation was left to improvisation to a large degree. They've let both Gasols being exposed on defense high up on the perimeter while at the same time haven't run a single easy play to let either of them receive the ball down low where they, I think we all agree on that, have so much advantage and so many options against the likes of Pietrus, Gobert and Lauvergne, it's sickening to imagine those 3 survived.
If Spain and France were to play someday random without prior notice, Spain wins by 20 easily. If they meet again after I've believed Spain won't surely commit the same mistakes after EB13 and they did, with the same coaches involved (obviously won't happen as Orenga resigned) It might as well be the very same story over again as far as I am concerned.
I'm too lazy to do it, so basicaly I am hoping somebody else would go through that game over again and count those various executions of that set-play mentioned above and potentialy make a (mostlikely not too short) video out of it.
One more interesting thing while we're at it, quite a lot of teams were built to use that PF/C stretch advantages one way or another, Serbia with Bjelica, Slovenia with Balažič and Zupan, Lithuania with Lavrinovič bros... however when you've got Farried at PF (also props to Gay) that philosophy turns from an advantage into a complete waste of time.
Posts like this are why I like Interbasket. Actual basketball knowledge on display versus "I'm right because I said so and because that other guy agrees with me or ESPN said so" kind of crap.
Anybody who knocks basic aspects of the game as "stupid" or whatever else is an idiot who knows nothing about basketball. Knocking the Princeton offense or zone defense is hilarious and shows just how clueless that person is. What's next, knocking the triangle? Teams win with complex offenses. Period. The Lakers didn't win ANYTHING once they stopped running the Triangle. The Knicks were an embarrassment offensively until they ran the Triangle. The Spurs win BECAUSE of their offense, as does any legitimate team. You win by schemes and sets, by an actual regimen of running the offense and defense, not just with "talent". Miami won because their defense was stifling when it wanted to be, and not because they had the "talent" to defend. Same with the Celtics. They had great defense and quick ball movement. No team has ever won anything without being able to run an actual offense rather than play playground ball.
Real fans like the above person I quoted understand this.
W
weward2
Guest
hey guys do you know where can I watch the replay(for FREE) of the games of Iran last FIBA world cup particularly Iran vs Spain and Iran vs France.
Thanks.
Thanks.
T
thiagomonto2
Guest
Nice memory for fantastic games
B
bballcrazy2
Guest
USA has a very large population, 300 over million. If whole of Europe's best players vs USA team it would be pretty close.