This may have been done before, but to continue one of my recent arguments with a buddy......Which one are you more in favor of man or zone? Why?

I would say it could lean either way but most will choose man. It really depends upon how your team is built and how you match up against your opponent. For example, you can't play Holmes man to man because they get most their points off of penetration, transition, and offensive boards.

I personally prefer a man defense, but there are times when a zone can be usefull. IMO you do what it takes to to be successful.

I would say it could lean either way but most will choose man. It really depends upon how your team is built and how you match up against your opponent. For example, you can't play Holmes man to man because they get most their points off of penetration, transition, and offensive boards.

 

Some coaches go man or zone every game no matter the opponent. I would guess you don't agree with that?

I agree with Handy Manny...

 

This question is difficult to answer...I coach youth basketball (this year I will coach a 10-11 year old team and a 15-16 year old team). Although it's not the same as coaching a HS team or a college team, I find that I adhere to certain tenets regarding defense:

 

1) If you can't learn man, you can't learn basic defensive principles. A lot of coaches seem to think (or at least, their actions would seem to indicate that they think this) that zone is "easier to teach" or "easier to play". I disagree. Zones are HARD to play well. So I always teach my players the fundamentals of man defense first...all of these skills are transferable to zone sets.

 

2) As a coach, I like to be unpredictable. The more "curve balls" I can throw at the other team, the more difficult I make the job for their coach and team. It's one thing to say that you're a "man" team or a "2-3 zone" team, but I like to be able to run 5-6 different defenses that we can change on the fly, either to confuse the other team or to adjust to matchup issues. My 12-14 year old team last year ran man, 2-3 zone, 2-3 trap, and triangle-and-two in the half-court set, and also ran a 2-2-1 full court press. As luck would have it, we were a bit overmatched athletically, and we won just two games (out of 9), but the kids had a blast. When I had my whole roster available (my leading rebounder missed several games and my leading scorer/point guard missed a couple), we were a formidable defensive team.

 

3) Despite all that a coach LIKES to do (see #1 and #2), sometimes the hand you're dealt, talent-wise, just isn't conducive to your preferred strategies. I had a team two years ago that had to play 2-3 zone every game, almost all the time. We simply didn't have the athletes to match up in man-to-man, nor did we have the size. I had only a couple of "quick" kids, so any pressure defense was usually suicidal. Our best chance to win lay in slowing down the game and clogging the middle - and hoping the other team didn't kill us from the outside! Sometimes you do what you have to do.

 

SO....I choose a third option: BOTH!

I would say it could lean either way but most will choose man. It really depends upon how your team is built and how you match up against your opponent. For example, you can't play Holmes man to man because they get most their points off of penetration, transition, and offensive boards.

 

Holmes normally crushes teams who don't man up on the offensive boards.

 

It all depends on the personnel and circumstances. It is the responsibility of the coach to not be too stubborn and to learn to adjust.

Holmes normally crushes teams who don't man up on the offensive boards.

It all depends on the personnel and circumstances. It is the responsibility of the coach to not be too stubborn and to learn to adjust.

 

Thats where a zone can hurt you. Rebounding assignments are tougher in a zone D. If the weakside forward isn't active, he will get burned on the boards. I would play M-M except for out of bounds under opponents basket, or coming out of a fullcourt zone trap.

I am a man...man but I believe that every coach needs to adjust according to the game situation. I also feel as if too much zone will make your defenders lazy. A good zone looks like a man and a good man looks like a zone!

I think it really depends on your opponent. A good team is going to beat you no matter what defense you play against them though because of their ability to adjust. For example:

 

In man to man defense, a more athletic team is going to penetrate and dish all night long for easy baskets. They will keep one of the big men down on the baseline and play a two man game with the point guard or dish to the arc for a 3 pointer when the defense collapses. Good screens are the way to beat M2M.

 

In a zone defense, while it may be more effective stopping the penetration, a good shooting team will kill you from outside if they have good ball movement around the perimeter, and a good rebounding team will kill you on the boards because it's much easier to get to the basket when you don't have anyone on you.

 

A lot of times people question why teams don't play a zone against Holmes and it's because they would get mangled on the boards because of their size and athleticism.

I can't vote in this poll because I need a both. A good coach will know when he needs to play man or zone based on his team and his opponent. I have seen coaches who would rather lose than go zone and do so. I just don't get it.

I can't vote in this poll because I need a both. A good coach will know when he needs to play man or zone based on his team and his opponent. I have seen coaches who would rather lose than go zone and do so. I just don't get it.

 

Coach Hicks has won two state championships with a man only philosophy.....and a couple of Mr. Basketballs

Coach Hicks has won two state championships with a man only philosophy.....and a couple of Mr. Basketballs

 

How many of those were transfers...? :sssh:

Coach Hicks has won two state championships with a man only philosophy.....and a couple of Mr. Basketballs

 

Most coaches are not as lucky as Coach Hicks. I guess if you have the athletes that he has had a man only policy does work.

Coach Hicks is an excellent coach. Didn't mean to sound like his success is based on luck.

I would prefer to use the different types of zone, but only if ran right. Some kids think when they run a zone it's to get a breather or slow down. I like to use the zone to make the offense throw long passes, or start rushing, and driving without control.