Early in the 2nd half it looked like Cal was playing a zone defense that seemed to initially "disguise" it as a man to man until St. Mary's got into their half court ball movement.

The result was possibly the worst defense I have ever seen, resulting in wide open 3's and easy dunks/layins. Was that what I was seeing? Can somebody help me with that?

Same as last year. Three point shooters wide open. I could make that shot 10 years ago

I think they are trying to play a matchup zone. The defensive scheme doesn't need to be the priority at this point. This group is executing poorly, not communicating and playing with low energy. Regardless of what defensive strategy you employ, it will fail with that trifecta of mediocrity. Same problems as last year.

Just thinking, if they are not playing good defense, it's still better to play man and give up drives as opposed to a lousy zone that gives up wide open threes.

pete Newell ( remember him) said it's counter-productive to switches defenses constantly in a game. Your mind and body simply can't adjust to the requirements demanded from both schemes. It's true: Cal's zone defense is really porous. No improvement over last year. I know what WJ is thinking. He does not have depth so he's trying to minimize the fouls. Catch-22 situation. Next year we will have depth. To repeat: We do not have a classic PG. I hope Brown is a pass-first PG. If he is, he may see more minutes than is usually warranted.

I have to agree with all of you.

Newell said that man-to-man defense was an aggressive defense, where you tried to always stay between your man and the basket. Your rear end was low, in a crouch, giving you a lower center of gravity, and making it easier to shift your feet right and left, forward and backward. When you got good at it, as Newell's players did, you could move your man around the floor, make him go where you wanted to go, and not allow him go where he wanted to go. Think Al Buch, or maybe Jorge Gutierrez. Newell usually had 5 good to great man defenders on the floor at all times. Wyking Jones did not have one player like that, not last season, or this season. They are all works in progress, some a little farther along than others.

The difference today is many rules have changed to favor the offensive players, such as not allowing hand checking and having the little semicircle defining an area where the defender is automatically guilty of foul when an offensive player makes contact. And officials seldom call the palm and the travel. The result has been that coaches employ help defense with rotations to help the man guarding the player with the ball. This is complicated, because the more double-teaming you do, the more risk there is, because helping a teammate usually always leaves a man wide open somewhere.

Newell also said that zone defenses are passive defenses, where you stand normally, vertically, not in a crouch. You are basically waiting for a man or the ball or both to come into your zone, and then you move to guard him. Zone defenses are reactive defenses, not aggressive. You let the opponent make his move, and then you react to it. The problem with switching defenses is as Helltopay1 said. As Newell put it, you are switching from playing aggressive defense to playing passive defense, which just isn't natural for human beings in most games of physical combat.

I think if a coach has a roster of very young players with few defensive fundamentals, it would be best to try and play one defense only and not switch between man and zone. He should stick with man defense, in my opinion, because that is where fundamentals work best. Use no help at first, just straight man defense, so players get used to incorporating the fundamentals they are learning into a team defense concept. Teach them how to call out screens and switches, communicate, before you permit them to double team in a help defense. Maybe by year three you can teach them help concepts, If they become skilled at man defense with help, then maybe you could work in some zone for a little different look, maybe in year four. All IMHO.

SFCityBear said:

---

I have to agree with all of you.

Newell said that man-to-man defense was an aggressive defense, where you tried to always stay between your man and the basket. Your rear end was low, in a crouch, giving you a lower center of gravity, and making it easier to shift your feet right and left, forward and backward. When you got good at it, as Newell's players did, you could move your man around the floor, make him go where you wanted to go, and not allow him go where he wanted to go. Think Al Buch, or maybe Jorge Gutierrez. Newell usually had 5 good to great man defenders on the floor at all times. Wyking Jones did not have one player like that, not last season, or this season. They are all works in progress, some a little farther along than others.

The difference today is many rules have changed to favor the offensive players, such as not allowing hand checking and having the little semicircle defining an area where the defender is automatically guilty of foul when an offensive player makes contact. And officials seldom call the palm and the travel. The result has been that coaches employ help defense with rotations to help the man guarding the player with the ball. This is complicated, because the more double-teaming you do, the more risk there is, because helping a teammate usually always leaves a man wide open somewhere.

Newell also said that zone defenses are passive defenses, where you stand normally, vertically, not in a crouch. You are basically waiting for a man or the ball or both to come into your zone, and then you move to guard him. Zone defenses are reactive defenses, not aggressive. You let the opponent make his move, and then you react to it. The problem with switching defenses is as Helltopay1 said. As Newell put it, you are switching from playing aggressive defense to playing passive defense, which just isn't natural for human beings in most games of physical combat.

I think if a coach has a roster of very young players with few defensive fundamentals, it would be best to try and play one defense only and not switch between man and zone. He should stick with man defense, in my opinion, because that is where fundamentals work best. Use no help at first, just straight man defense, so players get used to incorporating the fundamentals they are learning into a team defense concept. Teach them how to call out screens and switches, communicate, before you permit them to double team in a help defense. Maybe by year three you can teach them help concepts, If they become skilled at man defense with help, then maybe you could work in some zone for a little different look, maybe in year four. All IMHO.

---

I like this discussion, and will post my thoughts about our defense later.

I agree with most of what you said, except I'd like to comment about "zone defenses are passive defenses".
I am sure you know that within the two general type of defenses (man and zone) there are a ton of variations, and even something like a 2-3 zone defense has many variations. Even then, coaches put their own spin on things.

I think zone defenses can be aggressive, and by that, I don't define that as trying to get steals. I do not like pass zone defenses, except for certain match ups and game situations. I do however often advocate a more aggressive zone defense like the type I think Cal is trying to run. In my definition, an aggressive zone defense is one who tries to take the offense out of their offense, out of their comfort zone, does not allow the offense to dictate what they are trying to do, and speeds the offensive player up, so they either make mistakes (bad pass, rushed shot, or just plain tentative). Steals are good, but not the indicator of a good aggressive zone defense (I think best measure is PPP).

The major problem of our 'aggressive' zone defense both last year and especially what we've seen this year, is we are terrible at it. This year, we are not even understanding spacing or where to be within the defense.

I would rate last year's zone defense in the beginning/middle of the season as a C. I thought we were too often left the wing shooter last year, and took too long to adjust. Near the end of the season, I think we improved to C+ or B-. The B- is related to our good interior defense that made it hard for a ball handler to score at the rim (because of King and Lee).

I give this year's zone defense a D. I hope we can improve over the season to a C, but I've said elsewhere, the biggest problem right now is defense (followed by rebounding)

As for going all man. It might be the best option overall, but it is a bad option. Vanover and to a lessor extent Kelly will get eaten alive (or foul out) if we go man 100%.

big dilemma with no obvious solution

No matter what, you cannot give shooters open threes.

In college basketball a zone that aggressively defends the 3 point line and has a basket protecter or better, 3, can be very effective. Yes, it leaves open the dribble drive and pull-up jumper for 2, but that is a low percentage shot for all but the very best players.

calumnus said:

---

No matter what, you cannot give shooters open threes.

In college basketball a zone that aggressively defends the 3 point line and has a basket protecter or better, 3, can be very effective. Yes, it leaves open the dribble drive and pull-up jumper for 2, but that is a low percentage shot for all but the very best players.

---

agree

at least not give up the 3 point line to anyone who can shoot a 3, which these days is just about everyone

however, you should also not give up the dunk or layup, and as you said, that's why it's good to have a basket protector. We don't have a strong one of those unfortunately.

therefore we have a dilemma

But going back to your point, no team should give up so many completely open 3s (meaning no defenders in the same zip code) to good shooters as we did vs St Marys.

I think its fine (and necessary) to play multiple D's in college and include both man and zone. You need to make the opponent adjust as well as managing game speed. And, as HD says, there are lots of twists and any D can be aggressive or passive. Passive can be useful, when your trying to milk the clock or adjust tempo. As for steals, most D's can modify how much they focus on them - either off the ball (as we seem to be doing a lot against no-so-athletic teams) or in the passing lanes (against athletic teams).

Having watched practices with a few college coaches, they spent most of their D practice on recognition, communication and these adjustments. Not so much on fundamentals of man or zone.

Focusing on a single defense, like Man to enforce fundamental principles and focus seems like a high school (or lower) level solution. However, that may be what this group needs. If so, than maybe recruiting has not been as promising as we think.

SFCity and HD have articulated the key issues with defense. I am inclined to agree with SFCity that playing man will improve defensive fundamentals much more than zone. Unfortunately with this vertically challenged team it will likely lead to more losses because we don't really have a good post defender. Kelly gives up too much height, and Vanover is too weak and unfinished at this point. If we are OK with trading losses now for a much better team next year, that is the way to go. Unfortunately, Jones probably doesn't have that luxury, since his butt is being toasted as we speak.

I also agree with HD. Zone defenses as they were played in the 50's an 60's were passive reactive defenses. But the development of hybrid defenses--the match-up zone of Syracuse for instance--can be very aggressive; however, it requires considerable skill and basketball IQ, because you're essentially playing man on the player in your area and there needs to be great coordination in passing off players to the next defender. Otherwise, you leave easy lanes for driving or open shots.

When I wrote that zone defense is passive, I was quoting Pete Newell from one of his books. He said that zones are reactive, which meant that players guard an area and wait until the offense makes a move before they move to guard someone or block that move. The defender has to just stand there and wait until something happens that he is responsible to stop (sometimes with help). Often, especially in perimeter zones, he has to take the time to rush to the offensive player, hurry to get into proper defensive position, and then defend. There was little or no film on teams in Newell's day, so Newell was ahead of his time in having his assistants scout teams in advance of playing them. He had a card file on the tendencies and weaknesses of every good player in the country, which Cal might face one day. In Newell's man defense, players had been thoroughly drilled in defending the tendencies of opponent players, so his players were able to anticipate an opponent's moves and get to that spot on the floor, so the offensive player could not get to that spot first. That was what he meant about "aggressive," not stealing a ball or blocking a shot.

In any zone defense, in the simplest situation without help, the defender sooner or later has to play simple man defense on the player. That means he has to know how to never leave the man alone in his zone, as long as he is a threat. He has to know where he himself is in relation to the basket, so he can always stay between his man and the basket. He has to know proper defensive position butt down, one foot forward, one hand up. He has to know which hand to have up, and which hand down, and which foot forward and which foot back, depending on where the offensive player is trying to go or what he is trying to do. If his zone borders the baseline, he has to know how to use the baseline when guarding his man. He has to know how to take the baseline away from his opponent. Which foot to put forward when trying to stop an opponent from driving baseline. These are not just man-to-man fundamentals, they are fundamental to any zone defense, even the sophisticated ones. Do Cal defenders know all this and use it?

I was unable to watch the St Marys game and recorded it. I watched the first half, and replayed much of it. Everyone has mentioned that Cal gave up a lot of three point shots to the Gaels. What stood out to me was how Cal players were guarding St Mary's perimeter shooters, and that was too loose to begin with. They were playing 10 feet off them in many instances, playing either man or zone, and then when St. Mary's swung the ball to one side of the court, Cal guarded those players, but the Cal defenders on the opposite side left their zone or left their man to hedge much closer to the basket, presumably to help out on rebounding. Cal got suckered into following the ball instead of protecting their zone or guarding their man, and it was like taking candy from a baby for St Mary's to make a couple of quick passes to the open shooters, or make a drive into the lane, drawing more Cal defenders, and then a quick pass to the open shooter. McNeill and Austin left their men alone, presumably to go rebound over and over. Bradley can't seem to stay with his man very often.

Cal's offense isn't very good. It is all one-on-one. 6 assists for 26 buckets = 26%. St Mary's played real team offense, with 19 assists for 30 buckets = 63%. But Cal still scored 71 points. That is enough to win a lot of games, but not if we give up 75-80 points. Cal needs to work on defensive fundamentals more than anything, that I can see. That is why I'd like to see them play only man defense, because it will give them game experience using those fundamentals, and not worrying about playing different defensive strategies. They have to play enough man defense so the fundamentals become muscle memory, basketball IQ memory. I really don't care how many games they lose doing it. If they get better at it, hold opponents below say, 70 points, which is not unreasonable, they might even win some games this year. Pete Newell was lucky, as he coached in an era where California players were all well-schooled in defensive fundamentals in high school (except maybe San Diego, which was all run-and-gun), and Bay Area teams were prominent and even dominant nationally for several years. So he had no need to teach basic fundamentals, and could teach advanced defensive skills. Today, good high school defenders are more rare, but they are there to be found. As to the future, I think we might start looking for defense as one criteria in recruiting, and not just the flashy 3-point shooters, or the fabulous athletes.

I agree. It's generally accepted that a good way to start with a team is to teach them a basic, hard-nosed man-to-man defense as your foundation, then branch out from there. That's why last season was so surprising, starting out with that press and then going to zone. Common sense would say that an inexperienced HC should start out with the basics, rather than trying to be an innovator from the get-go.