Quick Thoughts

Crisco,

After seeing that his man-to-man defense was being shredded, Wojo made the right call going to zone. I know you still maintain it was a 2-3, but after starting with both guards on top of the arc, when the ball was passed to one side or the other, the weak side guard dropped top defend the high post area, which is classic 1-1-3. On almost every pass one of the two top defenders dropped like that creating the 1-1-3. Early in the game the off-ball guard did not drop and cover the high post - more of a straight 2-3, which is why we got burned there a few times when Hayes flashed to the free throw line.

Anyway, I agree that we should not be focused on the long term, but on winning games now. He can always switch to man when he has the personnel to make it work, whether that's next year or the following year, whenever. Of greater importance is building a winning culture, a mindset of winning rather than losing. Success breeds success.

I'm not sure I agree with you about only needing 15 minutes each practice to work on zone because the zone can be tweaked based on the opponent. Against Bucky, we automatically doubled the low post and the short corner. We had two because of Kaminsky and even Hayes, as well as Dekker. In other games we might not need to double down there, especially with Luke. Plus, if there are double teams, the double can come from different places, depending on the rest of the opponent's line up. Maybe Boeheim never changed his rotations. I don't know.

As far as why we didn't zone UW in the past, most of the time we had superior athletes who were able to stay in front of their man and keep UW's guards and wings from penetrating. Plus, UW almost always had a guy like Brust who could just kill a zone. Gasser, Jackson, and Koenig can all shoot the trey, but none of them is a Brust.

Plus we needed to counter their incredible height advantage. Playing Kaminsky and Hayes and Dekker straight up man would have been very difficult, especially with all the off-ball picks Bo employs. UW always has a slew of bigs, but both Hayes and Kaminsky can score down low. In the past many of UW's bigs were not as potent around the hoop.

Phantom,

The 15 minutes of practice comes straight from Jim Boeheim himself. Disagree with that guy. When he talks at clinics, he's always says that people ask him to talk about his 2-3 zone, but his teams really spend the majority of the time on man to man defense because other teams play them man to man. But they don't have to focus on their man to man which allows them to focus on their offense. They only allocate 15 minutes of time to the 2-3 defense at every practice because it's not a complicated defense. Sure, you can tweak it, but it does not take a lot of time to tweak it. If you run a man to man defense, there are multitudes of breakdown drills that you have to do. You have to practice jumping to the ball, bumping cutters, how you defend post to post cross screens, how you defend a ball screen on the sideline going baseline, on the sideline going middle, from the top of the key going sideline, from the top of the key going middle. You have to practice one pass away or two passes. You have to practice if you push the ball middle or if you push it sideline and baseline. You have to practice where you help comes from, then where you rotate to help the helper. You have to practice how you rotate after a double team or after the everyone rotated. It takes a long time to work on your man to man defense. Those are all breakdown drills. Then Wojo breaks those down into 1 man shell drills, and builds it up to 2 man, 3 man, then 4 man. On the flip side, the master of the zone, Jim Boeheim, spends 15 minutes of practice working on it. Even if you don't believe that, you can see how much more time it takes to send on your man to man than zone.

I'm familiar with the 1-1-3. It was the defense that I learned under Terri Mitchell, who is considered to be one of the best defensive coaches in the women's game. However, I disagree with you on a 2-3 zone, the off guard better be covering the elbow. That's the spot that kills any zone.

What is the advantage of a 2/3 versus a 1-1-3. Correct me if I'm wrong but the most vulnerable spots against a 2/3 are the L spot and the short corner. The 1-1-3 covers both of these pretty effectively. The biggest weakness for a 1-1-3 in comparison to the 2/3 seems to be the skip pass - high post sealing free throw line defender and getting a quick ball reversal from the skip. Ive never really looked into a 1-1-3 but the more I evaluate, it seems like a zone with less weaknesses. So why don't more teams play a 1-1-3 as opposed to a traditional 2/3?

I was introduced to the 1-1-3 three years ago. I have never liked a 2-3 zone, opting instead for a trapping 1-3-1 if/when I played zone. But I really like the 1-1-3.

Yep I'm really starting to fall in love with the 1-1-3. So am i missing something or is the biggest weakness in the 1-1-3 (in comparison to the 2-3) the skip pass to an open shooter? Seems like that's a weakness I could live with. Guess I just don't get what I'm missing as to why 2/3 is by far the primary zone defense played over 1-1-3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyCityGoldenEagle

What is the advantage of a 2/3 versus a 1-1-3. Correct me if I'm wrong but the most vulnerable spots against a 2/3 are the L spot and the short corner. The 1-1-3 covers both of these pretty effectively. The biggest weakness for a 1-1-3 in comparison to the 2/3 seems to be the skip pass - high post sealing free throw line defender and getting a quick ball reversal from the skip. Ive never really looked into a 1-1-3 but the more I evaluate, it seems like a zone with less weaknesses. So why don't more teams play a 1-1-3 as opposed to a traditional 2/3?

---

The primary difference between the two zones is the amount of preparation that you need to play a 1-1-3 vs a 2-3 zone. A 1-1-3 is more of a matchup zone. There are more man to man principles in it than a 2-3 zone would. You could matchup in a 2-3 zone, but it's more that you are covering a part of the floor. Put it this way. Many teams will attack a 1-1-3 zone with their man to man stuff.

Because you have more man to man principles in it, more time is spent on your 1-1-3. There are many ways to play your 1-1-3. For example, Ohio State's women's coach will tell you that anything below the FT line is the responsibility of the back line. Above the FT line is the guard's responsibility. Those concepts are much like the 2-3 zone. However, when it differs, is that let's say the bottom defender is picking up the ball on the wing, but it's still below the FT line but not by much. If the ball is then passed to the corner, then the defender in the middle has to go out and play that person. Then the defender that was guarding the wing either takes the center spot, or if that person is undersized, then the opposite both defender slides over to the bottom spot and the ball defender takes the opposite side.

The way Terri Mitchell played it, it is different. The top guard, who we will call the jammer, will force the ball handler one way so that the ball side/strong side is established. Then, the second guard, who Terri called the Rover, will shadow towards the weak side offensive guard. The strong side bottom defender, will shadow towards the strong side guard. It doesn't matter if the ball is above the FT line or not. If the ball is passed to the strong side, the bottom defender takes it. If it is passed to the weak side, the Rover takes it.

Skip passes are definitely a weakness, but they are in any zone. What is a huge weakness in the way that both is played is when the ball is passed to the wing, then it is passed to the corner, especially when there is a baseline runner. Like I said before, in the Ohio St scheme, the center bottom defender has to go out and play that. In Terri's case, if the ball is passed to the weak side, then the corner, those defenders are matched up already. However, if the ball is passed to the strong side, then there is a baseline runner, the rover has to go to and bump the bottom defender over so that they are able to cover the weak side. Doing things like that does take more practice time because it is a little more complicated, matching up like that. The advantage is that it is not a zone that many people play so that teams aren't used to playing it. Plus, you can mask what defense you are playing. It looks like a man to man, but it is really a zone. Also, you can double down on the post easily, because the Rover is already there.

If a team did play a 1-1-3 straight up, it would be easy to defeat it in the college games because the wings at the FT line extended are really exposed. Those are shots that people practice and people make. The tougher shot is in the corner. So, you don't mind giving up that corner has much. Plus, in a 1-1-3, it is easier to surprise a team and trap on the wings, in the corners, or even the pt guard when they cross the line.

For anyone out there interested in learning more about the 1-1-3, especially anyone coaching a youth team, this is the site I explored first once the high school varsity coach introduced the defense to me three years ago.

We don't do the "drills," but the "movements" diagrams can be extremely helpful.

We respond a little differently when there are three players on the strong side perimeter, which usually includes a player in the corner.

I've come to the conclusion that you need the right personnel to implement this defense, which is probably true for any defense. With certain combinations of players on the court, we switch from a 1-1-3 to a 1-3-1.

What Crisco said about teams not usually having to play against a 1-1-3 is absolutely correct. And because it is a match-up zone and "shape shifts" at times, opposing players and coaches are often perplexed at how to attack it.

Anyway, here are the links to some of the info (click on upper right hand "Name" options.)

http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/pla...ptrapping.html

http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/pla...h-uprules.html

http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/pla...uardmoves.html

http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/pla...sidemoves.html

There are other sources people can find as well.

Enjoy the discussion guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goose85

Enjoy the discussion guys.

---

I second this! As a novice at coaching kids, these types of discussions always fascinate me!

In Phantom's 3rd link, that is how Terri plays the corner pass. The rover comes out and bumps the bottom defender down to cover the corner. When there is a baseline runner, you must have communication that there is a baseline cutter. That way, the Rover knows to bump the bottom defender down.

In Phantom's 4th link, that is how Ohio St will play it. When the ball is passed to the corner, the 5 goes out and plays that. Then, the 4 becomes the center defender. The problem is if your 4 is an undersized player. Picture if that was Derrick Wilson in that spot. Now, Derrick Wilson is playing post players. So, a way around that is to have the 3 slide over to cover the middle, then Derrick hustles back to the weak side.

All these things need to be practiced in breakdown drills. If you play a team that moves the ball well, and pretty much any college team or varsity high school team will do that, then you can see how quick two pass reversals can beat the zone. You will have an advantage on one side and 1 defender playing 2. You can overload a side or plays your man to man stuff, and unless you've put in a lot of practice time into those rotations, it's a tough zone to play. But if you like to change defenses and mask what you are doing, it's very effective.