Yeah, I agree. I think criticizing zone defense is low lying fruit, but only because a lot of youth coaches use zone as a shortcut and don’t really teach kids how to defend within the zone.
But the truth is, how different is teaching zone shifts from the shell drill, right? If you watched someone teaching the shifts in a 1-2-2 zone, could you tell the difference between that and the shell drill?
The important thing is the kid learning what it means to defend as an individual and how to help your teammates. Personally, I think that’s harder to teach using a zone, but it’s not necessarily impossible.
I mean I commented today to a group that they looked like they were in zone, but it was more a criticism of the offense standing still. When offense plays shell offense, man and zone do look the same unless you teach a super aggressive man that nobody seems to employ anymore (full wing denials, etc).
All other things being equal, as a practical matter, the only undeniable advantage to teaching man to man at the youth level, to me anyway, is that we can practice it no matter how many kids I have at practice.
With a zone, yes, you can use breakdown drills and teach individual defensive skills, but you can’t really practice live defending in a 2-3 zone unless you have ten kids at practice to play 5x5. If you only have 8 kids on your team, forget it.
I'm not pro zone necessarily, but I question the automatic responses of many. I also think it is good to challenge one's thinking by taking a different perspective. I imagine at some point in the next year, I will write something about the ills of zone defenses. There are arguments against zones, but they're generally not the ones we hear the most (actually more in line with your point). I just think the popular arguments are lazy (ironically enough).
One of our feeder schools had a really good 2 year run, losing 1 game and winning the state championship back-to-back in 7th and 8th grade. They played so much pressing and trapping zone defense and took advantage of having several players who matured early and have a size, strength, and athleticism advantage on a lot of others. They also play smaller schools and will be playing against better players and teams in high school. Some of the teams they beat in the postseason will be 1A in high school and we are 3A. They crushed almost every team they played....I really wish the coach had played man to man more. They kids are not very good guarding 1v1 right now and they were not great against a set half court defense. I thinkm it affected their development on both sides of the ball. They never needed a good offense because they forced 20+ TOs per game and got most of their points in transition. It will be interesting to see how this group develops. I think a few of them won't grow a ton and we will need to be a lot better playing man-to-man.
I understand. But it also sounds like the problem is more the competitive level than zone. If opponents were that overmatched, would they learn good man defense?
100% that is a big part of it. Just one of those things that happens when you have several feeder middle schools, they all tend to be smaller and play a lower level of ball before high school....I am not one of these "no zone ever" guys, in fact, I think it is important for kids to learn how to play against a zone offensively because they will see it at all levels. The problem I see with this group is that the zone press was all they would do until up 30, then sub and play everyone else. I still think they dominate games no matter what they play M2M defense, but wouldn't it be better to challenge them to get 5 seconds calls and force deflections, and TOs out of M2M? Challenge them to get better guarding the ball? Work on switching and not switching and have to communicate? If we had a shot clock (which we still don't have in HS) we could challenge them to force shot clock violations.
Sure, based on what you've said. My contention is not that zone is good or everyone should play zone; it is that blaming zone for everything is lazy. The zone usually is not the problem in the arguments. In this one instance, maybe the zone is the issue. Maybe it is pressing. Maybe it is unequal competition. Maybe it is not substituting earlier. Maybe the zone/press is lazy and poorly taught in this instance because they can get away with it versus the competition. I don't know. I didn't;t even know they have middle school state championships! I think every issue is complex, which is kind of the point: Blaming zones is a simple answer to a complex problem. Does not mean it is not the answer to a specific problem....and like I said in another reply, I amine I'll write an article before the end of the year describing the problems with zone!
Yeah, I agree. I think criticizing zone defense is low lying fruit, but only because a lot of youth coaches use zone as a shortcut and don’t really teach kids how to defend within the zone.
But the truth is, how different is teaching zone shifts from the shell drill, right? If you watched someone teaching the shifts in a 1-2-2 zone, could you tell the difference between that and the shell drill?
The important thing is the kid learning what it means to defend as an individual and how to help your teammates. Personally, I think that’s harder to teach using a zone, but it’s not necessarily impossible.
I mean I commented today to a group that they looked like they were in zone, but it was more a criticism of the offense standing still. When offense plays shell offense, man and zone do look the same unless you teach a super aggressive man that nobody seems to employ anymore (full wing denials, etc).
All other things being equal, as a practical matter, the only undeniable advantage to teaching man to man at the youth level, to me anyway, is that we can practice it no matter how many kids I have at practice.
With a zone, yes, you can use breakdown drills and teach individual defensive skills, but you can’t really practice live defending in a 2-3 zone unless you have ten kids at practice to play 5x5. If you only have 8 kids on your team, forget it.
You can always work on man to man defense.
Good point.
I'm not pro zone necessarily, but I question the automatic responses of many. I also think it is good to challenge one's thinking by taking a different perspective. I imagine at some point in the next year, I will write something about the ills of zone defenses. There are arguments against zones, but they're generally not the ones we hear the most (actually more in line with your point). I just think the popular arguments are lazy (ironically enough).
One of our feeder schools had a really good 2 year run, losing 1 game and winning the state championship back-to-back in 7th and 8th grade. They played so much pressing and trapping zone defense and took advantage of having several players who matured early and have a size, strength, and athleticism advantage on a lot of others. They also play smaller schools and will be playing against better players and teams in high school. Some of the teams they beat in the postseason will be 1A in high school and we are 3A. They crushed almost every team they played....I really wish the coach had played man to man more. They kids are not very good guarding 1v1 right now and they were not great against a set half court defense. I thinkm it affected their development on both sides of the ball. They never needed a good offense because they forced 20+ TOs per game and got most of their points in transition. It will be interesting to see how this group develops. I think a few of them won't grow a ton and we will need to be a lot better playing man-to-man.
I understand. But it also sounds like the problem is more the competitive level than zone. If opponents were that overmatched, would they learn good man defense?
100% that is a big part of it. Just one of those things that happens when you have several feeder middle schools, they all tend to be smaller and play a lower level of ball before high school....I am not one of these "no zone ever" guys, in fact, I think it is important for kids to learn how to play against a zone offensively because they will see it at all levels. The problem I see with this group is that the zone press was all they would do until up 30, then sub and play everyone else. I still think they dominate games no matter what they play M2M defense, but wouldn't it be better to challenge them to get 5 seconds calls and force deflections, and TOs out of M2M? Challenge them to get better guarding the ball? Work on switching and not switching and have to communicate? If we had a shot clock (which we still don't have in HS) we could challenge them to force shot clock violations.
Sure, based on what you've said. My contention is not that zone is good or everyone should play zone; it is that blaming zone for everything is lazy. The zone usually is not the problem in the arguments. In this one instance, maybe the zone is the issue. Maybe it is pressing. Maybe it is unequal competition. Maybe it is not substituting earlier. Maybe the zone/press is lazy and poorly taught in this instance because they can get away with it versus the competition. I don't know. I didn't;t even know they have middle school state championships! I think every issue is complex, which is kind of the point: Blaming zones is a simple answer to a complex problem. Does not mean it is not the answer to a specific problem....and like I said in another reply, I amine I'll write an article before the end of the year describing the problems with zone!