Well first of all i appreciate your answers in this thread, i dindn't have time to read/answer your previous post where you explain why 2-3 is not working atm in the game. I accept that maybe it's just because we are confussed about why 2-3 is not working, but let me share some thoughts;
(181900.16)If your players are good enough defensively to play it, the strongest defense will always be man-to-man. Any defense other than man-to-man is by design weaker than man-to-man
I assume from your words, that 2-3 was designed on a very basic level.
The managers are training really diferent from the past. Now a manager that likes to play from the inside usually have 3-4 centers with good inside skills and focus training on their outside players. Most of the managers are focussing to train OD in really high levels, but they are also focussing in having unstopable players, training them in driving&IS with the trainings of 1n1& JS in SF-PF.
I've never seen inside teams in the past with OD's in(PG-SG-SF) around 15-20 with highs drivings and highs IS(minimum 8+)
I've seen last season teams like this on B3 and all of them arrived in late stages.
The problem i see to the 2-3 is that we can't stop the drivings of the outside players(even if they have great IS or not) and the heavy lose of outside defense.
If your players are good enough defensively to play it, the strongest defense will always be man-to-man
I strong disagree with this sentence.
The inside teams have players with enough OD to play m2m against an outside team, but 3-2 is their key to win most of the matchs, 3-2 works really good against an outside team.
in the same way that any offense other than base offense is by design weaker than base offense, for teams that have strong and balanced personnel
(10849)Playing at China home and they had strong&balanced players.
A player with weaker rebound can outplay another player with better rebound even if they play at home just because the bonus in the offensive rebound that LI have is really strong.
In that vein, a 2-3 zone was intended to be an option that will be effective against imbalanced teams with very strong low post players
That's why i say 2-3 was designed on a very basic level, some seasons ago the game was on a young stage, but most of the managers have trained in a very balanced way, top teams in divisions I-II (and some div III teams) have a very balanced inside focussed team (outside players drive under the basket like Rose) and it's nearlly impossible to stop this.
If 2-3 can't do nothing against balanced inside teams(as you seem to say)
i suggest another new inside zone, more balanced, that can help on the inside defense but not forgetting about the outside players.
And i'll repeat and agree with you, the best defense we have the outside teams to stop an inside team is the man to man, while the inside teams play with 3-2 and most of the times this fact is what decides the game, the inside team defends much better, pick more rebounds and score easier than the outside team can do.
What we don't understand also is why to perform a 2-3 you need so good players with SB while in 3-2 that's not the case.
Last but not least, i'll repeat in ANY case we are asking ''make 2-3 zone better'', what we ask is to have a usefull inside zone, because it's becoming really boring to play just m2m.
Inside zones;
''2-3''
inside box
Outside zones;
3-2
1-3-1
outside box
Why not a 3rd inside zone or as i said in the thread fix 2-3?
Also i suggest a new qualification for SB to see what impact has in the inside zones(or zones in general), that would be also usefull.
Thanks,
Marot.
Last edited by Marot at 04/24/2011 19:44:38