(01-03-2011 04:04 PM)gloryblaz Wrote: [ -> ] (01-03-2011 03:17 PM)posterformerlyknownasthedoctor Wrote: [ -> ] (01-01-2011 11:40 PM)gloryblaz Wrote: [ -> ]Thoughtful, measured and spot on. Thanks for saying this. Coaching like this can only make Murry better! It seems at times he's a bit of a hard head...not listening to reason. I think he's changing. No wonder he stayed up all night pondering the use of man to man. Glad he made the move...and if zone is a better approach against certain opponents... hopefully he will change back. Bravo Faithful!
whose reason might he be listening to??
The "reason" referred to is not from any particular person, although the collective "reason" of this board proclaims it loudly. The "reason" might better be described as recognizing the obvious, i.e., common sense. When you get your brains shot out over and over and over and over while playing zone, and before the season started you've proclaimed that this may be the best team since you've been here [bartow's words], then you need to see if your guys *can* guard mano a mano - or not. He hasn't even allowed them the chance to see. Could this team have guarded KY successfully playing man? Probably not. Maybe not even Ole Miss... But all the other games he should have seen if they were capable of it, *THEN* go zone if you are forced to. *All this* on top of the same scenario for several years now. Historically, in his tenure, we've *ALWAYS* played better when we play man, part of which comes from being much better at allowing us to be uptempo. That is "reason"......
to be technical: the tempo only goes up in man if your man is not effective and they can get shots off quicker (good man is tough to score on and you see teams end up late in the shot clock going one on one)... the trapping zone that we ran actually increases the tempo of the game forcing the offense to be trapped or make a few quick passes for a shot...
so if you have seen an increase in tempo running man, then murry might see a weakness in the ability of the guys to really guard and contain in the man...
like i've said before - i love man d, but i also know murry has been around long enough to recognize good man to man when he sees it - i am hoping he is starting to see it, but i trust him to make that decision, not "listen to reason" that non-professionals think they see....
To be technical myself.......
I respectfully (partially) disagree with your statement that tempo only goes up in man if said defense is not effective. Some points:
1. Man defense forces/allows the offense to try and penetrate more, resulting in more contested passes, and more often than not more "action", for lack of a better term my parlance for heated confrontations, some which work out well for the defense, and some of which don't. But it's this greatly increased number of 'confrontations' which allow an uptempo game to develop.
2. That being said, I strongly agree that we need to use the trapping zone much more often - and by that I mean either the 1-3-1, the full court "black" press, or the modified man/zone he successfully employed a few games toward the end of last year. No doubt, in years past, our trapping zone (most especially full court) has given many, many teams fits, and has worked well to our advantage. My feeling is that those on this board who object to the near-constant zone would not object to a trapping zone. In fact, many post have urged this.
2a. This can be codified into a sort of maxim: The more confrontations and challenges that occur, the more chances for superior athleticism to prevail in the long run. That's why poorer teams like to slow it down, and the more athletic teams like to rev it up - in general.......
3. Yes, murry *perceives* a weakness in the ability of our personnel to guard man. However, the mountain of evidence in the past indicates that this is not the case - *
for most opponents*. 90+% of the posters on this board have seen that we simply play better, are more active, and are better able to use our superior physical talent (against *most* opponents) to it's full advantage, while playing man.
4. No, we should not play man all the time, nor nearly all the time even against (weaker) in-conference foes. But we need to use it a lot - probably 60% of the time, as an overall estimate. It's nearly always a good strategy, depending on the opponent's personnel in at any given time, to switch up defenses every few possessions in order to cause the offense to have to react. The exception to that, of course, is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" - meaning if they can't solve what you're showing them, then let them continue to founder.
5. murry should indeed have been around long enough to recognize good man when he sees it, but more urgently, obviously, and maddeningly, he seemingly *can't* recognize *bad* zone in operation, nor how to fix it.....
6. True, I'm a "non-professional", but I assure you I've played basketball at a high level, I've coached (some), and I've been around the game over 50 years. I can't speak to the degree of knowledge of every poster on this board, but I do know many are fairly knowledgeable, and I also know even a casual fan would be pulling their hair out watching Belmont (or name your poison) bomb away on us repeatedly.
6a. It's no accident that numerous (and I mean *
numerous*) teams
AND individuals have had career 3-point shooting nights against us when we play zone. I don't know how much you've kept up with this over the last 4-5 years, but it's been a phenomenal number, in both categories. So much so that over the years here, various posters have correctly predicted same on several occasions. One year (can't remember whether it was 2 or 3 years ago)
7 (or did it end up being even more than that?) different teams had their yearly highs in 3-pt. baskets against us in that single season. I think once or twice, they were all-time highs for teams, and I know there were all-time highs for several players. (And to be clear I'm speaking of all-time highs for 3-pt. buckets per game.)