Below is a highlight tape of Thursday's loss to Arizona and a quality coaching video on playing help defense in man. If there's one thing that's painfully obvious, it's that this team needs to stop playing zone. I rarely do opinion type posts like this, but I feel like this issue needs to be highlighted and yes, it goes straight back to coaching.
The benefits of playing zone defense is that it can give opponents a different look, it can be more effective at defending the perimeter by forcing teams to shoot from the outside, it's harder to use the pick and role against, and if you don't have as athletic of players, you can use zone to make up for your lack of athleticism with better defensive communication and teamwork.
While there are those benefits of playing zone, there are some serious risks if the zone isn't done properly:
The first risk is leaving wide open shooters due to poor defensive rotations. Does this sound familiar? If guys aren't rotating and in the right spots, teams can have a field day against you both from the perimeter as well as inside. There are two examples of this from the Arizona game. One is the easy slams Ira Lee had inside and the other is all the threes Ryan Luther got.
The second risk is it can make guys lazy on defense. If zone is done right, guys should be just as active on defense as they are if they are playing man. But too often, guys feel less accountable because it wasn't "their guy" that scored. There's more of a collective failure happening in which guys can say "it wasn't really my fault, it was my teammate's fault for not being in his spot." This Cal team has fallen prey to this issue far too often.
The third risk is it doesn't teach good defensive fundamentals. If you really want to have an effective zone defense, you need guys that have good defensive fundamentals and the only way to gain those fundamentals is through playing man-to-man defense. Without good fundamentals, your zone defense won't be nearly as effective. Guys won't know how to close out on shooters, get in a guys' grill, and you know, play good defense.
So with those risks all being what's obviously plaguing this Cal team, they need to switch to man defense. The first reason I've already addressed. By playing man-to-man defense, these young Cal players would be able to build a foundation for playing good defense. When you go up against a guy who is better than you, that makes you a better defender. It forces you to be more alert and use your physical gifts well.
It builds good habits for the next level and teaches you to play defense the right way: Not fouling, not reaching in, staying between your man and the basket, fight through screens, etc. If you really are all about building a defensive culture for the future, you must instill good man-to-man defense in your young players. It teaches accountability and right now, no one on this Cal team is being held accountable for their atrocious defense. Only when you've mastered the man-to-man defense and built up a good foundation can you move on to zone.
The second reason why man-to-man defense would be better is it's so much simpler to implement. Guard your man. That's it! While it still requires communication like telling guys when a screen is coming, deciding whether to switch or just hedge until your teammate recovers, man-to-man defense doesn't require the same level of coordination and sophistication as zone.
If your players are having a tough time communicating and being in the right spots on rotations, you gotta quit doing zone and stick to man. The fix is also much simpler. If one guy can't guard a certain player, put a different guy on him. This would have worked so much better against Bennie Boatwright, who feasted on Cal's poor defensive communication in the zone.
The third reason why playing man-to-man defense is better is it builds more confidence in your players. When you go up against a guy mano-a-mano and you stop him, it builds your confidence in a way that zone defense doesn't. It challenges and pushes your players more. Makes them more accountable like I said. It shows that you trust them to make a play and stick to their assignment.
The bottom line is that given how poorly Cal is playing zone defense, it's a major coaching blunder that they continue to stick with it. It's obvious the players can't communicate effectively and that they're lost out there on the floor. Guys aren't sure when to rotate, where to rotate, etc. Even if this is being properly taught in practice (which is a major question mark in and of itself), if the players are unable to successfully implement it to the level of detail that it needs to be, it needs to be scrapped and replaced with man-to-man defense. Period.
Wyking Jones lamented after the USC loss about how he told them the zone defense in practice was unacceptable and that while better, it wasn't where it needed to be. This was an attempt to pin the blame back on his players for not being able to handle their assignment. The truth is, it's a poor reflection of him and his staff to make them go out there and play zone in the first place when it was obvious in practice that they weren't getting it done to the level that they needed.
I know the staff would say they don't have the horses to go man, but I don't care about that excuse. If this season is all about development and getting better, then going man-to-man will help them build a defensive foundation that will make them better in the coming years. Plus, they'll play better defense anyways and I actually think they have the athletes to play effective man-to-man defense (JHD, Bradley, McNeill, Sueing, and even Austin).
The worst kind of defense is a shoddy zone defense and that's precisely what Cal keep trotting out onto the court every single night. It's inexcusable and should not be put back on the players. The coaches should have figured this out weeks ago and the fact that they haven't is a joke.
The benefits of playing zone defense is that it can give opponents a different look, it can be more effective at defending the perimeter by forcing teams to shoot from the outside, it's harder to use the pick and role against, and if you don't have as athletic of players, you can use zone to make up for your lack of athleticism with better defensive communication and teamwork.
While there are those benefits of playing zone, there are some serious risks if the zone isn't done properly:
The first risk is leaving wide open shooters due to poor defensive rotations. Does this sound familiar? If guys aren't rotating and in the right spots, teams can have a field day against you both from the perimeter as well as inside. There are two examples of this from the Arizona game. One is the easy slams Ira Lee had inside and the other is all the threes Ryan Luther got.
The second risk is it can make guys lazy on defense. If zone is done right, guys should be just as active on defense as they are if they are playing man. But too often, guys feel less accountable because it wasn't "their guy" that scored. There's more of a collective failure happening in which guys can say "it wasn't really my fault, it was my teammate's fault for not being in his spot." This Cal team has fallen prey to this issue far too often.
The third risk is it doesn't teach good defensive fundamentals. If you really want to have an effective zone defense, you need guys that have good defensive fundamentals and the only way to gain those fundamentals is through playing man-to-man defense. Without good fundamentals, your zone defense won't be nearly as effective. Guys won't know how to close out on shooters, get in a guys' grill, and you know, play good defense.
So with those risks all being what's obviously plaguing this Cal team, they need to switch to man defense. The first reason I've already addressed. By playing man-to-man defense, these young Cal players would be able to build a foundation for playing good defense. When you go up against a guy who is better than you, that makes you a better defender. It forces you to be more alert and use your physical gifts well.
It builds good habits for the next level and teaches you to play defense the right way: Not fouling, not reaching in, staying between your man and the basket, fight through screens, etc. If you really are all about building a defensive culture for the future, you must instill good man-to-man defense in your young players. It teaches accountability and right now, no one on this Cal team is being held accountable for their atrocious defense. Only when you've mastered the man-to-man defense and built up a good foundation can you move on to zone.
The second reason why man-to-man defense would be better is it's so much simpler to implement. Guard your man. That's it! While it still requires communication like telling guys when a screen is coming, deciding whether to switch or just hedge until your teammate recovers, man-to-man defense doesn't require the same level of coordination and sophistication as zone.
If your players are having a tough time communicating and being in the right spots on rotations, you gotta quit doing zone and stick to man. The fix is also much simpler. If one guy can't guard a certain player, put a different guy on him. This would have worked so much better against Bennie Boatwright, who feasted on Cal's poor defensive communication in the zone.
The third reason why playing man-to-man defense is better is it builds more confidence in your players. When you go up against a guy mano-a-mano and you stop him, it builds your confidence in a way that zone defense doesn't. It challenges and pushes your players more. Makes them more accountable like I said. It shows that you trust them to make a play and stick to their assignment.
The bottom line is that given how poorly Cal is playing zone defense, it's a major coaching blunder that they continue to stick with it. It's obvious the players can't communicate effectively and that they're lost out there on the floor. Guys aren't sure when to rotate, where to rotate, etc. Even if this is being properly taught in practice (which is a major question mark in and of itself), if the players are unable to successfully implement it to the level of detail that it needs to be, it needs to be scrapped and replaced with man-to-man defense. Period.
Wyking Jones lamented after the USC loss about how he told them the zone defense in practice was unacceptable and that while better, it wasn't where it needed to be. This was an attempt to pin the blame back on his players for not being able to handle their assignment. The truth is, it's a poor reflection of him and his staff to make them go out there and play zone in the first place when it was obvious in practice that they weren't getting it done to the level that they needed.
I know the staff would say they don't have the horses to go man, but I don't care about that excuse. If this season is all about development and getting better, then going man-to-man will help them build a defensive foundation that will make them better in the coming years. Plus, they'll play better defense anyways and I actually think they have the athletes to play effective man-to-man defense (JHD, Bradley, McNeill, Sueing, and even Austin).
The worst kind of defense is a shoddy zone defense and that's precisely what Cal keep trotting out onto the court every single night. It's inexcusable and should not be put back on the players. The coaches should have figured this out weeks ago and the fact that they haven't is a joke.
