Hated it, Georgetown had more three point shot opportunities than they should have because the 2-3 zone wasn't working. Don't know if with more practice it would be better, or if another zone arrangement would improve things, or maybe they should just abandon zones period and just play man-to-man. Against a good team they'd suffer with this zone scheme.
Get rid of the zone defense
- Thread starter Conndog
- Start date
Nice x's and o's.
Zone advantages: Can communicate about shooters. Should be able to challenge shots
Should reduce dribble penetration, which is a UConn Achilles Heel.
Stay out of foul trouble.
Make teams shoot from outside
disadvantages: No m to m boxout responsibilities
There are a hundred zone defenses. How about one with one man on top, 1-2-2 or even 1-3 (is it extinct?). UConn has length they could put in that top position- E, CD, Nika (strength, toughness)
I've seen in person aggressive 2-3 zones that trap free-throw line extended and in the corners. Georgetown with Iverson and Jacques on top. Wicked nasty.
Zone advantages: Can communicate about shooters. Should be able to challenge shots
Should reduce dribble penetration, which is a UConn Achilles Heel.
Stay out of foul trouble.
Make teams shoot from outside
disadvantages: No m to m boxout responsibilities
There are a hundred zone defenses. How about one with one man on top, 1-2-2 or even 1-3 (is it extinct?). UConn has length they could put in that top position- E, CD, Nika (strength, toughness)
I've seen in person aggressive 2-3 zones that trap free-throw line extended and in the corners. Georgetown with Iverson and Jacques on top. Wicked nasty.
Centerstream
Looking forward to next season
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2017
- Messages
- 8,290
- Reaction Score
- 31,928
So glad Geno is our coach even though several BYers think they know how to do his job better. 
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2021
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction Score
- 360
I think that even though the zone saves our energy, we lose our aggressiveness. And our guards are much easier to screen. Plus teams just throw over the zone and take deep, open 3s. I think if Geno/Chris could figure out another zone scheme with our personnel they would have figured it out already. Trust the process!!!
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction Score
- 1,066
Having a decent zone as an option make good sense, and they should definitely use it for several possessions in blow-out victories like today's vs G'Town. If an opponent is lighting it up from 3, then no. But otherwise it's a great way to keep rebounders in position and avoid multi-chance possessions.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2011
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction Score
- 110
Ask any coach who ever went up against Jim Boeheim and a good Syracuse team how ineffective a zone is.
Whenever you are in a game, a real game, and get the opportunity to practice something under real game conditions, you're a fool not to take it. These are chances to help the players in situations they may not have faced with team mates they may not played next to in a while.
I thank Geno for having the dedication to continue to make his players better and to and maybe, just maybe, make the team better at the same time.
When UConn switched to a zone they lost all momentum. Not just in yesterday's game, but in every game they tinkered with it. They are just not a good zone team. If I can see that, and other BY'ers as well, surely Geno can see that. Geno wants perfection? The zone isn't going to get there. If Geno wants to keep MOV low, play the bench but stick to the m-to-m.
cohenzone
Old Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 18,825
- Reaction Score
- 21,700
Hmm. This year. Nika history of foot issues. Azzi ditto. Evina knee issues. Caroline coming off head injury. ONO off a leg injury. Tournaments coming up. He’s cutting his guards some slack right now. He does not prefer zone defenses.
Papa33
Poster Emeritus
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 568
- Reaction Score
- 3,347
On that last entry: makes boxing out a bit more difficult. But use a different principle: look to select and box out the opponent closest to you. So it's not impossibly difficult, just takes a bit more attention.
Zone also facilitates doubling and trapping. Match-up zone provides most of the benefit of man-to-man pressure while still providing safety net for quicker guard penetration.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2021
- Messages
- 2,698
- Reaction Score
- 12,608
Zones are an acceptable option depending on the game situation. I mean I wouldn't play it against an NC State or Arkansas. If you have people in foul trouble it helps. Or if the other team isn't great at the jump shot, then you might concede some open looks. If I'm UCONN, I wouldn't fall in love with it because it can be difficult to get defensive rebounds out of it.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2012
- Messages
- 3,417
- Reaction Score
- 9,306
The zone should only be if our player(s) are in foul trouble. With Olivia, Dorka, Aaliya, Amaria and Piath we shouldn't have big foul trouble. With Azzi, Caroline, Nika, Christyn and Evina we shouldn't have guard foul trouble.
JoePgh
Cranky pants and wise acre
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,649
- Reaction Score
- 21,234
That is why Geno was practicing it in yesterday's game, and probably will in this week's games also: foul trouble and injuries.
I totally disagree with your statement that UConn shouldn't or won't have foul trouble in the front court. Geno is not going to play Amari or Piath against serious competition unless there is a real emergency, and if there is, it's easier for them to play in a zone than to master all the switching complexities of man-to-man defense. So we are really talking about Liv, Aaliyah, and Dorka, all of whom have shown that they are prone to fouls being called on them. If only one of them can play against a team with size, then a zone is better at protecting the paint. A zone also helps to avoid further foul trouble for the back line.
Having said that, Geno is only going to play a zone defense if he has to, not because he wants to. One possible exception is if a team relies on its big players for offense and has no credible perimeter shooting threats. Most good teams don't fit that profile (maybe Baylor?).
Good analysis ! Any X's and O's, be there only ONE advantage existed instead of numerous, DON'T arbitrarily say get rid of it !!
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2021
- Messages
- 1,677
- Reaction Score
- 7,800
I think you could make a strong case for a zone against South Carolina. You have to make them shoot from the outside but you better also rebound or it's over anyway. They kill you on the offensive boards. They had 31 offensive rebounds the other day against Tennessee. And Tennessee is an excellent rebounding team even without Horston.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2016
- Messages
- 3,755
- Reaction Score
- 15,278
Good points. Last year, due to issues defending quick guards, before the playoffs Geno went to a zone that focused on double teaming the ball in the corners and side. Not your standard zone UConn has played recently at end of games but very effective disrupting the other team's offensive flow and use up their shot clock.
I don't mind a zone per se, my beef was UConn's 2-3 which in the game seemed to always leave someone open for a 3-point shot. Some other variation might work better at containing outside shooting. Maybe I should have titled this: " Get rid of the 2-3 Zone ". Zone defenses certainly can be effective. Maybe one type of zone set-up is better for defending a team that shoots a lot of 3-point shots, and a different set-up would work better if the goal is to pack the lane and stop the other team's big men/players.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 430
- Reaction Score
- 907
Notre Dame won a National title with essentially six players and a 1-3-1 zone. Every team has to have different looks in case one defence just isn't working. What zone that is and when to use are another question. As a former coach throwing something unexpected out there is hard for most coaches to make adjustments and explain to the players what to do in game with a time out. Every coach must have one in their back pocket.