BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Help with analysing my defence

Help with analysing my defence

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
141095.14 in reply to 141095.13
Date: 4/18/2010 10:42:34 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
2323
2-3 Zone is being a bit underrated. If the opposing team has poor shooting guards, it's your best bet. I've seen LI teams that have guards that shoot under 30%. 2-3 is good in that situation and is best when you can stop them from getting Offensive Rebounds.

This Post:
00
141095.15 in reply to 141095.13
Date: 4/18/2010 10:53:33 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
345345
Yeah but you didn't mention that he didn't play 3 of his usual starters, played a bunch of players worse than your starters, and you CT'd him when he played TIE.

There are always various factors involved in games other than tactics.

My team on paper looks strong inside because of my heavy big man presence, but my shooters are equally adept. Playing 2-3 against me when I play PTB would be suicide.

If I want to shut down a big man or shooter, I play M2M and play my best defender on him, that way I'm guaranteed to have him man marked at all times by that player. A zone shifts too much and I may find my weakest player in that zone marking him.

There's nothing wrong with 2-3 if a team has horrible guards, but if they're competent they can really rip you a new one, because instead of looking inside they'll start creating their own looks.

This Post:
00
141095.16 in reply to 141095.15
Date: 4/18/2010 11:05:05 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
I wasn't saying that I beat him because I was the better team or because I played a 2-3 zone. He is clearly the much better team, seeing as he plays a division above and is ranked 41 in the country.

My point was that with the team he played, and the team I played, and already taking in to account the fact that I played CT and he played TIE, what I'm saying is that had I played Man to Man instead of a 2-3 zone, I would have lost.