BuzzerBeater Forums

First 2 games are not good examples, or it's not the point of this thread, since they played you from the outside, not from the inside, unless you suggest that 2-3 is a good defense against outside tactics...

About the B3 game i said it before, but i think u lost just because the 2-3; (32422582)

He was going to shoot anyhow well, because he had outside firepower

That's not true, or at least it's not true for Lipa, the guy who scored more points on that game. On the previous game against KOI, Lipa did 1 - 8 FG 4 points, against Dragones 2 - 4 FG 5 points.

Lipa scored you 24 points since he had lot of freedom(thanks to 2-3) that's a huge difference.

(32409820)


Against you Hostivar did 36-78, 46% in FG.

Hostivar against KOI 40-84 just a 47% in FG.

Where is the effect of the 2-3?

Your PF&C had better inside defense than the PF&C of KOI, so if you had played m2m, your inside defense was going to be more or less the same, but your outside defense would have been much better.

The difference of points between your game and the game of KOI is that your inside attack is much better than his attack and also because the slow pace didn't work for KOI.


The 2-3 was a big sacrifice, picking more rebounds doesn't mean a lot, if not look at your scoring, you did a 34-90 in FG.

You defended worst his PG-SG-SF in compare to a m2m, in normal conditions you had more chances to win that game with a m2m than with a 2-3.
From the 83 points he scored you, 59 comes from the PG-SG-SF positions, when Hostivar played with 2 SF that were more a SG.



I'm sorry, but i don't buy ''your 2-3''. The best way to defend an inside attack is to defend the PG-SG-SF the best you can with a m2m if you manage to do this you will win more than lose.

(10472)
(10771)

Matchs from the same season(12).

And the funny thing is that in the 2-3 match we used better defenders than the game we played in m2m.


PS: In general 3-2 works much better than a m2m when you try to defend an outside attack, but against an inside attack m2m works better than a 2-3.

Last edited by Marot at 6/5/2011 2:11:41 PM

ok your main argument against 2-3 is that you score to easy against certain opposing defences (3-2), or to hard against (mtm).

So your super advategeous 3-2, have also disadvantages ;)

Sure, anything is perfect :P

one more for u (32835489)

23 zone against a team with round about 3 times higher team salary

..it works pretty well, but after the halftime the "stupid" coach change option of the engine kills it ;-)

2 first 2 matches are imo a way to show that 2-3 can work in some ways. Sorry, i did not read the whole topic, but i just cant agree with the statement that 2-3 does not work at all. 2-3 isnt working all the time, but in some cases its the best tactic to choose. And i can back it up with many matches. The main reason its working, give some more shot % but lesser possessions.

And about your opinion that a M2M would have won me the game is just plain wrong. I have seen you make that statement more than once, but i cant agree with it at all. You just dont know my squad that well apparantly, and thats not a problem and quite normall also. Its not your team.
An example. I know my inside man are aggressive players. It has his upsides, aggresive man, but also his problems They get very easy in foul trouble against a Look Inside when i choose a M2M defence. Many matches to back that up. Specially against big man who can dunk and shoot.. Like Hostivars players. When i had played a M2M i can almost guarantee you that VdL and or Del Valle/Pastoor would have fouled out after 3 or less quarters. Specially Del Valle and Pastoor who dont have the OD that Van der Linde has compared to the big man from Hostivar who have great js skills. They would have crushed them inside.

Besides the personal foul thing, Hostivar had the better players, better shapes. Its not that hard to see that the team with the better players in the same tactic Inside/M2M vs Inside/M2M is gonna win. Hostivar would have won it. No doubt about that. I had to use his one weakness, the lack of rebounding, in my advantage. And i did that, i came short only 3 points..And that was a great result, when you compare the players in skillpoints per position.

Last edited by Maupster at 6/6/2011 1:22:23 PM

I think 2-3 is not flawed. It's just a poor little misunderstood kid whom no one wanna play with...

I want to play with it.

Hey EVERYONE, the 2-3 ZONE WORKS! (15422). YEAH!

(32901902)

Kinda nice how a weak player can score 29 points that easy...