BuzzerBeater Forums

That depends on whether or not you believe 2-3 is flawed.

I don't know if 2-3 is flawed,but is at least really difficult to manage
2-3 didn't help Netherland to stop adversary post scorers(starting Sf,PF and C all manage to shoot around 50%) and probably help German guards to score more points(especially reserve Pg and SG),so basically 2-3 was pretty useless,maybe m2m would have been better
However,Netherland loses on offense,LI wasn't good for their guards,they should have play with low post offense or an outside offence

I'm not here to ask for my match, but for another - I really don't understand how could away team win this match. Can anybody explain?

(35772541)

I know this match was won on boards...away team had 21 more possessions than home team and 16 off rebounds more. But how is this possible with 3-2 defense against M2M? Also look at his PG that played 46 minutes: (4300488). A 7k PG that stops motion? Maybe he has a boosted OD and nothing else?

A really strange match...oh, and look at the semifinal of the same team, another funny match...

The rebounding skills of that teams are much more higher than yours,that fact that you have lower ratings at home with M"M against a 3-2 means that you have to work on this
With 3-2 defence,often happens that the players switch on defensive side,so your PG(That however i dont believe has very high shooting skills),so sometimes a stronger defender goes on your Pg,and other times Zanzottera(that could be a defensive specialist with no shot)goes on another player
Whydo you put Serjnak at SF?

In the semifinals Budanje was stronger than his adversary(better offence and better defence)

YEAH SURE (36035766)

YEAH SURE (36035766)

i can't see the problem here..
you are playing 2-3 Zone against Look Inside and still expecting a good defense..?

Shitty free throws,and the bad idea of using 2-3 lead to the defeat...however he was very unlucky in this game because Cobiat's guards shoots too well for their skills and their game shape,also against a 2-3 defence...

If the game is close at the end, the guards will always try for 3s or quick jumpshots. The team that plays 2-3 almost always loses such close games.

Yeah... ok BUT my every single mr was far superior.... that must mean smth, and MRs do take in account tactics and stuff and still i made twelve shoot more and still missed more than he did and that should not happen.

Well it's still harder to hit a three against 3-2 defense than an inside jumper against 2-3 defense, don't you agree? Despite your 2-3 defense that should boost your rebounding, your opponent had 7 more rebounds than you. Thanks to 2-3 defense, his outside players had no pressure on them and had a lot of space for assist. His two big men had combined FG 20-34, despite your 2-3 defense.

In light of all these facts, are you still wondering why did you lose?

Next game, play M2M defense and put your best inside defender on PF.

Last edited by Koperboy at 7/20/2011 1:48:14 AM

Well i can tell you a few things about Budanje's team that might make you understand (he's my brother so i know some inside information).

Firstly Budanje's big men shouldn't be underestimated. Ravbar (the C) was trained this whole season and is now capped and the team's best scorer Berdeogas (the PF) is not a mono skilled player but a very versetile one ( 12 in JS, 12 in DR, 11 in HA).

Secondly, you were wondering how could a 7k PG stop motion. Well i think it's because on Vzajemna's team a 12k PG was playing for the whole game; so his PG was not really much better... It might be even worth mentioning that Budanje had a much better first team PG (Čas), who was injured two minutes into the game. If he was not injured, the game would probably go in Budanje's favour by a much bigger margain.

Thirdly, Budanje's manger picked the right defensive tactic for this game. 3 2 zone stops motion much better than M2M stops push the ball (which Budanje was playing).

I think this made the diference. Any other opinions? Now that I have given the inside scoop someone might be able to explain this better.

Regards,

Cveto