BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > Tactics

Tactics

Set priority
Show messages by
From: acarl

This Post:
00
85303.6 in reply to 85303.4
Date: 4/11/2009 7:35:57 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
55
Am I wrong? It says in the rules that 3-2 focuses perimeter D (outside D), and 2-3 focuses on the inside.

From: CrazyEye

This Post:
00
85303.7 in reply to 85303.6
Date: 4/11/2009 8:08:39 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
thats right, but what did an 2-3 have to do with an 1-3-1 you are talking about, for me thats to different tactics maybe the most opposite defense in game.



From: acarl

This Post:
00
85303.8 in reply to 85303.7
Date: 4/11/2009 8:27:48 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
55
ok, I see where I miscommunicated. What I meant to say was that using a 3-2 will allow you to focus on the outside D without giving up the rebounding that a 1-3-1 would, as compared to man to man. Hence, compared to a man to man, a 3-2 would indeed allow you to work the outside defense more.

However, my problem was that I skipped talking about comparing it to the man to man. In regards to 1-3-1 vs 3-2, the 1-3-1 would increase OD much more, but would give up rebounding.

From: CrazyEye

This Post:
00
85303.9 in reply to 85303.8
Date: 4/11/2009 8:47:31 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
959959
However, my problem was that I skipped talking about comparing it to the man to man. In regards to 1-3-1 vs 3-2, the 1-3-1 would increase OD much more, but would give up rebounding.


give up rebounding is to hard, if you man to man vs man to man in one level you will still get the most of the def rebs - in my eyes in acceptable manners so that you can go towards 1-3-1 instead of 3-2 against rng and motion.

But the problem is the failure in the prediction, even an ptb will use a lot the weaknesses in your inside defense a lot for easy basket and late in the game the opponent coach normally adjust the game more inside then you defense would become more inside orientated. So it is a bit more risky to play, and the advantage of this tactics are games against stronger teams(where you have to predict right), or games where you are 100% sure of the opposites strategy. Else i would go, for the just slightly weaker 3-2.

From: acarl

This Post:
00
85303.10 in reply to 85303.9
Date: 4/11/2009 8:45:37 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
55
right. So I was also recommending that 3-2 would be better, especially in light of the need to rebound well.