I have written on zone, match-up and man extensively. A match-up zone is NOT a pure zone. It is attacked as a man defense. Let me repeat that since repetition is sometimes needed ...a match-up is attacked as a man defense... a match-up is attacked as a man defense! I have no idea why people...not picking on anyone, pick up the word zone and think it is a zone with the concepts of the zone that those advocate it is. I even wrote nag that either can't comprehend or refuses to... that I am much more in favor of a match-up than a zone. Since there is no empirical evidence that reality matters with some in this forum, this is going to be very limited relative to the 2-3 match-up that was played (Nag has said he doesn't like a match-up but prefers a pure zone even though I have stated numerous times he was probably seeing match-up and didn't know it...and certainly me trying to provide some understandings doesn't weigh into re-evaluation.
Synopsis. We have zone with various initial alignments that all look the same after a pass or two. Zone primary has bias is to court area. We have man that can conform to the offensive alignment and it too changes with movement of players and ball. Man primary bias is to opposing team personnel or player rather than court. Both zone and man mix the particular court area and personnel with changes trying to provide the best D for the particular team at the moment.
Now match-up...and it is crucial to understand it is attacked as a MAN defense because it is almost identical to man defense with switching rules. Think of a match-up as an attempt to ....drum roll please....MATCH-UP! It is but another attempt to get the best defense possible by combining court area, ball, players as do ALL defenses. Soooo, it should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observers the similarities and different leanings , but I know that is NOT true based upon repeated typings that haven't ever caught any indication of traction in getting it. The same with shifts or importance or lean in how to accomplish those goals. A match-up essentially tries to start out by developing skill sets relative to general court areas of strength. Obviously since it is attacked as a man defense a match-up to have any effectiveness, but have strong man principles in all players since all will be guarding a "MAN" while trying to keep the defensive player in an area of the court best suited for that defensive player. Essentially, Oregon started out against Kansas with a 2-3 look and then match-up, but with another team may start out in a 1-2-2 set and then match-up out of that alignment. Man defense with "switching rules essentially does the same...except man has that lean to man and match-up will also switch players it is guarding while trying to keep the defensive player in their areas and switch accordingly. Man tries to do that as well. ANYTIME switching is employed whether on the ball or off...communication can be a problem. In a match-up...switching will most likely happen a little more as an attempt to keep players guarding their man in a man on man defense within their area. For years I have found a few games where match-up could have helped Gene...even though he played it more than once in a certain season out of a 1-3-1
Since Oregon will be playing again, perhaps it is a worthy exercise for any interested to see Oregon "pointing" out who they have as the ball comes down (assuming the camera allows) the court so "each player" knows who they are matching up to defend with their man defense rather than guarding an area that would require point to an area instead of a man? This will generally start out with the guard (usually a pg) taking the guy about to come his way on the offensive right side, but doesn't have to be and pointing him out so the others can match-up. You will see the defense "hand off players" as they enter and leave their area to guard a new MAN. You will not see offensive players just line up in a gap in what would a zone would initially allow, but will move and try to have the defense make mistakes in their hand-off "primarily" as people go through the lane and such. Now I have asked why people would prefer a zone over a match-up and to date have no reason supplied as to why, but many posters write about the need to play zone. In Indiana, possibly two of the more heralded coaches to play match-up or "man-zone" were Bill Green at Marion and Bob Fuller at Anderson Highland respectively. Bob would not allow anyone from freshman down to play anything but man since he KNEW man was essential to being able to play his man zone. I used to have a defensive handbook that Gerald Manahan had in the late 50's to early 60' (his son Pat was a childhood friend that was a high scorer in Indiana basketball without the 3 ball that played one year at Purdue before transferring to Colorado and is an attorney today in Monticello.) The defense that Gerald ran was a "RULE" defense that was essentially a match-up years before the match-up more properly described what was going on. now remember...players are matching up with opposing players by pointing them out...not pointing out what area of the court is theirs....
Synopsis. We have zone with various initial alignments that all look the same after a pass or two. Zone primary has bias is to court area. We have man that can conform to the offensive alignment and it too changes with movement of players and ball. Man primary bias is to opposing team personnel or player rather than court. Both zone and man mix the particular court area and personnel with changes trying to provide the best D for the particular team at the moment.
Now match-up...and it is crucial to understand it is attacked as a MAN defense because it is almost identical to man defense with switching rules. Think of a match-up as an attempt to ....drum roll please....MATCH-UP! It is but another attempt to get the best defense possible by combining court area, ball, players as do ALL defenses. Soooo, it should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observers the similarities and different leanings , but I know that is NOT true based upon repeated typings that haven't ever caught any indication of traction in getting it. The same with shifts or importance or lean in how to accomplish those goals. A match-up essentially tries to start out by developing skill sets relative to general court areas of strength. Obviously since it is attacked as a man defense a match-up to have any effectiveness, but have strong man principles in all players since all will be guarding a "MAN" while trying to keep the defensive player in an area of the court best suited for that defensive player. Essentially, Oregon started out against Kansas with a 2-3 look and then match-up, but with another team may start out in a 1-2-2 set and then match-up out of that alignment. Man defense with "switching rules essentially does the same...except man has that lean to man and match-up will also switch players it is guarding while trying to keep the defensive player in their areas and switch accordingly. Man tries to do that as well. ANYTIME switching is employed whether on the ball or off...communication can be a problem. In a match-up...switching will most likely happen a little more as an attempt to keep players guarding their man in a man on man defense within their area. For years I have found a few games where match-up could have helped Gene...even though he played it more than once in a certain season out of a 1-3-1
Since Oregon will be playing again, perhaps it is a worthy exercise for any interested to see Oregon "pointing" out who they have as the ball comes down (assuming the camera allows) the court so "each player" knows who they are matching up to defend with their man defense rather than guarding an area that would require point to an area instead of a man? This will generally start out with the guard (usually a pg) taking the guy about to come his way on the offensive right side, but doesn't have to be and pointing him out so the others can match-up. You will see the defense "hand off players" as they enter and leave their area to guard a new MAN. You will not see offensive players just line up in a gap in what would a zone would initially allow, but will move and try to have the defense make mistakes in their hand-off "primarily" as people go through the lane and such. Now I have asked why people would prefer a zone over a match-up and to date have no reason supplied as to why, but many posters write about the need to play zone. In Indiana, possibly two of the more heralded coaches to play match-up or "man-zone" were Bill Green at Marion and Bob Fuller at Anderson Highland respectively. Bob would not allow anyone from freshman down to play anything but man since he KNEW man was essential to being able to play his man zone. I used to have a defensive handbook that Gerald Manahan had in the late 50's to early 60' (his son Pat was a childhood friend that was a high scorer in Indiana basketball without the 3 ball that played one year at Purdue before transferring to Colorado and is an attorney today in Monticello.) The defense that Gerald ran was a "RULE" defense that was essentially a match-up years before the match-up more properly described what was going on. now remember...players are matching up with opposing players by pointing them out...not pointing out what area of the court is theirs....
Last edited:
