In my opinion ranking these is ceazy and very influence my people with power and angles. True ranking doesn't exist these days. Take teams that good but dont have that long history are always rank lower then teams with alot of influence. Same with players but colleges know what the want in pecking order which is the true ranking. If ranking of players was right then everyone in the top 40 players would get a scholarship to top 100 schools in womens basketball.but we know that never happens. But is ranking anyway just someone opinion and the way they see something. Ranking is always good political or not but we know how this works. But it is what it is and always will be. Propaganda at its best!!!!!!!! But thats my opinion on ranking.
What is ranking these days ???
- Thread starter RespectBBGame
- Start date
These days? So when were preseason rankings perfect? Back in some mythical golden age?
There's more knowledge and more conversation now about players, teams and rankings than ever before -- and of course, they're still way off base. And they're off base at every level of sport, from high school to professional. The Baltimore Ravens are a great example, playing in the most scrutinized league in the country, and the preseason expectations have been proven to be way out of line. And look at the NFL draft every year -- there are always high-profile picks who are complete busts (does the name JaMarcus Russell ring a bell?).
So is all that people with power and angles? Was it some grand conspiracy?
For whatever reason, some people want to believe there's some mysterious group that meets in some dark basement and decides to discriminate against some schools and boost others, but that's simply not true. There are no angles to play because the preseason rankings in girls' basketball especially have no value at all. There's no money involved, they don't impact postseason seeding, and they are completely irrelevant. So why would anyone take the time to play the angles and use their power? (If you have "power" in girls basketball, whatever that might mean, you'd certainly use it somewhere else than preseason rankings.)
There is no conspiracy, there is no cabal of people trying to squash some programs and elevate others. There are just a bunch of writers and fans doing the best they can with what knowledge they can glean.
I've been doing national rankings for 20 years, and here's what it comes down to: I want my preseason rankings to be credible (I know they'll blow up; they always do) and I want my final ranking to be right. And that final ranking comes from what happens on the floor, not some mysterious group that hates on some programs and loves others.
The Illuminati do not care about girls' basketball.
There's more knowledge and more conversation now about players, teams and rankings than ever before -- and of course, they're still way off base. And they're off base at every level of sport, from high school to professional. The Baltimore Ravens are a great example, playing in the most scrutinized league in the country, and the preseason expectations have been proven to be way out of line. And look at the NFL draft every year -- there are always high-profile picks who are complete busts (does the name JaMarcus Russell ring a bell?).
So is all that people with power and angles? Was it some grand conspiracy?
For whatever reason, some people want to believe there's some mysterious group that meets in some dark basement and decides to discriminate against some schools and boost others, but that's simply not true. There are no angles to play because the preseason rankings in girls' basketball especially have no value at all. There's no money involved, they don't impact postseason seeding, and they are completely irrelevant. So why would anyone take the time to play the angles and use their power? (If you have "power" in girls basketball, whatever that might mean, you'd certainly use it somewhere else than preseason rankings.)
There is no conspiracy, there is no cabal of people trying to squash some programs and elevate others. There are just a bunch of writers and fans doing the best they can with what knowledge they can glean.
I've been doing national rankings for 20 years, and here's what it comes down to: I want my preseason rankings to be credible (I know they'll blow up; they always do) and I want my final ranking to be right. And that final ranking comes from what happens on the floor, not some mysterious group that hates on some programs and loves others.
The Illuminati do not care about girls' basketball.
Never said there is a conspiracy just says some coaches coach can help there teams. Never said there was a perfect ranking. All i said was that my different opinions on what makes a good team or a good player. For example, so coaches thing having a great score means that a great player. I heard through the grapevine in some scouts said some high scores players are a liability if they cant play man defense which played in college more often now. No conspiracy theory just difference in opinion and last say goes to the college coaches.
Fact is conspiracy or not (probably not) politics and possibly a bit of undue influence does unfortunately often play a part in high school sports.
There are situations where a person with a bit more influence or in a better relationship gains a bit more priority than an equal or often better counterpart. And fact is as long as we are dealing with humans much of the questionable practices aren't going anywhere any time soon.
Go out and prove yourself ! Prove you have what it takes to "Win Anyway"
Last edited:
If 2 teams are pretty similar in a preseason ranking...the program with the proven history will get the benefit of the doubt.
And that's ok. Because ultimately you have to still play the games. And unlike in college football, in basketball its all taken care of on the court. No mythical rankings, committee or computers are deciding anything. So if your team may not be ranked as high as you think they should in the preseason just take care of business in the regular season and all with take care of itself.
And that's ok. Because ultimately you have to still play the games. And unlike in college football, in basketball its all taken care of on the court. No mythical rankings, committee or computers are deciding anything. So if your team may not be ranked as high as you think they should in the preseason just take care of business in the regular season and all with take care of itself.
That is true ! You should always embrace the underdog role and go out and prove yourself.
Northbay and Paytc that all i was trying to say and some people always have to go the defensive side because someones opinion. Like both u said gives a team a edge when they play other teams that they taught should have been lower then them. Like everyone says the game is shown then told!!!!!!!!
One last does teams strength of quality wins count or does just any win count????????????
One last does teams strength of quality wins count or does just any win count????????????
Last edited:
Only St. Marys, Miramonte, Mater Dei and Chaminade are nationally ranked from California so which one do you have an issue with? These were the final four of the open last year and from all reports all four look pretty good this season.
What team do you think should have been ranked? Previous year results, number of returnees and star power always have and always will dictate rankings.
What team do you think should have been ranked? Previous year results, number of returnees and star power always have and always will dictate rankings.
Nobody talking about them teams on cal hi ranking. Ranking is decent on there and maxpreps is too they go numbers not to much of word of mouth. But that is my opinion. I see girls basketball all year around a pretty much know most of the top in the state and some in the nation. So player are hype up but when the come to college recruiters they tell u the real deal. Hype always will be there but the real deal player get scholarship to the top 100 schools not school that people never heard of??????
And if espn not giving the star it does mean anything anyway!!!!!!!!!!!
And if espn not giving the star it does mean anything anyway!!!!!!!!!!!
The reality is all 4 of those teams are good. But the fact is they are all beatable. Good teams with a coach that is not "scared" will approach the game playing so call better teams with the attitude you can only put 5 players on the floor at a time. And although St. Mary's of Stockton is the deepest team that really only comes into play in the NBA when playing in a 7 game series. Any good team on any given day can upset a better team. That said, I still would put my money on St. Mary's of Stockton. But they still have to go out and win another championship. They can have an off game or run into questionable refereeing, be out played or out coached, among other things.
Last edited:
I think there's a significant difference ranking teams and players. Obviously, some players are clearly destined for success, barring disaster: Aarion McDonald, Sabrina Ionescu, Aquira DeCosta, to name just three off the top of my head.
Beyond that level of talent, though, there are always questions -- and RespectBBgame is absolutely right: Putting up a lot of points in high school, or even club ball, does not guarantee a successful college career. Every player on a Power 5 roster could score in high school (whether they did or not depends on circumstances), so things like defense, playing within the system, and accepting your role become much more important.
The hype on players is very often out of proportion to their college careers, but I think in great part that's because it's just so hard to tell. And sure, influential coaches might be able to shift the rankings a little, but the rankings are meaningless -- the girls will prove it on the floor once they get to college. Or not.
Beyond that level of talent, though, there are always questions -- and RespectBBgame is absolutely right: Putting up a lot of points in high school, or even club ball, does not guarantee a successful college career. Every player on a Power 5 roster could score in high school (whether they did or not depends on circumstances), so things like defense, playing within the system, and accepting your role become much more important.
The hype on players is very often out of proportion to their college careers, but I think in great part that's because it's just so hard to tell. And sure, influential coaches might be able to shift the rankings a little, but the rankings are meaningless -- the girls will prove it on the floor once they get to college. Or not.
Clay those are very good points. But there is no guarantee of success moving on to the next level for any player. Christian Laettner proved that point. It's always proven on the court.
But in regards to the comments I've made two things I want to get clear. First, I could care less about rankings because they are often wrong anyway. I come up with my own rankings based on not just what players a team has but whether or not they have competent coaching. And strength of schedule and how you end a season, not just overall records.
The next Point I want to make is competition (or negative competition) as I see it, often creates selfishness and a bit of delusion. There are many times when parents appear to impact a coaches decisions regarding not only playing time, but who makes the team. Now of course the better coaches make all the decisions themselves and ignore parents almost completely. But in my opinion, from what I have seen, there is only a handful of quality or proven coaches in Northern California High School basketball. Most of those coaches consistently have their teams winning in league, preseason tournaments, and post season tournament play. And they don't necessarily play favorites. However most teams unfortunately don't have a quality coach. And because of negative competition, you can be a good or great player and get caught in the politics and unfortunately not make it onto the floor. I don't care how good a player you are, I have never seen anyone throw out an assist, steal a ball, or make a 3 pointer from the bench.
I have seen a few good players discouraged and even quit based on their immaturity, and the politics of the game. So we as adults need to try to encourage(and display) better attitudes, less selfishness, and better overall team concepts. All competition aside, we not only want to create better teams and better players, we want to create better young adults. We want to build up character and self esteem. Not break it down because of selfishness, insecurity, and negative competition.
Last edited:
Thats a good why to defend and go on the defensive side. The only thing I to say to that have you talk to any of these assistance coaches from college lately about how the rank the players and what they are looking for these days. It aways good to know that information and I do get that information all the time. They always talk about good players that score alot. One told me they rather take a player that score average 10 to 16 points a game and 8 to 10 rebounds a game over a player that score 30 points a game with 1 or 2 rebounds a game. I asked why is that and they said most scores 30 points a game dont play hard on the defense side of the ball. They said it they scoring 30 and give up 20 points to the person they are guard they don't have that drive to be a good defender on a college court.
The espn rankings go deep into the players told game play. They are some players ranked higher the espn players in the ranking. Recruiters look at espn in a high regard to recruiting players. But who is espn they dont know what they are doing. When they rank player they do their searching to give players stars and yes i talk to a writer for espn womens basketball. She know what she talking about and also played the game for a long time. But all said and done its an opinion that different people make .
Dont get so defensive on an opinion!!!!!!!!!
The espn rankings go deep into the players told game play. They are some players ranked higher the espn players in the ranking. Recruiters look at espn in a high regard to recruiting players. But who is espn they dont know what they are doing. When they rank player they do their searching to give players stars and yes i talk to a writer for espn womens basketball. She know what she talking about and also played the game for a long time. But all said and done its an opinion that different people make .
Dont get so defensive on an opinion!!!!!!!!!
You pushed my buttons with the "power and influence" comment ... especially in terms of team ranking. That simply doesn't happen.
That's more likely to occur with player rankings, especially with club coaches who can tell writers about what schools elite recruits have on their list. Naturally, writers want to be on the good side of those coaches, and may, consciously or not, give a little more weight to that coach's opinion about a certain player.
But those opinions don't affect what the coaches see, and are looking for.
That's more likely to occur with player rankings, especially with club coaches who can tell writers about what schools elite recruits have on their list. Naturally, writers want to be on the good side of those coaches, and may, consciously or not, give a little more weight to that coach's opinion about a certain player.
But those opinions don't affect what the coaches see, and are looking for.
Christian Laettner played over 10 years in the NBA was had a pretty good career. He wasn't an every year All-Star but he was solid. If you make it to the NBA, that means you were pretty successful. If you have somewhat longevity in the league, ti's even better. For the most part, player rankings are a crap shoot after you really rank the top 5.
Norcal_fan I agree to a point. I just think people who are ranking should just be more thorough search like espn they will send out a person to see that player. But I know not everyone has espn money. Just take what thay base their rankings on ( offense= points, assist, rebounds, speed and physicality. Defense = steals, deflections, rebounds, who player decided to cover man to man when played, physical play and instinct for the ball). There are many other parts to like leadership. But all said and done thats hard for most players. I agree on being postive players but he honest too!!!!!!!
I think it is fair to say he never lived up to what many thought he would in the NBA. That was the only point I was making. He had quite the college career. In the final four 4 straight years and two national championships. But I don't particularly recall anything awesome in the NBA. Typically speaking you must continue to get better at the next level to continue to stand out.
But I'm sure had I given it more thought I could have given a better example.
Last edited:
Paytc you could have used Stephen Thompson of Syracuse play only play 23 games in the NBA ( Sac Kings for 23 games and 1 game with Orlando Magic) but was a super star in high school ( Crenshaw High Compton CA) and the went to Syracuse and was a star with Derrick Coleman. Another one was Bobby Hurley lasted as long as his first contact with Kings too (First round for the Kings #7 over all). Thats was one of the reasons for a cap on rookies in the NBA. He won Champions with Christian Leather with Duke.
Hurly was nearly killed in a car crash that left him with some serious injuries such as a severed trachea, two collapsed lungs, a fractured left shoulder blade, five broken ribs, a compression fracture in his back, a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee, a fractured right fibula and a sprained wrist.
After the crash Hurley was never the same player again but amazingly did come back and play a couple more seasons in the NBA.
College assistant coaches are not national evaluators. Assistant coaches, like head coaches only get dos many days to evaluate players and often times coaches are sitting on the same players and are looking at specific players that for their system. Evaluators are human but do the best job they can to evaluate as many players as they can. When you throw around the name ESPN with regard to girls rankings you are referring to one or two people nationally that evaluate part time.
After the crash Hurley was never the same player again but amazingly did come back and play a couple more seasons in the NBA.
College assistant coaches are not national evaluators. Assistant coaches, like head coaches only get dos many days to evaluate players and often times coaches are sitting on the same players and are looking at specific players that for their system. Evaluators are human but do the best job they can to evaluate as many players as they can. When you throw around the name ESPN with regard to girls rankings you are referring to one or two people nationally that evaluate part time.
I know about the accident but before that he was on his way out. Never played up the hype of being a dominant player in the NBA. Didn't bring up the accident because that sensitive to some people so i left it alone talk befoe the accident. That was the reason why he didn't play any more but not the only reason if people remember.
He was 5'11 150 lbs won a national championship as a high school player and a couple as a college player and was drafted in the 1st round of the draft! Survived a horrific car crash to come back and still play in the NBA. Hurley scored over a 1000 pts and dished out nearly 1000 assists.
Sure if you measure his accomplishments in HS and College he probably did not live up to his billing but outside of winning a couple NBA titles and being a perennial all star Hurley was pretty much destined to be a bust by your standards.
I think Hurley was more of an example of someone who over achieved their entire career and he needed everything to go perfect in the NBA and it did not for him. He has now created a niche for himself in the coaching ranks.
Sure if you measure his accomplishments in HS and College he probably did not live up to his billing but outside of winning a couple NBA titles and being a perennial all star Hurley was pretty much destined to be a bust by your standards.
I think Hurley was more of an example of someone who over achieved their entire career and he needed everything to go perfect in the NBA and it did not for him. He has now created a niche for himself in the coaching ranks.
jaymel911,
I love all who overachieve. Any small player who makes it to the NBA(or WNBA) is definitely an over achiever.
And as Norcal_Fan pointed out anyone who makes it to the NBA could be somewhat considered a success. It is a long shot to make it that far. The only point I was trying to make is that there are no guarantees of success from level to level. Yesterday I watched a game where a few 5th grade players that I helped coach when they were in the 3rd grade and thought the world of their futures. One 3rd grader I said was aggressive enough to make many high school teams. Well fast forward two years and the same players look to have regressed.
So again the only point I was making is there are no guarantees that say a good grade school kid will be a good high school player. Or no guarantees a good high school player will be good at the college level. And finally there is no guarantee a good collegiate player will be good at the professional level. What I pointed out is that you must keep working to improve every step of the way. There are players that will keep working to improve that will out work you if you slack up. And the overall talent increases around you each level. That is why some players that dominate in high school or college fall off in the pros. Like Dwight Howard they think they don't have to work hard to continue to improve. Steph Curry worked harder than just about anyone in the off season, look at the results.
Last edited:
Thanks for adding a few other examples RespectBBGame. I am sure there are hundreds of others.
While I would agree with most of your posts on this thread I would disagree with one aspect of this one. Depth does play a factor outside of a seven game series. Two of the factors I keep harping on are Match ups and Timing. Depth influence both. More so Timing. No player is a machine and can have off nights. This is why teams that rely on one or few players are more easily upset. If those players have off nights there is no one to pick up the slack. Depth becomes a major factor in mitigating injuries and foul trouble. When you have a lot of depth fouls play less of a factor and the same holds true for injuries. Depth is less only when those extra players do not see the floor. Depth does mitigate a lot of variables- injuries, officiating, off shooting nights. St Marys depth is a perfect example of that. The odds on a team with depth succeeding increase dramatically.
I can't argue with that. And truthfully I like to let the game dictate the number of players to be played. I don't think or believe in the coach and play the same way regardless to the matchups and how your players are playing. I'm a "Win Anyway" guy. Whatever is working at the time. And you adjust when you see what's not working before it's too late.
Will talk, I also made that comment to give team's a little hope when they run into team's like St. Mary's of Stockton who most likely has the most depth in the nation. You can win games rotating a large number of players or be fortunate enough to win with a well conditioned 7 or 8 player squad.
But yes certainly depth matters more times than not when everything else is equal.
Yes ! St Marys is in a unique position and because of the depth of quality players they have on their roster they can easily play a 10 + rotation and lose little. But with them it's like the " chicken and egg" question. Due to their pressing style they have always played a long roster in their rotations. This is also why they ended up and can keep that number of quality players happy. Everybody knows they will play. It's one of the drawing points. In fact the toughest games are in practice and that constant competition elevates the players.
I remember watching the USA under 15 team play in Mexico. They got beat because their coach ran the team like a high school team. She set a roster and deviated very little in games. How can you set a roster in only one weak. Brazil pressed/trapped and ran them off the floor. The Cal Stars won Nike because they also used a large muli-
talented roster. There is a big difference between how you run a team with more depth than one with limited depth. St Marys because of their style is able to make greater use of depth than most other teams would.
I do get your point though in respect to the normal high school team really not having the level of talent or depth to really make a difference. St. Marys and now other teams who are beginning to mirror their defensive style such as Miramonte, might gradually change the landscape in that respect.
I remember watching the USA under 15 team play in Mexico. They got beat because their coach ran the team like a high school team. She set a roster and deviated very little in games. How can you set a roster in only one weak. Brazil pressed/trapped and ran them off the floor. The Cal Stars won Nike because they also used a large muli-
talented roster. There is a big difference between how you run a team with more depth than one with limited depth. St Marys because of their style is able to make greater use of depth than most other teams would.
I do get your point though in respect to the normal high school team really not having the level of talent or depth to really make a difference. St. Marys and now other teams who are beginning to mirror their defensive style such as Miramonte, might gradually change the landscape in that respect.
Very good points ! Very good points ! One of the main points I was stressing was the game should dictate the number of players you rotate. You should never do all your coaching before the game and sit back and live and die by your original game plan and stubborn ego/system. You may often have to make adjustments and go away from what you always do based on the match ups, how your players are playing, and how the game is going. This comment is based on when your playing a team that is as good or better than your team is. You beat them going with the match ups that give your team the advantage. If your starting 7 or 8 are enough to get the job done because your 8-12 falls off too much to match up, then you may have to consider what is in the best interest of your team's success. You do whatever increases your odds of success at any given time. But you do find time (in some games) to get some of your 8-12 confident and ready should you need to call on them. Do that in games that permit you to give those players the game time experience that will help the team down the road later in the season, or their 4 year careers. If you have a young player with a lot of potential try to at least get their feet wet (even one minute of play) in all tough games. Try to give them a small taste of tough tournament play to help build their confidence knowing you trust them enough to let them gain the experience. But you consider each game and how the game is going before making your game time decisions. You also consider the maturity and skill level of the player(s).
I do agree with your comments. Willtalk you get it ! A lot of coaches either play scared or are too stubborn and egotistical to do the right thing based on the circumstances. Or their worried about what a parent or someone else thinks. I often wonder why some coaches get all nervous before, and during games? It's just a game? What is the worse thing that could happen? I guess it is the same reason some players get more nervous and tight than some others do. I wrote "Win Anyway" and Knock The Devil Out " to help both coaches and players better deal with the stress and negative competition aspects of the game.
Last edited:
Yes basketball is about making adjustments. But the question does coach make the adjustments at the rigjt time. Coaches have to be able tobread a team within the first e minutes off the game. Match up are very important but most teams these days play zones or scramble. The art of man to man goes away in high but is becoming very high used in the top college. High school coaches these days dont teach man to man but few that do college coaches love them kids. Why is this because players that can man up are exposed and the one how love to take on the challenge of guarding a player. College basketball is all about match. To explain to people that dont know what match is it how well does a player defend and how much can the score. Example, a player score 30 and can't defend their player scores 28 thats a wash. But if have a player that score 16 and defends a player that score 10 thats usually scores 24 thats a win. But scramble and zone hide players in high school. The ones that can play defense will hit the college floor more then the others. Like college coaches say, " You can teach a player how to score but you can't teach a player how to defend its a want." High school basketball is about adjustments but alot easier the college where match ups real matter.
I do agree it's important for high school teams to play man-to-man some of the time, especially if there are college players (at any level) in the program. It's a disservice to those kids to just fall back into a zone.
Of course, you have to know how to teach man defense, and it's a little more complicated than teaching zone, and you have to pay attention to matchups during games, which requires more attention on the bench.
But I think a majority of high schools do play man, at least some of the time, and some are totally committed to it. And it is true that the first question for any player moving up a level, from high to college, from college to pro, is this one: Who's she going to guard?
Of course, you have to know how to teach man defense, and it's a little more complicated than teaching zone, and you have to pay attention to matchups during games, which requires more attention on the bench.
But I think a majority of high schools do play man, at least some of the time, and some are totally committed to it. And it is true that the first question for any player moving up a level, from high to college, from college to pro, is this one: Who's she going to guard?
Good points !
Good points also ! But the second and IMO just as important a question is "will she be able to create more problems for the opponent than she has defending them" ? Such as Asha Thomas does as (a small player), and Elena Delle Donne does as ( a taller player).
I think an important factor is the level of high school athletes we are referring too and the respect to what level they are being ask to compete against and the speed of the game. Most girls in the higher programs already have a lot of experience under their belts. The game is constantly evolving into more of the style that the men play. The game is getting faster and the intensity level is rising. More is expected of them. Most girls in the higher level programs already are proficient in certain fundamentals that once were a necessity to teach in high school.
We had this discussion ( zone vrs man to man ) early last year on this site. I think the key is relevant to your last sentence in your first paragraph- fall back into a zone. That relates to a normal zone but not to a full-3/4 or half court traps zone. Those require constant effort and getting and setting your feet at your positions. While a standard half court fall back zone can be a lazy type of defense the same can not be said for a trapping zone. It all depends on the effort, movement and positioning required. The skill required and honed in a pressure-trap zone are similar and translate very well to those required in man to man so any downsides such dealing with screens, is mitigated. In a pressure trap zone you are constantly in the ball handlers face, so you and everyone else on defense ends up playing man to man in the process. The only downside being boxing out the offense for post players. Except for post players it's much better for honing basketball skills. still even post players can benefit from the foot speed required and developed in a trapping zone. They have to play like guards and not just posts.
The advantage is that in that type of zone everyone is constantly engaged and moving and the intensity level stays high. Players do not get conditioned to taking time off and resting on defense when they are not playing the ball such as in a normal zone and yes often in man to man. This lack of constant effort and intensity often creates a pattern that will bite them at the next level.
As Paytic pointed out in respect to players having pluses and minus's and it all depending on if the pluses out weight the minus's would also apply to zone and man to man. In respect to a normal zone I would agree with Clays statement. But in respect to the pressure zone trapping D I would say that the pluses far out weight any minus's. The conditioning to playing at that constant level and intensity can not be duplicated in any other type of defense. That to me is the most valuable lesson learned. Laying a foundation to giving a 100% when ever you are on the floor.
No question that a trapping zone (I've always used a 1-3-1 to complement our base man defense) is different -- but in the narrow focus of evaluating talent, even that can be misleading. At some point, those who want to play in college, at any level, have to learn to defend in space one-on-one. (This isn't an issue for 6-1 and above, unless they have dreams of playing at a very high level, but those 5-11 girls need to be ready to play on the perimeter in college.)
I agree with you Clay bit some people don't understand the concept of man defense. Man to man defense is base on space and player control that space. A good defender can another player where they want that player to go and remember each level a player goes up the speed of the game does too. A real good defender can study there player in the first 3 minutes of the game and learn their tendencies. Sometimes people don't understand unless they played at a high level but some people see the difference.
Lets talk a little about 1-3-1 full court press. This is a great press but when is the last time anybody seen a player closeout in good athletic stands not jump at the ball or reaching. When you see that you know that player can play man to man. 1-3-1 just cause chaos the way it taught these days. If a team has 2 calm and collective guard that can handle the ball will break the press all day. Coaches know most team don't have them type of guards so smart game think. But at the college level wont work if the player doesn't know the concept of man to man .
Lets talk a little about 1-3-1 full court press. This is a great press but when is the last time anybody seen a player closeout in good athletic stands not jump at the ball or reaching. When you see that you know that player can play man to man. 1-3-1 just cause chaos the way it taught these days. If a team has 2 calm and collective guard that can handle the ball will break the press all day. Coaches know most team don't have them type of guards so smart game think. But at the college level wont work if the player doesn't know the concept of man to man .
Hopefully, a high school defender has a scouting report to work from about tendencies, strengths and weaknesses, and then modifies it once she sees the player on the court. Going in blind is a recipe for a quick 8-2 deficit.
And the 1-3-1 I use is a halfcourt version, but any press is vulnerable to good ballhandling. I know this is heresy, but for me, the best way to beat a press is to dribble through it.
And the 1-3-1 I use is a halfcourt version, but any press is vulnerable to good ballhandling. I know this is heresy, but for me, the best way to beat a press is to dribble through it.
I would agree in respects to a 1-3-1 press. The press I was referring too is not a 1-3-1 rather the one used by SMS, Miramonti, Coves West etc, In those establishing defensive position becomes paramount. That principle of position is the same utilized in Man to Man and is easily transitioned from. This is why the players coming out of SMS are really good one on one defenders.
Ultimately a lot relies on their level of athleticism and lateral quickness. A lot of very quick high school players who have played basically man to man in high school often have difficulty adjusting to the higher level of play in college because there defensive positioning becomes more important due to the higher level of players they face. Their athletic superiority no longer is enough. In high school they were able to just over whelm their inferior opposition, not only on defense but also on offense if they always faced man to man.
I am not implying that the defense used by SMS and some others would work as well developmentally for other players or teams. The players still need to have the ability to convert their quickness into developing lateral positioning. They can not convert was does not exist. Now for a scout who has limited viewing opportunities evaluating defensive capabilities might be difficult. Especially in the chao's of the constant movement to recognize who should be where. The observer need to make the same type of observational transition that the players skill set might ultimately make when they translate from that type of zone press to man to man. That might even not be possible under the circumstances.
Scouts have developed a skill and mind set to watch for specifics in order to evaluate in a condensed period of time. This would give them an advantage over other observers in that respect. But that advantage also creates another side to the coin in that they often create a pattern of ignoring some other area's due to their limited observational time. It's an occupational hazard mainly due to time expediency. Many times non scouts who follow and are enamored by individual players will also develop that sort of mentality but geared to the skills of their favorite players.
A long time ago I sat next to a scout one time and picked his brain. I was amazed as to the things he was able to glean from his short amount of observational time. Things I was totally oblivious too. I have a lot of respect for what they are able to do. Later I also began to recognize that there were things that I saw that they were clueless too. I believe that professionals tend to operate within defined specifics and many can often can not recognize area's out side of their box's. This also sometimes creates a pattern of believing that everything outside their own professional expertise has no value. There is a term that escapes me at the moment which defines that mind set. Let me make it clear that I in no way think that Clay falls into that grouping. I only mention it because often people are too intimidated by "Experts" and fail to recognize that even the best have their limitations. Expertise operates on a sliding scale and should never be used as a blanket definition or label for all. Nor should it ever be used as a "bully" club to deal with differing opinions
I think we have often discussed, and raked over the coals,some of the evaluations and ratings by experts. I think it is important to respect their insights, and expertise along with recognizing what ever limitations and time constraints they are operating under. I believe that all of us can offer a different perspective which can ultimately lead to a greater collective understanding for everyone. We can even learn from the foolishness of others along with that of ourselves. But only if we choose too.
Ultimately a lot relies on their level of athleticism and lateral quickness. A lot of very quick high school players who have played basically man to man in high school often have difficulty adjusting to the higher level of play in college because there defensive positioning becomes more important due to the higher level of players they face. Their athletic superiority no longer is enough. In high school they were able to just over whelm their inferior opposition, not only on defense but also on offense if they always faced man to man.
I am not implying that the defense used by SMS and some others would work as well developmentally for other players or teams. The players still need to have the ability to convert their quickness into developing lateral positioning. They can not convert was does not exist. Now for a scout who has limited viewing opportunities evaluating defensive capabilities might be difficult. Especially in the chao's of the constant movement to recognize who should be where. The observer need to make the same type of observational transition that the players skill set might ultimately make when they translate from that type of zone press to man to man. That might even not be possible under the circumstances.
Scouts have developed a skill and mind set to watch for specifics in order to evaluate in a condensed period of time. This would give them an advantage over other observers in that respect. But that advantage also creates another side to the coin in that they often create a pattern of ignoring some other area's due to their limited observational time. It's an occupational hazard mainly due to time expediency. Many times non scouts who follow and are enamored by individual players will also develop that sort of mentality but geared to the skills of their favorite players.
A long time ago I sat next to a scout one time and picked his brain. I was amazed as to the things he was able to glean from his short amount of observational time. Things I was totally oblivious too. I have a lot of respect for what they are able to do. Later I also began to recognize that there were things that I saw that they were clueless too. I believe that professionals tend to operate within defined specifics and many can often can not recognize area's out side of their box's. This also sometimes creates a pattern of believing that everything outside their own professional expertise has no value. There is a term that escapes me at the moment which defines that mind set. Let me make it clear that I in no way think that Clay falls into that grouping. I only mention it because often people are too intimidated by "Experts" and fail to recognize that even the best have their limitations. Expertise operates on a sliding scale and should never be used as a blanket definition or label for all. Nor should it ever be used as a "bully" club to deal with differing opinions
I think we have often discussed, and raked over the coals,some of the evaluations and ratings by experts. I think it is important to respect their insights, and expertise along with recognizing what ever limitations and time constraints they are operating under. I believe that all of us can offer a different perspective which can ultimately lead to a greater collective understanding for everyone. We can even learn from the foolishness of others along with that of ourselves. But only if we choose too.
I agree thats why I pick the scouts brain all the time and tell some players what the are missing but might not know. Some players listen some don't but that can be the difference from going D1 to D2. But thats ok too it will free either way. Like they say a score is a score. A complete player is a person show scores and want to defend the best on the court not weakest so they can rest on defense. So people don'tlike what i say but I just tell like is see it but it's only and opinion. I give players knowledge that they need to know and work on. Some players want and some don't. Most I give back my experience of the game so they can see the game from a different point of view.
Helps to have a superb, explosively quick guard. Saw Brittany Boyd do just that, repeatedly splitting a closing trap and get instant upcourt numbers vs. SMS, a superb pressing team. Of course, she's in the WNBA now. How about an average team, say Bentley, facing a trapping full court press? You still think putting it on the floor is the way to go?
You need at least one elite ballhandler, or a girl who's very strong with the ball, to dribble through a press. Bentley doesn't really have that this year, so we rely more on schemes, but the girls are free to attack at any time when they see an opening.
College teams, and professional teams, almost always have a player or three who can dribble through a press, which is why you see very few aggressive presses at those levels. Maybe you can surprise a team and get a turnover but ballhandlers are just too good (not the schemes) at high levels to allow defenses to press all the time.
College teams, and professional teams, almost always have a player or three who can dribble through a press, which is why you see very few aggressive presses at those levels. Maybe you can surprise a team and get a turnover but ballhandlers are just too good (not the schemes) at high levels to allow defenses to press all the time.
This is one of the best posts I've seen on here in awhile. Thoughtful with good background information.
