Posted by topdogggbm on 1/5/2018 10:14:00 AM (view original):
Ok thanks. Is this for sure? I'm sure you understand what I'm comparing. 2-3 really being 2-2-1. But flip flopping to 3-2 is not the same?
I'm not questioning it again. It's just interesting to me that they've made it clear that the C stands alone in the 2-3. And not the other way around as well.
It obviously makes more sense logically in the 2-3 format to do that. To me it's just odd that it's not that way for the 3-2 also. I don't think it should be, necessarily. If anything i don't think the C should stand alone if i had to pick one way or another, to make both sets run equally. The fact that they're run different seems strange to me
The C “standing alone” is still a point of interpretation. It doesn’t mean the C is playing man, or is guarding the opposing C. Seble’s clarification only means that the C in 2-3 is not paired or grouped the way the other positions are. Zone defense always means the defense plays as a unit, so to some extent, at least IMO, the C doesn’t truly “stand alone” the way I think some people understand the phrase. I said this in the other thread, to me the key question is whether the C is guarding his own zone alone, or if he’s essentially help for shots in the low block. I suspect it’s the latter based on my own unscientific observation, but I’m not positive.