From Positionless Offense To Positionless Defense: Should Teams Play More Zone Defense?

Let’s take a poll, and then discuss why a zone defense stock might be rising.

Here’s the truth; defense is tough any way you slice it.

Today’s offensive players can effectively shoot from 30 feet, or potentially put 5 different people in a screening situation to hunt a high-percentage matchup. There are not enough poorly called charges in a game to make up for the offensive advantage in today’s game. So what are coaches to do?

Win More Small Series Of Possessions

Some programs call them kills, others refer to them as turkeys when it comes to earning 3 stops in a row on defense. Whatever you call it, the teams that can string more stops together have a better chance of winning the game. I know, a mindblowing inference.

The point is if there is a perceived offensive advantage in today’s game based on spacing, shooting, and size; coaches have to get a little more creative on the defensive side to consecutively win more possessions.

Positionless Offense Meets Positionless Defense

Positionless has virtually become synonymous with saying 5-out offense. A common scoring system with interchangeable personnel playing conceptual basketball.

The counter to attempt matching open-concept offense is with a switching defense. The objective is to mitigate the number of mismatches or advantages by switching any type of 2-man actions, sometimes even interchanges, almost giving the impression of playing against a matchup zone.

The good news for coaches: scouting reports get a little smaller because everyone is expected to guard anyone. The bad news for coaches: everyone can’t really defend every player.

Difference Between Switching Man & Matchup Zone

This may all be a matter of semantics. But, let’s take a look at a couple different clips from coaches breaking down switching man-to-man principles within their program and a matchup zone.

Coach Ashworth covers switching man-to-man defense from 3 separate possessions.

The matchup zone highlight below was created by Head Coach Jeremy Oliver covering Coach Ron Hunter’s 2-3 zone during his tenure with Georgia State.

Ironically, the biggest differences that seem to play out between switching man-to-man versus matchup zones are the positional coverages. A zone will attempt to keep perimeter players defending the perimeter and interior players with similar-sized matchups around the paint. Switching man-to-man can be vulnerable to a lot more intentional screening action forming a mismatch. Whereas, the matchup zones can struggle with open gaps or manufactured overloads. Both can be susceptible to giving up 2nd chance opportunities.

Which One Works Best?

Here comes the worst answer that is always given; it depends. Personnel matters when it comes to selecting defensive strategies. Switching man-to-man defenses cater to a homogenous roster with versatile defenders who are capable of both, guarding the ball on the perimeter and having to protect the paint. Matchup zones offer more of a fit for traditional positions intending to defend where they are most comfortable.

The most important reason to consider a zone is disrupting an offensive rhythm, and this goes back to winning possessions in spurts.

Are Zones Actually Trending?

According to one article from The Athletic covering the college game & another by Hoop-Social discussing NBA usage – the answer is no. So, if we’ve accomplished anything here it’s the subtle distinctions between switching man-to-man and matchup zones. Popular opinion suggests continuing to stick with man-to-man principles, this coach on Wall Street thinks it’s time to buy low.

If hunting matchups is considered basketball’s version of chess, maybe playing zone flips the board over to checkers and refuses to cooperate – at least for a few possessions.