In general, Sebastian Pruiti does a good job breaking down what happens on a basketball court in the NBA or other elite level situations. In this instance, however:
The Three Errors That Cost Argentina A Spot In The Finals
his analysis is way off base.
This is the comment left there, a few minutes ago, by yours truly.
——————————————————————
Sorry Sebastian but, in this instance, your analysis is way off base.
1. The fault for the turnover in the first sequence lies solely with the PG. When he cuts away from the basketball to start his movement and then changes direction to come back towards the in-bounds passer he is actually going to be open to receive a safe pass, but … instead of finishing his cut towards the ball he executes a 3rd cut on the same sequence and deceives the in-bounds passer who starts to make the chest pass to him and then is unable to pull the pass back once the PG inexplicably starts the 3rd cut in the action. This turnover is the PG’s fault not the Big Man who is beginning to run his assigned lane in offensive transition.
When the PG is covered 1-v-1 after a made FT there is no elite level coach in the world who would have his Big Man stay in the back-court to provide “help” for his PG to receive an in-bounds pass and bring the ball up the floor. Truly elite level PGs at this level of competition are able to destroy this type of simplistic full-court deny defense … if their 3 remaining teammates clear out and get the heck out of their way, especially, with no defender pressuring the in-bounds passer.
2. The fault for this turnover does not lie with the player who made the first pass down the floor to a Big Man that is uncomfortable handling the ball in the open court on the break. When you say that, it reflects an Americanized mental approach to the game which is not consistent with the way the Argentinians and the Europeans play the game today … since their Bigs are EXPECTED to be versatile enough to handle the ball properly in this specific situation, given the amount of repetition they get at this skill everyday in practice. By-and-large their players are taught/instructed to head man the ball to their open teammates, regardless of their size and position because even if this player is a Big he will have been trained to make the proper play with the pass or the dribble. Unfortunately, in this instance, however, you are absolutely correct that the Big Man who caught the pass-ahead does NOT make the correct play and gives up the ball much too early … which fails to get the defender to commit and puts his other 2 teammates in an awkward situation, eventually resulting in a turnover when the player in the middle of the break with the ball fails to execute a bounce in the lane which would still have resulted in an easy catch by No. 5 [the PG, I think, who makes critical mistake #2] and, in all likelihood a made basket rather than this turnover.
3. Each of the switch defense scenarios coming down-the-stretch did not produce the results which the Argentinians were looking for … however, it is wrong for you to focus on this aspect of this defensive tactic, in isolation, without also looking at:
i. The many times this tactic worked for them throughout the game;
ii. An analysis of why their coaches decided that this defensive tactic was still the best one for their players to employ given what their individual strengths and weaknesses are at the defensive end of the floor;
iii. An analysis of what the Argentinians were able to accomplish at the offensive end of the floor when they committed to using the players who they were able to employ throughout the game given their ability to use this specific defensive tactic properly because of their size limitations in relation to the Serbians, and the other teams in this tournament.
The Serbians did a terrific job executing against the Argentinian switch defense by being patient, making the right reads, and then hitting clutch shots.
If the Serbian coaches felt that this tactic was their best chance to succeed in this game what they could have done instead is use another tactic for the initial part of the game, or at different stages of the match, in order to better disguise how they intended to play defense against the Serbians coming down-the-stretch. While this approach MIGHT have been able to throw the Serbians off their game in the final stages so, too, might it have resulted in an earlier blowout for the Serbians, as they would have had an opportunity to take advantage of the Argentinians defensive short-comings for a greater period of time from an earlier point in the game.
——————————————————————
Enjoy the read on a lazy summer Sunday!