Tewaaraton 5 too soon list ?

[wlaxphan20]

Gotta chime in on this ... 1:1 or zone, defense is always a team effort. Both are all about communication and timing. When to send a double, how to recover weak side, when to pressure out, how to force shots you know your goalie can save. In the case of a zone, the backer or the rover is often not only one of the best athletes on the field but must also possess an outstanding lax IQ.

Cuse had an AA backer for years who was not an exceptional man defender and would not have been as highly regarded in a BC or UNC man defense. She was long and lanky and distruptive in the Cuse zone. Man and zone defense both require great coordination and communication but the simple fact is that if JMU or Denver played man defense and communicated just as well they would give up twice as many goals. To some extent 1v1's are unavoidable in a man defense. Speed and athleticism are just more important.

1v1s are unavoidable in every defensive scheme.

And the opposite is true as well, not all great man defenses can pull off a great zone.

[Lax101]

Gotta chime in on this ... 1:1 or zone, defense is always a team effort. Both are all about communication and timing. When to send a double, how to recover weak side, when to pressure out, how to force shots you know your goalie can save. In the case of a zone, the backer or the rover is often not only one of the best athletes on the field but must also possess an outstanding lax IQ.

Cuse had an AA backer for years who was not an exceptional man defender and would not have been as highly regarded in a BC or UNC man defense. She was long and lanky and distruptive in the Cuse zone. Man and zone defense both require great coordination and communication but the simple fact is that if JMU or Denver played man defense and communicated just as well they would give up twice as many goals. To some extent 1v1's are unavoidable in a man defense. Speed and athleticism are just more important.

1v1s are unavoidable in every defensive scheme.

And the opposite is true as well, not all great man defenses can pull off a great zone.

This is just silly. 1v1 in zone when you always have help 5 feet away is nothing like a complete clear out in man defense. When you have stud 1v1 defenders (and to some extent middies) like UNC and BC you play man. You dont play zone which relies more on deception, teamwork, communication and at times even smart fouling. Why do you think so many National Team players come from UNC and BC - because they have more elite defenders and middies. The National Team especially playing 6v6 needs the best of the best on the defensive end. Zone defense allows you to hide a few average defenders much more easily than man defense. For many teams, playing zone is the best option and it can be done incredibly well as we see with JMU or Denver. In my opinion those teams have too many holes on D and midfield to play man defense at the same level.

[wlaxphan20]

Gotta chime in on this ... 1:1 or zone, defense is always a team effort. Both are all about communication and timing. When to send a double, how to recover weak side, when to pressure out, how to force shots you know your goalie can save. In the case of a zone, the backer or the rover is often not only one of the best athletes on the field but must also possess an outstanding lax IQ.

Cuse had an AA backer for years who was not an exceptional man defender and would not have been as highly regarded in a BC or UNC man defense. She was long and lanky and distruptive in the Cuse zone. Man and zone defense both require great coordination and communication but the simple fact is that if JMU or Denver played man defense and communicated just as well they would give up twice as many goals. To some extent 1v1's are unavoidable in a man defense. Speed and athleticism are just more important.

1v1s are unavoidable in every defensive scheme.

And the opposite is true as well, not all great man defenses can pull off a great zone.

This is just silly. 1v1 in zone when you always have help 5 feet away is nothing like a complete clear out in man defense. When you have stud 1v1 defenders (and to some extent middies) like UNC and BC you play man. You dont play zone which relies more on deception, teamwork, communication and at times even smart fouling. Why do you think so many National Team players come from UNC and BC - because they have more elite defenders and middies. The National Team especially playing 6v6 needs the best of the best on the defensive end. Zone defense allows you to hide a few average defenders much more easily than man defense. For many teams, playing zone is the best option and it can be done incredibly well as we see with JMU or Denver. In my opinion those teams have too many holes on D and midfield to play man defense at the same level.

What exactly is silly? I don't agree with the generalization that teams play a zone just because they can't/don't have the personnel to play man. It's a misunderstanding and huge oversimplification IMO. Man to man defenses can get picked apart just as much as a zone can. Sometimes the opponent can call for a different defense than what is typically played. I actually prefer man to man but can still recognize the athleticism, skill, and lacrosse IQ it takes to effectively pull off a zone. They are different, not necessarily better or worse, and both require a tremendous amount of time, dedication, communication, athleticism, and skill.

You still often have help 5 ft away in a man too. If the offense clears out for an ISO, help can (and does) just get sent early. Many coaches have even referred to their man defense as "good help defense".

Becca Block has been a mainstay on the US team for a decade. Many of the defenders are actually from Maryland too, who also plays great man.

You seriously think Denver plays that zone because they would have too many holes in their man to man defense??

And to echo watcher, defense is always a team effort, regardless of if you play zone or man or any other variation.

[Womenslaxxfan]

I think Denver plays a zone for a number of reasons the primary one being their coach likes it and believes in it. It also suits their field, which is one of the smaller venues in women’s lacrosse so makes for even more chances to double behind the cage. And I don’t think that they would have as effective a defense playing man based on watching them in person several times. Good thing they can play an incredible zone with players like Thacker who seem to be perfect for that scheme.

My original point was two fold:
1). I don’t like zone. I think it makes for a less exciting product on the field. I also think it works better in the womens game than in the men’s bc of shooting space. If the best shooters in the womens game could just wind up and crank through traffic, as they can in the mens game, the zones wouldn’t work nearly as well in my opinion. Zones were very prevalent in the men’s game for years until coaches figured out how to scheme against them AND the average shooting velocity of players progressed to the point where a 15 yard step down was a high percentage shot.
The women will never be able to do that bc of shooting space…

2). Excelling at zone defense is a different skill than excelling at man. It absolutely requires less athleticism and you absolutely don’t have to hold your 1 v 1 as well. It might require a higher lax Iq, particularly for a backer, and definitely provides for more CT opportunities for those defenders with elite hands. Does that mean athletes like durkin, Thacker and now McPherson wouldn’t be first and second team all’s Americans in a man to man scheme? The point is I don’t know and neither does anyone else since Denver does not play man to man defense and neither does jmu. I don’t think all three are making those top 2 lists however if they are in man. My opinion only and we’ll see how durkin does this summer in AU where they plan…..man.

Would Emma trenchard have been a 4 time all American playing in a zone defense scheme? We will never know. She never led unc defense in either cts or gbs. Bu she was widely regarded as one of the best defenders to play in the past 10 years because she was nearly always able to hold her matchup to a lower output than usual….

To say that “theres no difference between the two and that a great zone defender will be a great man defender, or vice versa” seems like a comment someone would make who has a dog in the hunt…

[wlaxphan20]

To say that “theres no difference between the two and that a great zone defender will be a great man defender, or vice versa” seems like a comment someone would make who has a dog in the hunt…

I’m not exactly sure who this is directed at, but that is exactly not what I’m saying. I quite literally said “they are different”. Additionally, in an earlier post I said “And the opposite is true as well, not all great man defenses can pull off a great zone.”

Also, all I said was that you will still inevitably end up playing 1v1 at some point in a zone. I never said that it would happen just as much as in a man defense.

I even said I myself prefer man to man. I just think the generalization that teams play zone simply because they can’t play man is a gross oversimplification.

And I have no dogs in any hunt…

[Womenslaxxfan]

To say that “theres no difference between the two and that a great zone defender will be a great man defender, or vice versa” seems like a comment someone would make who has a dog in the hunt…

I’m not exactly sure who this is directed at, but that is exactly not what I’m saying. I quite literally said “they are different”. Additionally, in an earlier post I said “And the opposite is true as well, not all great man defenses can pull off a great zone.”

Also, all I said was that you will still inevitably end up playing 1v1 at some point in a zone. I never said that it would happen just as much as in a man defense.

I even said I myself prefer man to man. I just think the generalization that teams play zone simply because they can’t play man is a gross oversimplification.

And I have no dogs in any hunt…

My apologies. My last comment wasn’t directed at you and was probably an overstatement. The point I was originally making was in response to a comment that a Denver and jmu defender were the best someone had seen in years. I took issue with that because those teams play nearly 100 percent zone defense and I think that it’s very tough to put a defender who doesn’t play much man at the pinnacle of the defensive mountain. That’s it.
As long as the game allows zone to be played, every team will employ it situationally and practice it, particularly since everyone plays zone man down!
Sorry to get lost in the weeds….

[wlaxphan20]

To say that “theres no difference between the two and that a great zone defender will be a great man defender, or vice versa” seems like a comment someone would make who has a dog in the hunt…

I’m not exactly sure who this is directed at, but that is exactly not what I’m saying. I quite literally said “they are different”. Additionally, in an earlier post I said “And the opposite is true as well, not all great man defenses can pull off a great zone.”

Also, all I said was that you will still inevitably end up playing 1v1 at some point in a zone. I never said that it would happen just as much as in a man defense.

I even said I myself prefer man to man. I just think the generalization that teams play zone simply because they can’t play man is a gross oversimplification.

And I have no dogs in any hunt…

My apologies. My last comment wasn’t directed at you and was probably an overstatement. The point I was originally making was in response to a comment that a Denver and jmu defender were the best someone had seen in years. I took issue with that because those teams play nearly 100 percent zone defense and I think that it’s very tough to put a defender who doesn’t play much man at the pinnacle of the defensive mountain. That’s it.
As long as the game allows zone to be played, every team will employ it situationally and practice it, particularly since everyone plays zone man down!
Sorry to get lost in the weeds….

All good!! I think I got a little lost in the weeds too

[Dr. Tact]

My apologies. My last comment wasn’t directed at you and was probably an overstatement. The point I was originally making was in response to a comment that a Denver and jmu defender were the best someone had seen in years. I took issue with that because those teams play nearly 100 percent zone defense and I think that it’s very tough to put a defender who doesn’t play much man at the pinnacle of the defensive mountain. That’s it.
As long as the game allows zone to be played, every team will employ it situationally and practice it, particularly since everyone plays zone man down!
Sorry to get lost in the weeds….

Late to this thread, so sorry if it was over and I am dredging it up....I have no hound in the hunt...I tend to agree that even if there are 1v1 opportunities in zone, they are fewer than man. In my opinion, the man2man defender is exposed much more than the zone D. So, although not a universal statement, I think it is harder to play M2M and when I see the best D on a team shut down the opposing best O player, I have tremendous respect for the skillset and execution. Conversely, there is a specific team that I am thinking of that historically plays poorly against a good zone. That team O is built off of individual dodging talents and cutting. They seem to not be able to dodge the zone and get frustrated that the passing lanes are not as open when the zone is toeing the 8. Just an observation after watching said team for nearly 10 years. They may be an outlier, but the only one I have focused on.