Turkish coach, veteran Bogdan Tanjevic , has been recently critical of the FIBA and / or FIBA \u200b\u200bEurope regarded as his conservative nature shuts out the possibility that the choices can attend major international competitions such as its recent Eurobasket-templates up to 14 players. He said something like this get spread effort, increase the performance and reduce the number of injuries .
We do not know if your initiative or that of others, the Eurobasket in Poland was about to be the first in history to play with it, staffed by 14 players: twelve minutes of each game, two required discards per day. In fact, it was unofficially announced until just months before FIBA Europe announced that it would not be. If with these 12 + 2 players achieved all the positive effects that ensures Tanjevic, no longer a mystery based on which, logically, you can not make judgments or draw conclusions. But resume a debate that once again opened to a greater or lesser extent during the recent tournament in Poland: the interminable debate rotation.
But you have to know the difference between the debate on the rotation, which is one-and the debate on whether or not a change and a change in a given time. They may look the same, but they are not. So for now we will focus on the rotation. If only to make a couple of strokes.
THE MIDDLE OR END. Assuming, as has been repeated hundreds of times the vast majority of coaches, that the rotation of players throughout a game you're looking to maintain the increased pace of play and intensity are possible, the concept should consider be above any other consideration is that the faster pace of play and intensity possible can not be the end but the means. Personally I have a feeling, and probably not the only-that a force has been imposed, they ended up being the end.
And so during a match can not be other than winning. If rotation, rotation, and if no rotation, no rotation. The same way-as another example, if defense is to zone, zone defense, and if no zone defense, no zone defense.
To win, obviously, is what the coaches want to impose the increased pace of play and intensity are possible, and to apply this rotation. They do it because they are convinced they are factors that all but guarantee victory. But what really guarantee it? The answer, of course, is that, at least, not always.
BASKET ROTATION AND CONTROL. The rotation of the bench over the party began to impose on our basketball-in basketball but also English extension in the FIBA \u200b\u200bbasketball around the beginning of the last decade of the 90, perhaps a little earlier. But their success in terms of results, we must remember, was mixed. Especially in European club competitions, which in those years they triumphed over the other teams not only shallow bench-that is, low turnover, but also with a very low rate of physical play and intensity. Not all champions were that a paradigm of Limoges and the other, but we can not forget that precisely at that time that philosophy began to be imposed rotation, which in reality all too often ended basketball reign was quite the opposite: we met-and reviled-as the basket control.
of it may be argued that decade and a half ago, and which, bearing in mind that 30 seconds of possession have dropped to 24 - currently the physical condition of players has increased greatly. But ultimately it is likely that basketball has not changed so much now, as before, the real difference largely marked above the physical, the technical and tactical. It's something that we have many examples.
And back at the beginning, the proposal Tanjevic, just one final point. If you own Coaches recognize that a rotation with twelve players is complicated, and confirm facts, especially when it comes to playoff or final, in which 'cut' handling considerably, "they would not be much of fourteen? I hope
debate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment