Man to man vs Zone defense

[Mark]

As a defensive man...what do you perfer.

We seen a great example of switching to a zone defense in the DIV I men's championship game.

[lizlax22]

well as an attackmen i hate zone d :angry

[Longest]

What makes you hate the zone?

Dan

[lizlax22]

i hate zone cuz it gives me less of a chance to go one on one with a d-men and do a quick dodge also i can't drag him around with me to wear him out cuz i usualy last longer then d-men

[bigDman]

i love to play man i am fast enough to keep up with most attack man and its so fun

[bruamable]

as a former defensemen i loved man-man i love running and that gave me more oportunities to intercept the ball and to make some accuall contack however i did enjoy the occsional box in one cuz attackmen HAVE to be the most COCKY of all the group and to see some try to run it in was hilarious

[saintslax4]

The man to man is a great defense but you atheltes have to good. The zone is a great defense in bad wather conditions which take away an offensive advantage as we saw in the d1 champ game, but mostly the D2 game.

[bruamable]

the thing with zone is the midis have to GET THERE and often times on a fast break the midis kinda just jog and dick around that is one reason i became mid...to insure at least one person tries to break the break

[Blazer]

I like zone, because the attackmen think they can score. They try to make break for the goal and get sandwiched between 3 defenders. I love defense!

[cbadman]

Zone, mostly because I don't like running all over the place.

[out_o_luck]

ill tell you right now if you do a zone properlly it can be awesome, as long as your defense makes the correct slides, it works really well but man 2 man is fun for the hard hitting teams

[stegmakk]

As a player...man...I have the footwork and the size to keep up with the attack and bring the pain...
from a coaching point of view...zone...
zone requires Mids who can play some D...and it requires alot of smart players...and a good goalie...when it works it can infuriate the opponent's offense

[Dpolelax]

they both have their pros and cons. we dont really run a zone unless we are a man down. it obviously works if you are outnumbered and still can keep them from scoring. but same thing goes with man to man as long as you slide correctly.

[laxee]

I prefer man to man..

[attack21]

hey lizlax that's just your personal opinion, personaly i love it as an attack. go 1-1 when the slide come pull out and pass shoot or feed to the man on the crease

[attack21]

blazer you come acrosse a good offense and they will score

[dirtnsnow]

As an attack, I would actually prefer zone. More holes to get the assist or cut. If you load one side, you can pick, and cut better than man to man, because the slides are more difficult to pick up for the d.

[LiquidMercury16]

As a middie I prefer it when D play zone so that I can crank away from outside easier and I can move the ball around more and because I am naturally lazy I dont have to run as much however if they do play man to man better watch out cause i'll be in quick on ya face dodge then score behind the back and laugh as you all are wondering what happened

[wildcatdefense]

Man to Man...I love this.It is better cuz you can beat out the ball better,where as zone,all you do is block,and being the one and only EXPERIENCED defender on my team(it is mostly attac/middy and no one else wants to play defense-I am the only one)so it sucks to play zone cuz the others suck and are new to defense so they don`t work...:cry

[laxattack]

Originally posted by lizlax22
i hate zone cuz it gives me less of a chance to go one on one with a d-men and do a quick dodge also i can't drag him around with me to wear him out cuz i usualy last longer then d-men


isnt that the point of the zone defense....to NOT let you target an individual and to keep a stronghold as a group.... :laugh

[wildcatdefense]

KINDA, but it is more towards keeping the ball out and using some slides to confuse the opponentand make them make a mistake.

[mb5]

it all depends on what kind of team you are and what kind of team you are playing. each type of defense depicts the tempo of the game and if you have a good athletic core of middies you can run a press out man with crease slids to cause quick turnovers and fast breaks but you dont want to run a d like that against an up tempo team. zone allows you to slow things up and run things from a more controled break with a possesion offense. the best display of controlling the tempo is when ohio state switched from playing uptempo with maryland and getting crushed for three quarters to a 8 zone d where it slowed things and set up controlled oppatunities for them on o (even tho they scored half the goals on broken situations and um turnovers)

[Greener]

As defence, and being that its only my second year playing field, I prefer man to man, mainly because on my team we only have about two experianced big sticks, and our midi's never seem to understand the defence when they are yelling for the midi's to get the butt's back.

[intrepid_6'5'']

Differently it dosen't matter cause your going to lay people out anyway

[Paul_Gait_RULZ]

ok, but in field, on man to man you can't really bother him like you can in box, intrepid says that thinking box, but really, zone forces outside shots, which on a 6'x6' net, is probably better than an attack beating his defender and getting a clear shot from up close....

I feel zone with fires (plays where the poles storm out on bad players with no hands to strip 'em of the ball) is a better d than man to man...

[smitt5168]

n e of u ever tried a triangle zone?

we gut 1 mid out semi-far, then two d-men 10-15 yards apart. then one rover dman thats all we gut to work wit sumtimes, lazy-*** middys

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

as a middie on d, i'd rather play man on man. i've gt quick feet and it's fun to shut down that fast middie everytime who thinks he can burn by everyone.

[BuckWyld]

I think that both have advantages, zone works well if your goalie is good at handling outside shots, where i see zone break down frequently is on cutters going through 2 or more peoples zones or having a few players in the same zone forcing one dman to cover several men, but that maybe because the teams I have played on are less used to playing zone. Personally I prefer and play better man to man, but again it maybe just cause I am used to it.

[Ivo]

If u have guys who have heads on thier shoulders u can just burn a zone time after time. All it takes is a few quick passes and its shot after shot. Just remember that the ball moves faster than anyone can. If u have "heroes" on your team who try to win it by themselves, then a zone can be tough to beat.

[longpole3661]

Zone is fun. The deffense works better as a team man to man is good cause it's simple and any one can play it

[hankooklax]

we usually play zone defense. It works well with man down because people like me who are middies only have to cover the top and then the d always slides. that works greatly

[CDLax2]

as an attackmen, I hate zone, b.c it doesn matter if you beat your man u stil have a slide

in man to man I can beat a dman straight out and go to the goal unlike in zone where you have to work it around and find the open man

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

if you're up against a good d playin man on man, everyone will make the necessary slides, and you won't be able to go straight to the goal.

[CDLax2]

ya, thats why as an attackmen I HATE ZONE!

[TheKOB]

Any good attack can pick apart a zone fairly easily. Man is a bit harder. It comes down to coaching and individual skills combining as a team.

[linkinlax311]

I like zone in some situations, man in others, but it all depends on the skill and interaction of middies/dmen
We struggled with both last year on my team because we had sliding issues and our middies never played enough defense.
I think overall I like zone better, but both have their high and low points.

[NeMeSiS]

it really depends on the team im playing and the game sitiuation

[MontclairLax]

indoor is zone, outdoor maybe man to man

[Raptormaxx]

i actually like zone as a middie. you get to work the ball around and look for that opertune moment to rip a shot. much more methodical to me. plus if you can get a good low shot right on the ground, it has a chance of hittin someones foot and bouncing up funny, leading to a goal. one kid on my team has perfected it.

[mdawg12087]

I dont like the zone. Granted your suppose to play the zone, depending on the offense, 2-2-2, 3-2-1, etc. But it usually comes down to a 3-3 zone. I hate it because the guys can rip shots from outside, have two attackmen just setting a screen on the goalie, and in. Its harder, i think, to slide in zone, cause if u slide and your zone is left open, its your fault. Zone sucks

[Lyons Lax]

our team plays a hybrid man-zone where we have a back up man called the BUMP who cycles thru the zone defense. Say a middie has the ball up top the Dmiddie closest to him will play up on him then the BUMP will play backup on him so if he gets beat up top we have someone to stop him from scoring and the bump just moves arounf the zone backing up guys until an unadjacent pass is thrown the he will call Bump then another guy will take the bump responsibilities

[seulax]

Man is definitely the most fun to play as far as takeaways and clean slide packages, but zone variations can be fun too. In college our defense dominated teams, so we would transition out of man into a pressure zone. The zone set up with two close dmen up top with the lsm in between them. THe third CD set up just above the crease facing upfield, covering cutters and crease players. The two shorties would d up the attackmen. The setup looked like this:


CD LSM CD





CD

(goal) middie

Middie

If the ball was at x, the top CD would drop down about 6-7 yards high of the goal. The LSM would defend high crease, and the middie would pressure ball with the second middie shadowing him to slide if he got beat, and jump the pass to the wing attack. As soon as the pass was made from x, the middie pressuring the passer would drop back in behind the other middie to cover his back. the point of this D was to get the ball into the hands of the middies up top where we'd just kill them. One the ball got into the hands of the middies, the weak side high d would lock off, and the CD on ball would drive the middie high into the middle of the field straight into the LSM. The LSM's only job in this d is to double team and crush the ball carrier. It was so much fun to run, even just to confuse the crap out of the offense.

Of course, the D is a lot more intricate than I could explain here, and everyone on the field has to be fast (especially the shortstick middies--since they run constantly), but it is incredibly fun, and we tore up just about everyone with it.

[goalieskcickay]

I love zone.
A. Because my D are all wicked slow so they get burned on man to man.
B. Attack guys never get those cheap "right in front of the crease shots"

[longpole3661]

we play a modified zone with everybody sitting back of there man
are middies hardly ever play d and when they do thety get burned
all three of us d-men sit back and pick up people only when they get pretty close and we never leave the box

[OutBurst]

As a goalie, I prefer to run my defense in zone mostly because there is less of a chance of an attack running past a defender and taking a shot.


OutBurst

[Lax101]

as an attackman i prefer man to man. One thing i love doing is moving without the ball, and being a little quicker then most of my opponents i love to make quick cuts to the ball (and beat defenders). its harder to do that with zone, in my opinion.

However, with a zone its great controlling the perimeter. A lot of times defenders don't apply enough pressure, and let you pass around the ball in circles. If you have a lead it's a great way to pick apart a defense and waste time.

But overall, a zone is a lot harder to break down, but thats my opinion

[Stans]

Enjoyed your post. We've had some success w/ that formation by attacking the wing poles. Overloading a side (2-3-1 or 2-4 sideways) has forced the extended on-ball pole and adjacent D to make a choice.

Which offense have you encountered that has been successful against that zone and why?

[cinplayer3]

as a goalie, i dont care what my D plays, as long as i dont have to block crease shots

[mdawg12087]

we us a two triagnle d, we have the two shorties play on the crease. Then two poles on top. when the pole goes to play a man, on of the shorties replace him, while the other stays on the crease. If the ball is low, a dman plays him(like man to man), the shortie replace his spot, and the other shortie stays on crease. its like having a box-and-1, with a guy almsot chasing, but styas in his zone

[FPlaxer]

We use both but mostly zone that has two poles spliting the back half and two middies spliting the front and the other middie and pole over lap their respective area for slides. You really have to see it be done to understand.

[jackstraw169]

zone defence in my opion is a lazy mans defence...with that said my preference would be playing man to man with zone responsibilities..
nothing worse than playing zone and your midis check off their man and are now
left to cover an attackman...