As someone who coaches youth basketball as I am sure many of you do or have done in the past, what do you think of teams playing zone defense at the elementary and middle school levels?
OT: Youth basketball
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
It is ridiculous at the Elementary Level and any youth organization worth a grain of salt won’t allow it. Middle School is debatable because they can play any defense they want in school and an 8th grader is close to being in HS.
I've coached plenty at this level and I'm currently coaching a 4th - 6th grade team.
Here's my advice. If you get actual practice time, I'd play zone. In other words, if you get an hour where you can actually practice and show them what a zone is and teach positions 1-2-3-4-5, a 2-3 zone is the way to go.
But with my current team, there are no practices. Everyone just showed up at the first game and we got into it. So we told them just find your man and follow them around wherever they go and don't let them get the ball or keep them from getting to the basket if they get the ball.
I agree. I run into it a lot and it really makes me think very low of opposing coaches. In elementary school, its glorified cheating. I mean zones force you to make outside jumpers and young kids obviously cannot make outside jumpers consistently. Not my team, but I have heard of other teams being shut out. Like 0 points.
I dont think it should be allowed until HS. Even in middle school I wouldn't allow it. Though I'd allow pressing in middle school and you really cant play half-court man once the team breaks your 2-2-1 or 1-2-1-1 press. So I guess maybe you allow it.
My experience in youth sports, multiple different sports, is that rules are made and manipulated to maximize wins instead of player development. Dont even get me started on baseball. Everyone plays travel baseball now and that's killed rec leagues. My son's team only played 10 rec games one season because they'd only schedule like 1 game a week in the middle of the week so the travel league pitchers could pitch. God forbid you lose a game because you play a Monday or Friday game and the travel league pitchers cant pitch.
What would be your reason for playing zone though? I mean, mine would be that its harder for young kids to make shots against a zone. But I dont care as much about winning as I do teaching them basketball principles. Being able to guard a player 1 on 1 and also knowing how to play help defense are principles you arent going to learn playing zone.
These are good points. It depends on the variability of talent. If it's a higher level, travel type team, I would play man. If it's a community type league with players across all levels of talent, I'd play zone.
Again, it's about how much practice time you get. If you get enough practice time, a zone could work. With little practice time, I'd teach "just stay with your man."
I once coached in a Catholic Grade school league and we had an 1 1/2 hour practice once a week and a game on Saturday and we played a great 1-2-2 zone.
I'm coaching in a league right now and we've never practiced -- just played game -- and we just ask them to find a guy and follow them around.
Coaches who play zone in grade school are doing so for their ego not for the betterment of the kids.
I remember learning 2-1-2 zone concepts in gym glass in elementary school. It was pretty common for my rec league, and I actually preferred when the defense played it because I was a shooter who couldn't dribble to save his life.
The hoops were only 8 feet tall in my first rec league, and I don't remember anyone not being able to get it there.
The hoops were only 8 feet tall in my first rec league, and I don't remember anyone not being able to get it there.
I don’t think this is a fair statement at all. In some of the youth leagues I’ve coached, they made it a rule for all teams to play zone because it was much less chaotic than man.
I was on a team that couldn't run a set or even get a shot off, because their best player would just pick up our point guard at half court, steal the ball, and make a breakaway layup. It had to have been like 50-0 when he was in (you had to sit at least one quarter).
Nobody was playing airtight zones back then.
Coaching 2nd and 3rd grade basketball, we don’t play zone (or even really introduce the concept), but we also don’t allow stealing unless there is a loose ball. That way, the kids learn how to move their feet but you don’t have the aggressive kid stealing the ball and wrecking the game. Obviously as you advance a few grades, you have to allow for stealing, but playing zone exclusively or as some part of tactical strategy in grade school doesn’t seem like something worth endorsing. But that’s just me.
A league requiring zone is a new one to me because everyone should know it's not helping the kids.
In grade school, especially with girls, most kids can't shoot appropriately from any depth outside of even a compact zone.
In my experience, most of the coaches who go zone are doing this for one reason - they know this concept could allow them to use this advantage to win games. It's unfortunate and it detrimental to the development of kids. Like I said, the coaches who ran zones in grade school are more concerned with their egos (or are just ignorant to what they should be doing) than helping their kids develop.
High school is different because zones are usually pretty easy to bust up.
It actually worked well with everyone playing zone. It was easier to organize your plays. It didn’t provide any advantage at all and actually leveled the games pretty well. And none of the kids played defense well enough to shut anyone down by any means.
I think it is all about the practice time you have. At the elementary level there generally is not enough time to teach things other than basic concept drills such as passing and dribbling. At the middle school level there is usually more practice time to work on things like zone.
From my own experience, I played in 7-8th grade catholic league and had two 2 hour practices a week plus a game or two. The coach was very serious about winning and he taught us a 2/3 and 1/3/1 zone that we would trap out of.
Additionally, I coached my daughter's team for two years. It was 5th and 6th grade catholic school level. One practice a week for an hour and half. I remember teaching a 2/3 zone, but it was sloppy and some of the kids were clueless about what to do when the ball was on the opposite side. Needless to say, we mostly played man. Anyway, it was a hell of alot of fun tho.
From my own experience, I played in 7-8th grade catholic league and had two 2 hour practices a week plus a game or two. The coach was very serious about winning and he taught us a 2/3 and 1/3/1 zone that we would trap out of.
Additionally, I coached my daughter's team for two years. It was 5th and 6th grade catholic school level. One practice a week for an hour and half. I remember teaching a 2/3 zone, but it was sloppy and some of the kids were clueless about what to do when the ball was on the opposite side. Needless to say, we mostly played man. Anyway, it was a hell of alot of fun tho.
Sounds like it's much easier for the coaches. 🤔
I think we can agree USA Basketball and FIBA have an pretty good idea of how to develop players- both recommendations not introducing zone (for good reason) until players are at a minimum 12 years old.
Im talking community Rec leagues here, not USA Basketball. Some of the kids never played before. Half of them in the lower grades could barely dribble at all.
I also feel the same way about pressing and I believe USA Basketball feels the same way. I wouldnt allow it until middle school until "comeback situations" like your team is down X number of points. Have you seen some of these elementary games where both teams are pressing? It should be rated R. It certainly isnt basketball. But the winning coach has to feel awfully good about themselves.
I don't think there is a clear right answer here. To me, it depends on the level of basketball, whether travel or in-house/ rec. Our rec league made us play zone, and it drove me crazy at first, but it was probably the right thing to do. In M2M, at the rec league level, the best player will just dominate, and most kids will just stand around and not do much. Rec league is really about introducing the game and seeing if kids like it or not. Zones level the playing field, although the 8-4 games were all too common as you do have kids chucking up shots they have no chance of making.
The travel leagues we played in generally mandated M2M, which was the right call, and definitely develops players much better. You have to learn how to play defense and run offense against the M2M, as well as developing individual offensive skills. In travel up thru middle school, I agree that the coaches playing zone are doing it to win and not helping the kids develop. They worst though were the elementary travel teams that would do a full court zone press. Most of the kids had no chance of beating this with a long pass over the top, they just didn't have the strength. But it sure made some coaches look good.
It's USA Basketball's guide to youth basketball not playing for USA Basketball. They are using all of their knowledge from both domestic and international best practices. It's intended to help coaches at all levels be better at coaching kids. It's a very useful tool imo for the groups you're describing.
I agree with a lot and to DT's point, there is something to be said about rec leagues playing zone to eliminate the chaos and fouling every possession. And it does level the playing field like you said so the best player cant dominate. Not sure that 8-4 games though keep kids interested. I watched a relative play in one of these games. They got shut out. Must have been 0-25 on 15+ foot jumpers. No close-in shots. So I think the intent is good for rec leagues who want to do zone but I dont agree with it. Now for travel coaches who do this, they are pretty much scum. If its a tournament or something where there is more of an effort to win, ok, whatever, play zone if you must. But for these regular season games, you should be teaching the kids more basketball principles than standing around and hoping the other teams misses long jumpers.
In most of the rec league games I coached or watched, zones didn’t prevent the ball getting inside any more or less than man. Games were never 8-4.
I watched my nephew's 3rd/4th game a few years ago. Both teams played zone. Game was 0-0 until midway through the 4th when the other team caught fire and won 4-0. Skill level matters obviously but if these are true rec league players and not travel-level kids moonlighting in a rec league or say really good football or soccer athletes playing rec bball, you are going to have really low scoring games.
I suspect that game would have been 4-0 regardless of whether the defenses played were zone or man.
I would say like 10-8 because against a man defense, there would have shots closer to the basket. Or you know, some 3rd grader loses his man and there's a free 5 footer.
If it was 0-0 until late in the game, it means no one scored on a fast break after probably 40+ turnovers. Do you really think it was because of a packed in zone that neither team scored? C’mon.
I think fast breaking wasnt allowed as teams had to get back and set up their D. But, its harder for little kids to score against a zone. So I doubt it would have ended 4-0.
BTW, I swear I wasn't looking specifically for this but this just popped up in my scrolling (which is a little crazy). Hits the nail on the head. Also talks about pressing at young ages which is so stupid. Dont know who this guy is though.
I coach a rec league team right now and my kids scored 4 points last game. They missed about 20 shots in close.
It was against a man defense. Believe me. It would have made no difference at all what defense was being played. While I'm at it, kids let opponents dribble right by them whether they are playing zone or man.
We play in the CVYBO league and I coach our 4th grade team and we aren't allowed to play anything but man. Sometimes I wish we could play zone because half our kids just stand around not moving on defense, and we practice twice a week. Having to play man has really helped my own son become a good defender though, so I'm glad we can't play zone. It wouldn't have tought him anything.
I am saying this sarcastically, but in football obsessed Western PA, play zone (especially a full court press type) early to teach your athletes to be great free safeties and other DBs. Never too early to develop ball hawks.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure how I feel about this debate. Maybe I'm old and not up on today's coaching techniques, but is there really that much "teaching" necessary to make someone a great man-to-man defender? Sure it takes some practice to get good at it, but if you give me an outstanding athlete with quick feet and quick hands, I'm confident I can make them a good defender without much coaching ability on my part whatsoever. Give me a kid who is very slow and trips over his own feet all the time, and no matter how much time I spend coaching him--even if I can successfully teach his to use his slowness to his advantage--he still isn't going to be a great defender.
I do think learning zone techniques at a young age can make you a better off-ball man-to-man defender later.
In all seriousness, I'm not sure how I feel about this debate. Maybe I'm old and not up on today's coaching techniques, but is there really that much "teaching" necessary to make someone a great man-to-man defender? Sure it takes some practice to get good at it, but if you give me an outstanding athlete with quick feet and quick hands, I'm confident I can make them a good defender without much coaching ability on my part whatsoever. Give me a kid who is very slow and trips over his own feet all the time, and no matter how much time I spend coaching him--even if I can successfully teach his to use his slowness to his advantage--he still isn't going to be a great defender.
I do think learning zone techniques at a young age can make you a better off-ball man-to-man defender later.
Last edited:
4 points? I think you need to do the honorable thing and resign.
I kid. I kid...
I coached my kids through grade school and miss the action. Good luck.
A few things.
- if you are an athletic kid, yea its not real hard to stay in front of your guy. However, not every kid is super athletic. Also its good to get experience 1 on 1 defending without fouling. Slide your feet, dont bump, dont handcheck, contest the shot.
- also kids need to learn how to play help defense. The concept of guarding your man away from the ball and being in help position is important
- All this being said, the primary reason to require man to man defense is because its easier for young kids to learn how to play offense vs a man defense. Screening, cutting, one on one moves, etc. If your primary goal is to win then yes, play zone because its harder for elementary kids to score against a zone but if your primary goal is teaching the game of basketball, its better to play man. As that IG coach said above, zone is a "cheat code."
This is silly. It’s on a coach to teach basic zone offense. I taught it starting n 5th grade off one practice a week. It’s not hard. And a basic zone offense can kill a team with back door cuts and basic player movements. You can kill a team with layups. You don’t have to shoot outside shots.
If you think that coaches have enough practice time to teach 5th graders how to beat a zone for layups, then I dont know what to tell you. And thats part of the issue. 5th graders should be spending 0% of practice learning how to dissect a zone. Practices should be skill-based. Dribbling, shooting, etc. Making kids "learn" how to beat a zone or a press at young ages is doing them a disservice. USA Basketball does not agree with you as they state zone defenses should not be played at that age.
Agreed - your average 3-5th grader should be working on skills.
Similar threads
