M2M vs. Zone

I know most here feel that M2M defense is the way to go at the youth level. And generally, I agree. However, what is a M2M defense? And should coaches be using the "M2M defense" to gain an offensive advantage? Let me explain and ask for your thoughts.

I taught a "sagging" M2M defense. One of my rules was deny the penetration. So my defenders on the wings would not play up in the passing lane, but would drop off, about a step, to help deny any penetration. A standard play in our leauge is the high ball screen. Most kids would follow their man into the screen and the PG would dribble around for an easy layup. I wanted my kids to switch on the screen and taught them no to follow all the way. Sometimes, my kids would get "lazy" and not even move, knowing what was comming. Thus, it looked like a "zone." And it was very effective. I also worked heavy on the help position when they where more than 2 passes away. I had a friend who did similar.

Well there where "complaints" about zones and adjustments made by referees. So what truly is a zone at this level? Should the kids be required to stick with their man, no matter what? Is there ever an instance where shouldn't be "on their man?" Should we just let the PG drive the lane uncontested? What say you.

If you are teaching good help defense and they are complaining... then maybe they should go to a couple of clinics or talk to the local high school coaches to get the correct information on teaching m2m fundamentals.

I see no problems in teaching a sag m2m D... a lot of teams have gone to that to help stop penetration. Switching a pick and roll is ok but I can see where some might think thats a zone.

I say you should teach the proper fundamentals of playing m2m defense. Maybe you could get one of the high school coaches to hold a clinic on proper fundamentals of m2m D. Stick to your guns.

I have another good idea... send them to this site and let them ask the questions.