CT v Southside Flyers 25/02/12

First half:

Cheadle looked out of the game for the first 10 minutes, weak in defence and unable to attack effectively against Southside's relentless full court press.

After the exchange, and with SF 14:0 ahead, Cheadle started to play a little, Matt A collecting a few rebounds and Matt F doing some strong man-marking to cut the SF score rate.

With 3 minutes to go, and 20 points down, CT briefly went on the attack, getting the ball up-court with some good fast passes that left Southside out of position. Josh and Matt A both made 2 baskets each but Cheadle relaxed in defence again, and the Flyers matched them point for point before the whistle

Half time score 8:28

Second half

Cheadle started well with quick baskets from Joe and Matt F, but they were too slow to respond when SF turned on the heat and were soon on the back foot again. They could keep the opposition off the paint, but their unwillingness to mark close-up and tackle let Southside show their considerable skills at the long-shots.

In the last 10 minutes of the match Cheadle seemed almost to have given up hope of attacking against SF's high pressure tactics. There were a couple of good plays from Cheadle at the end of the match - but Southside, after playing full court for 40 minutes could afford to relax and celebrate.

Final Score: 20:55

Stats:

CT: Matt A - 6; Josh, Joe - 4 each; Matt F, Sol - 2 each. (I'm missing 2 pts here: anyone care to claim them?)

SF: #5 - 14; #8 - 13; #12 - 6; #4, #20 - 5 each ; #7, #16 - 2 each

Bob's View:

Cheadle lost 19:55 against this team last time, so this wasn't a great result. There were some good moments for CT, but they were moments and they were few and far between.

In defence, Cheadle didn't counter SF's long-shots - the Flyers made 4 three-point goals in this match, and often scored from just inside the three point line. Though it might not work against teams who specialise in set-ups, against this team if everyone on court had got down to some closer, more active, more physical marking around the key we could have seriously cut their score-rate. Yes, I did say everyone.

In attack, SF's tireless full-court man-marking broke most Cheadle attacks, even before they reached the halfway line. There were some CT attacks that worked well though, so it's worth asking why.

One of the earliest started from a surprise pass from Dan out of a scrum of SF players - the ball was passed so quickly up the court that SF were left out of position and behind. After almost 10 minutes of lack-lustre play, Cheadle suddenly looked like a team.

Sol was unlucky with that shot, but the play showed up a weakness of the SF game - their excellent marking foiled long drives, but it could leave them out of position against a fast, mobile, passing attack. When Cheadle made that sort of attack, they usually made chances and often scored.

But not often enough. Most often, Cheadle were too laid back, waiting for the ball to come their way. Against strenuous man-marking, attacking players always need to be on the move, making themselves hard to mark, finding themselves a good place to receive a pass.

And I do mean always. And I mean everyone!