BuzzerBeater Forums

Ternyata disini rame ya.....
numpang lewat ah...

Ternyata disini rame ya.....
numpang lewat ah...

upah jalan dong bang... sumbang kritik setidaknya. haha

China 113-95 Indonesia


Loss against Chine, probably the best team in this championship. It wasnt an easy match for them, we won the first quarter, and in the 4th quarter at 5 minutes left it was only -8. Unfortunately our defensive tactic wasnt the best, but we had to try something against a much better team, man to man defense isnt good against a much better team. But this loss was in my calculation, so we are still fighting for the second place, two hard matches left, gogo let win them!


Please take care on the game shapes guys! In the last few weeks it was really good, but this week we had some problem with it. Keep it up gogo Indonesia!

Again I just don't understand why did you use the lousy 2/3 ,,, hmm

What would be your choice? Man to man defense is self killer against a way much better team, China used inside attack mor often than outside, therefore ive decided to use this. Plus our SF was injured, so for outside defense i had to put someone to the SF without any inside shot, and we would have weaker inside attack. In my view in that match we have to risk because the opponent was much better, finally it was a close match, but we lost it unfortunately

But as i mentioned, that loss was in my calculation, so we have to look forward, and win the next two matches, thats the most important.

China used inside attack mor often than outside, therefore ive decided to use this

Man to man always your best D when you're against a team that often change the lineup.

They were using 2 times Princeton & 3 times LI. Slightly more LI doesn't mean that they will use LI to face you. This is not math lesson. Gambling on what they will use on their tactic is risky.

I'm not saying you must win China, just worry that this kind of tactic selection will happen again on next game.

If we used man to man defense, we had lost this game too. Thats sure.

Thats much more complicated than u think.

China has the potential to beat our man to man defense on both sides, (but minimum 1 side) so if we played this, it would be 100% that their offense will beat our defense in outside or inside (maybe both). So if we wanted the chance to catch their offense, we had to choose between inside or outside defense.

Other thing: As i mentioned, our starting SF was injured. The outside man's game shape wasnt good enough to play outside offense with high efficiency ( and our inside offense is just better ). So it seemed the best to play inside offense, because thats our strongest offense. But our SF is injured... So what to do? Play inside offense with an SG or PG in SF, which is much weaker than a PF plays SF and play outside defense, or play inside offense and inside defense with a PF in SF, which is strong enough to beat their defense, and catch their offense if they play inside offense?

I think the 2. variation is more logic. Before our match China used inside offense more than outside. Thats a fact. So with this tactic we had the chance to beat a way much better team, if they play inside offense, which they used more often in the past.


There are a lot of reasons to play this or this tactic, but i think my veiw was logic, and with this tactic we had the biggest chance to make a surprise. Of course, after the match everyone can say : hey man they played princeton we had to use 3-2 zone. But you have think with my head BEFORE the match. See the game shapes, injuries, the opponents team, tactic etc. There is no tactic for 100% win, but you have to with the tactic with the most % to win.

I hope i was understandable Cheers.

Last edited by LA-Hukli at 10/14/2011 12:07:22 PM

China has the potential to beat our man to man defense on both sides, (but minimum 1 side) so if we played this, it would be 100% that their offense will beat our defense in outside or inside (maybe both). So if we wanted the chance to catch their qoffense, we had to choose between inside or outside defense.

If China use outside tactic, only their outside player (PG SF SG) that will hurt us.
If China use inside tactic, only their bigmen (PF C SF maybe) that will hurt us.

So where's the 100%? It's either inside or outside, unless they are using normal pace (PTB, BO).

I think the 2. variation is more logic. Before our match China used inside offense more than outside. Thats a fact. So with this tactic we had the chance to beat a way much better team, if they play inside offense, which they used more often in the past.

That fact depends on which team they are facing. With us much weaker at outside, they're bound to use the outside tactic to defeat us. Only if we are weak inside, they will use LI/LP.

I think you should have aware that we're stacked nicely only at bigman position and weak on guards, and I guess the whole Tournament teams knew that, and they will know how to face us. Opening the hole on outside defense will only make them send you a "Thank You" card.

anyway, thanks for your explanation. It does show your different point of view.

Australia-Indonesia 119-112 (in overtime)


I just cant say how do i feel. I am really-really disappointed and sad after this match.

We was in the lead ALL time, unless the last minute in regular time.

With 7 seconds to go at 92-93 Risidanto has two fhree throws, but he missed one---> overtime.

We tried as hard as we can to win this match, and qualify for the semifinal, but our chance now is minimal.

I think i will need a few days to think about this match. We was in the lead whole of the match, free throws for the win, and we lost So sorry guys.

Last edited by LA-Hukli at 10/17/2011 8:58:33 AM

China has the potential to beat our man to man defense on both sides, (but minimum 1 side) so if we played this, it would be 100% that their offense will beat our defense in outside or inside (maybe both). So if we wanted the chance to catch their qoffense, we had to choose between inside or outside defense.


If China use outside tactic, only their outside player (PG SF SG) that will hurt us.
If China use inside tactic, only their bigmen (PF C SF maybe) that will hurt us.

So where's the 100%? It's either inside or outside, unless they are using normal pace (PTB, BO).


I said here is 100% that they will beat our defense AT LEAST one side (but maybe both).

I think you should have aware that we're stacked nicely only at bigman position and weak on guards, and I guess the whole Tournament teams knew that, and they will know how to face us. Opening the hole on outside defense will only make them send you a "Thank You" card.


I know that the opponents knows we are weaker outside, but i know that they knows we know that. You cant play always the same tactic (unless if you are the strongest team).



Btw, you can see we played man to man against Australia, and it didnt worked (maybe, fhree throws for the win, overtime, but finally we lost..)

Against China we played TIE, because i knew that they will play the same, and we will need some power against Aussies, and Hong Kong in the final two rounds. With TIE, our man to man defense wont be effective against China, thats sure.

But against the Aussies, with crunch time i thought it would work. Our outside defense was strong enough, but they beat us in insidem and that was enough for a terrific win. Iam so sorry for this match, we tried as hard as we can to win, but the lest free throw from Risidanto wasnt good