ANALYSIS OF COLLECTIVE DEFENSE IN FINALS OF 2012. RADIVOJ KORAC CUP

The aim of this research was to determine and analyze use, the way of organization and successfulness of collective defence, as well as effects of use of specifi c defence types. In this case of study, empirically non experimental method and monitoring technique which enables research of technically tactical activities in basketball were used. The sample of research included eight basketball teams, competitors in fi nals of Radivoj Korac Cup, held in Nis in 2012. In the research seven games were analyzed – four quarterfi nal games, two semifi nal games and one fi nals game. The data was collected by the monitoring technique, and analysis of collective defence is done based on variables on which, organization and successfulness of collective defence depends on. Five general variables, seven that refers to the type of defence and fi ve variables of defence activities were included in this analysis and the results of the survey were expressed with quantitative values. With data analysis, it was realized that the team that had higher percentage of general defence effi ciency was winning the game. While watching the games an impression that, the players on outer positions were signifi cantly contributing to the effi ciency of defence was made, while inner positions players showed much less mobility in defence.


INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, basketball is very popular team sport and that is because of its expressed dynamics, changeability and unpredictability of events on basketball court during the game.It is an extremely complex game with very specifi c structural and functional performances (Trininic, 1996).In a game structure intermittent and skilful moving activities are recognized, which successful performing demands, combination of individual skills, team play and motivational aspects (Trninic, & Dizdar 2000).The complexity of game is primarily related on cooperation between fi ve players, who are during the game doing, different and for every position specifi c operations.Successfulness in most of the operations, which basketball players are doing in the game, is achieved with quick actions on a relatively small space (Trninić, Karalejić, Jakovljević, & Jelaska, 2010).Cooperation between players on the fi eld and synchronization of their acts is in most cases provided by proper selection of the game tactics.Tactics in basketball can be defi ned as use of overall individual, group and team sport actions in reaching the maximum sport result (Karalejić, & Jakovljević, 2001).Basketball tactics is very reach, especially the team one.Tactics is constantly developing, improving and that improvement is visible in practice as for example in woman's basketball where more often the tactics that contributes to more dynamic and more aggressive playing is being chosen (Vesković, & Jakovljević, 2000;Jakovljević, & Popov, 2001).Team tactics is consisted of tactical systems, which are determined in a relation to the fl ow of the basketball game.Game fl ow is usually being considered through two phases -attack and defence or actually through four phases -attack, transition from attack to defense, defense and transition from defense to attack (Trninić, 1996).In accordance to that, tactics is usually being systematized as tactics of offense and defense.One of the important factors that infl uences on achieving good results is choosing the right tactics.Basic factors when choosing tactics are abilities and skills of your own players.(Karalejić, & Jakovljević, 2001; Stefanović, Jakovljević, & Janković, 2010).Good result is refl ected in the choice of defense tactics, because good organized and continuous game in defense is basic investment for achieving the top results (Knight, & Newell, 1986a, 1986a;Pešić, 1997;Wooden, 1998).The quality of offence is very often determined by the quality of defense of one team.Relying on attack only, takes too much risk.It is often said that defense is a mirror of one team cohesiveness, because it requires uncompromising cooperation between all of the fi ve players and it shows very clear will among players to help each other.Different types of defense exist in basketball, but all of them can be systematized in two big groups: opened and closed defenses (Karalejić, & Jakovljević, 2008).In an opened defense group, there are defenses that are played on the whole fi eld, on 2/3 of the fi eld, on the half of the fi eld, and on 1/3 of the fi eld and those are men to men defense, press and zone press.Closed defenses are played on 1/3 of the fi eld, in the shoot zone and rarely on the half of the fi eld and those are zone defense, combined defense and match up defense.
Concerning undoubted importance of defense in basketball the subject of this paper is the application of different types of collective defense within basketball teams that participated in Finals of Radivoj Korac 1) Cup held in Nis in 2012.
The aim of this paper is to determine and analyze use, way of organizing and successfulness of collective defense and effects of use of some particular types of defense regarding their successfulness.

METHOD
In this case of study, empirically non-experimental method and technique has been used.Use of this method and technique allows the research of technically tactical activities in basketball (Hajnal, 1990).

The sample of survey
Radivoj Korac Cup is top competition where innovations and development trend of basketball through activities of best basketball teams can be easily recognized.That is the reason why, the game plays from that competition are a model for representative survey.In this survey, seven games have been analyzed -four quarterfi nals, two semi-fi nals and one fi nals game (Table 1).The winner was Partisan Basketball Club from Belgrade.

The survey process and variables example
The data is collected by the observation technique.Videos and DVDs of games have been ob-served.Observation ballot has been constructed and as a primary subject of analysis, variables were determined.In one-month period, systematically observation was done successively.Variables are set based on theoretical and practical principles that belong to basketball, especially to the tactics of defense.

Variables example
Analysis of collective defense was based on variables on which organization and success of collective defense depends on.Variables of defense that are covered in this analysis are shown in the Table 2.

Statistical data analysis
The results of survey are expressed by quantitative values.Descriptive statistic in other words, frequency distribution for every variable shown in the form of nominal statistical scale has been used.Absolute values, percentages and mean values are shown.

Partisan vs Mega Vizura
According to Table 3, it can be seen that the most represented defense in both teams, was man-to-man defense.Partisan defense was composed on basis of individual quality, while playing man-toman defense and man-to-man pressing.Partisan was putting fort strong pressure overall basketball fi led, on Mega Vizura playmakers and as well took a big number of steals.They also had a great defense from fast break.Mega Vizura was in its attempt to annul individual quality of Partisan players, combining man-to-man game with zone defense.Large representation of zone defense has weakened jump to defense of Mega Vizura and therefore Partisan had a chance for second and third attack and in the end adaptation of the game to attack on zone.When all variables of defense are looked together on overall level, it can be said that Partisans defense was more aggressive, more concrete and more dominant in jumps, what contribute to great victory.Radnicki strategy was to annul quick and young Vojvodina players by playing man-to-man defense and match-up defense on their part of the court.On the other hand, Vojvodina was trying to use its own speed and agility for taking balls combining manto-man defense and pressing.On general level, all monitored variables are almost of equal value.

Radnicki vs. Vojvodina Srbijagas
Table 4 is showing that Vojvodina had higher percentage of general effi ciency in defense, but it had lost the game.This game is just one of the proofs that modern basketball is a game play of high rate in offense as well as in defense, and that games can't be won only with accent on offense or only on defense.

Red Star Diva vs. Radnicki BKK
In table 5, big variations of defense systems used in the game are shown.Red Star Diva (RSD) has as dominant weapon in game, been using combination of man-to-man game and pressing, using form timeto-time different defense systems as well.Aggressive pressing of RSD has resulted in insecure offense of Radnicki BKK, and at the same time huge number of steals and almost twice as much fast break than the opponent.On the other hand, Radnicki BKK was combining man-to-man game and zone defense in order to minimize individual quality of RSD.The consequence of bad offense was bad defense against fast break with low 46.4% effi ciency, where this defense was 30.1% of overall Radnicki BKK defense.Generally, RSD defense was more effi cient it had higher number of steals in defense and it didn't allow easy point from fast break.This is when Radnicki BKK gave up and that was the main reason for losing the game.

Radnicki FMP vs. Hemofarm Stada
When looked at table 6, it can be seen that both teams have been using the same defense systems at the game.Both teams were using combination of man-to-man game and pressing.Hemofarm Stada (HST) was more effi cient than Radnicki FMP in every part of defense.This type of game suits HST more than Radnicki FMP, which in the end has achieved great result.On overall level, HST players were more aggressive and they had more fouls.With made fouls, they weren't letting Radnicki FMP gain easy points from fast break, and that is how they stopped 8 out from 12 fast breaks.Radnicki was defending fast breaks bad.The level of aggression of this team during the game was very low and therefore, they had a lack of defense effi ciency of this defense system.Generally, HST was more aggressive and more effi cient in defense and that is why they won the game.Table 6 .Representation of certain types of defense, their effi ciency, steals after shot, not gained balls from an opponent after shot, steals and number of fouls.

Red Star Diva vs. Hemofarm Stada
This game represents one more of the examples that big advantage of one team in half time can be double-edged sword.Red Star Diva (RSD) started very aggressively from the very beginning of the game.Combination of pressing and man-to-man game, with what game in a high tempo was forced, made Hemofarm Stada (HST) to make many viola-tions 2) and brought unsecure offense.In that way, Red Star won many steals and in accordance to that, many fast break as well.That is why RSD got big advantage very early in the game.Later in the game HST played more aggressive than before, while RSD players got a little bit relaxed.In the fourth quarter, with aggressive defense HST players have made a chain of good attacks and reduced an advantage from 18 to fi ve-point lead.Fanatic play in the last quarter of the game wasn't enough for victory, on one side because which only 11 or 50% was successfully defended.On the other hand, RSD defense from fast break was 14.3% of overall defense or 12 opponent fast breaks from which 10 or 83.3% was successfully defended.(Table 7) of big advantage they were trying to annul during the game and on the other hand, probably because of the fatigue they started feeling.Traces of HST defeat are visible in defense against fast break-25.8% of overall defense or in 22 fast breaks of the opponent from Table 7. Representation of certain types of defense, their effi ciency, steals after shot, not gained balls from an opponent after shot, steals and number of fouls.

Partisan vs. Radnicki
In terms of defense, Partisan has, in all monitored variables surpassed Radnicki.Atypical number of defense systems in both teams has been notices.The difference in concept was that Partisan used this game as a defense workout, testing functionality of certain defense systems, while Radnicki was trying to fi nd the best way to reduce individual and athletic domination of Partisan players.Ratio between steals after shot and not gained balls after shot on overall level was much better in Partisan team (16:6) versus (15:3) of Radnicki.That is almost twice as many "other" attacks.Steals ratio was 25:14 in favor of Partisan and that says enough about domination and defense teamwork.Radnicki match up defense that in previous games made a lot of problems to Partisan, in this game was ineffi cient with only 18.1% of successfulness.General Radnicki defense effi ciency was too low (49.3 %) for gaining the victory over Partisan.(Table 8) Table 8.Representation of certain types of defense, their effi ciency, steals after shot, not gained balls from an opponent after shot, steals and number of fouls.

Partisan vs. Red Star Diva
In Table 9 Partisan and Red Star Diva (RSD), defense parameters before fi nal game have been followed.If average values are observed it can be concluded that RSD's defense's general effi ciency was for 6.3% higher than Partisan's.On the other hand, Partisan scored better in steals and not gained balls.Based on these parameters, it could be predicted that RSD defense will be based on speed and players agility, while Partisan will defense on their half, aggressively not allowing rebound.Both teams defense was on the high level during the whole game, what is the reason for not making so many points.Both teams played man-to-man defense as a dominant defense system.Partisan players were returning quickly on their half of the court and played "basic" defense, not allowing to swift RSD's players to do fast breaks and quick attacks.On the other hand, with periodical pressing and zone press RSD was trying to disrupt organization of opponent's team offense.Well known RSD's pressing in this game was below the expected level, while zone press left good results, but it wasn't used enough.On their half of the court besides man-to-man play, RSD was with lower fi ve playing zone defense in order to lower the domination of Partisan's centre.Zone defense was effi cient two times, played fi ve times and therefore Partisan quickly gave up from this defense system.(Table 10) Comparing defensive parameters from Table 9 and Table 10 it can be concluded that RSD achieved general effi ciency in their average level.On the other hand, Partisan has outreached its own general defense effi ciency for 13%.Partisan has achieved high percentage of general effi ciency thanks to great defense against fast break because it stopped 16 out of 19 fast breaks (84.2%), and had than took seven steals.On the other hand, RSD defense against fast break was 64.7% or 11 successful defenses in relation to 17 attempts.If defense system variables on general level are observed it is visible that Partisan was more aggressive, achieving more fouls but more steals as well, while both teams have almost the same number of steals after shot and not gained balls after shot.
Critical moment (CM) at the game was happened in the last quarter, when Partisan defense received only three points.With aggressive man-toman defense, they brought insecurity into RSD offense, which ended with timeouts for attack or with long distance shots.In this way, Partisan made great advantage of 17:9 in the last quarter and deservedly won the Radivoj Korac Cup.Pressing was most used as means of change of rhythm, than zone defense and in the end Zone press, even though with this system the best effi ciency was achieved during the tournament.Consequence of low representation of this defense is relatively quick adaptation of attack on this kind of defense.That is why this type was used as a surprising moment for opponent team and that is the reason of high percentage of effi ciency.Zone defense is third by the representation and it was used usually when defending team was individually more inferior to the team that attacks.
Combining defense wasn't used.Match-up defense showed low effi ciency what is the reason of low representation.Fast break defense shows that on tournament easy won points were not allowed, and about that witness the relation of representation and the number of made fouls.Generally, it is shown that experts that work in Serbian basketball take care of collective defense and that it was thoroughly prepared for fi nals of Radivoj Korac Cup about what witnesses general effi ciency of defense.

CONCLUSION
In this paper, collective defense in Radivoj Korac Cup held in Nis in 2012 year, has been analyzed.All games played at the tournament have been monitored and the aim was to detect types of played defenses, their frequency and effi ciency, in other words, an attempt on overlook what has been achieved with particular type of defense.
The most common defense on this tournament was man-to-man defense.Relatively large use had also the pressing defense, while zone defense and Zone press were used to a lesser extent.Match-up defense was used in very least extent, while combined defense was not used at all.That shows that couches determined to use basic open and aggressive defenses, especially in situations when individual qualities of players were similar.The low representation of match-up defense and omission of combined defenses is probably the consequence of lack of time needed for improvement of such defenses, as well as, constant from season to season, big changes in the team.Very rare are the teams that can for the next season keep, the good number of players, especially the very good ones.
With data analysis, it can be determined that the team that had the better general successfulness percentage, was winning the game.Nevertheless, it happened that one team defense had higher general successfulness percentage than the other team defense, and to lose the game, what was the case with Vojvodina Srbijagas vs. Radnicki, where Vojvodina lacked realization in attack.
Partisan showed the biggest variety of defense type's use.They have been adjusting the defense type according to the characteristics of the opponent, whilst taking care of capabilities and skills of their own players.That indicates high-developed technically tactical skills and energy motor players skills, as well as, coaches right decision in choosing the defense tactics.
While monitoring the games there was the impression that players on outside positions contributed more to defense effi ciency, while internal positions players showed decreased mobility in defense.That indicates the need to practice the agility of internal positions players more in order to rise up the level of aggression in defense, and what is more, the game in attack would be more attractive.

Table 3 .
Representation of certain types of defense, their effi ciency, steals after shot, not gained balls from an opponent after shot, steals and number of fouls.

Table 4 .
Representation of certain types of defense, their effi ciency, steals after shot, not gained balls from an opponent after shot, steals and number of fouls.

Table 5 .
Representation of certain types of defense, their effi ciency, steals after shot, not gained balls from an opponent after shot, steals and number of fouls.

Table 9 .
Representation of certain types of defense, their effi ciency, steals after shot, not gained balls from an opponent after shot, steals and number of fouls.

Table 10 .
Representation of certain types of defense, their effi ciency, steals after shot, not gained balls from an opponent after shot, steals and number of fouls.Summing the data from all the games, table 11 has been made, from which we can see that the most common defense at the Cup was man

-to-manTable 11 .
Representation of certain types of defense, their effi ciency, steals after shot, not gained balls from an opponent after shot, steals and number of fouls on all Radivoj Korac Cup games