Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Just because Jacob (or anyone for that matter) has never seen a player get FT’s off a loose ball foul during a jump ball, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Here are just a couple recent examples I’m sure Wolves & Nuggets fans will remember. Vid #1: This season, MIN...

12,280 просмотров • 1 год назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

This is what I’m talking about. This isn’t to highlight Bentancur. It’s how 90% of teams and players behave for I’d say 70% of the game. But what are we trying to achieve here? The best thing that can happen from any phase of play, is to score a goal. So that’s the overall objective. To do that, the ball at some stage has to go behind every single opposition player and space has to be exploited whether it’s big or small. But Bentancur here is waiting. Waiting for players to move. Waiting for opposition to move. But why would Newcastle move? They don’t need to break from their shape. But imagine what would happen if Bentancur travelled with the ball into those open spaces. Newcastle and spurs players aren’t just going to watch, it’s going to instigate a chain reaction of movement from both sides. And that will in turn break up shapes which creates gaps. Then it’s if you are confident and able to exploit. But just waiting doesn’t achieve it. Imagine the disruption you will cause if both the ball player, and off ball players look to provoke the opposition as opposed to rigidly stand in shape. It’s just logical. If you stay still. Why does the opposition need to move? So what pictures are changing? What gaps are you opening? What gaps are you exploiting? So how do you expect to score when to score a goal, gaps have to be exploited? It’s why when people say “it’s harder in modern football, there’s less space”. No there isn’t. There’s always space. You’re just seeing players less willing to provoke it and attack it.

Harry Brooks

14,215 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Alright, let’s do a quick review of last night’s game between the Atlanta Dream, and the Minnesota Lynx because I am extremely busy today. What you witnessed last night……(and this is why I hate talking basketball with Caitlin Clark fans because they know jack NOTHING about the game of basketball)……….was the result of team meetings, walk-throughs, film sessions, and an ENTIRE GAME PLAN that was CENTERED around containing ONE player: Angel Reese. ————————————————- The plan was simple: 1. If the ball goes to Angel Reese in the post, immediately double and triple team her. No one player can stop her. 2. If a shot goes up, send FOUR BODIES to surround ANGEL REESE. No one player will keep her off the boards. No TWO players will keep her off the boards. We’ve TRIED that. ————————————————- I’ve attached two video clips from last night’s game: Clip 1: The ball goes to Angel Reese in the post. She is immediately triple-teamed. Why on God’s green EARTH would a WNBA team TRIPLE-TEAM a player who SUCKS?!!! Great question. Clip 2: A shot goes up. FOUR PLAYERS from the Minnesota Lynx ALL crash around Angel Reese, just as the team had discussed during their team planning sessions. She STILL snatches the rebound while SURROUNDED by FOUR PLAYERS! ——————————————— The Minnesota Lynx decided prior to the start of this game that if they were going to lose, they were going to force the OTHER starters from the Atlanta Dream to beat them. They were NOT going to lose to Angel Reese. It was one of those nights, and that is okay. It happens. These VIDEOS will show you the level of RESPECT that an ELITE player COMMANDS! Peace.

Hovah76

664,146 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

OK, I have a definitive word on the CJ Abrams play from today's Pittsburgh Pirates at Washington Nationals game after talking with Elias Sports Bureau on this. This play will stay as a sacrifice fly. The originial ruling of NOT a sacrifice fly was for the exact same reason that I thought, which is that the infielder is not running into the outfield, which is year's past would have been correct As it was explained to me, in past years, an infielder had to be running almost in a straight line towards the outfield wall to be considered "running in the outfield". Here, since he is running, and he ends up further away from home (157 feet) than when he started (145 feet), this is going to count as a sacrifice fly. That definition is changing, in part from this play to help bring greater consistency, and to take some of the guesswork out of it (the argument that he is running into the outfield as opposed to more parallel). Now, folks all the time ask "why doesn't MLB publish the OS Manual" and I always say because it is a living document that can have the wording change, and the wording for this play will be modified to something like "more towards the outfield wall than towards home plate" to eliminate any confusion. The big key to this play is that he was running on a full sprint. Also, and this is helpful for me, but for all fly ball outs that score a run, Elias Saba reviews to ensure consistency. So, yes, it's a sacrifice fly, and now that I have that info from Elias themselves, that sort of settles this one. Sounds like the guidelines for this definition will be changing, either this season, or certainly for next season.

MLB Scoring Changes

49,141 просмотров • 1 месяц назад