"Do more of what is working and less of what is not." We work in a bottom-line, results-oriented world. Whatever it takes.
There's room for both man-to-man (in Pete Newell terms, individual assignment) and zone defense. Let's discuss advantages and limitations.
I. Advantages:
1. We set the matchups we like.
2. Responsibility is clear. Your primary responsibility is your assignment. (Corollary: if you do not know your assignment, then you can't be on the floor)
3. The defense directly accounts for everyone.
4. The defense maintains flexibility. We can play tight with full denial, sag and protect the paint, help off weak players, et cetera.
5. We can 'sag' off weak offensive players, allowing additional help.
6. In developmental (youth) settings, practice builds fundamentals.
II. Disadvantages:
1. High fundamental skill is required at every matchup.
2. Defense is vulnerable to screens and back cuts.
3. The primary responsibility is each assignment instead of the ball.
4. Defense may be susceptible to fouling.
5. Transition offense is more difficult.
6. Not designed to cope with 'star' player mismatch.
7. Has potential weakness against pick-and-roll.
Comments and priorities:
III. Whether on or off the ball, every player must have proper stance and positioning.
IV. No easy shots is first priority. That means limiting penetration and challenging shots without fouling.
V. Great 'man' defense pressures the ball but resembles zone away from the ball. Great zone defense still provides pressure on the ball and has some man features away from the ball (communication, especially coping with cutters).
We need a 'system' of help, communication, and movement on the pass.
Sophisticated defenses "tag" the cutter. "No free passes."
Players must understand the assignments. Does x2 slide down to 'bother' the cut? Does x4 "lock and trail" or go over? Is there an automatic situational switch- late in shot clock or the period? Players don't know without instruction, repetition, and feedback.