Disussing how hard it will be to implement is pointless.
When one is playing 2-3, there are two players at the backcourt and three at the front court. Each has a different role.
When one is playing 2-3, there are two players at the backcourt and three at the front court. Each has a different role. Have you ever played basketball? For the 2 defenders in the backcourt, it does not matter which one of them is PG and which one is SG. Are you trying to say that, PG is always left and SG is always right. Comon stop going nuts again.Your suggestion makes training a lot more random (depending on the luck factor of who is playing more on offence/defence). It would even be better to bring back the old system, than to implement your suggestion. The current version is understandable and works like it is supposed to. Why downgrade?
He was talking about splitting minutes on offence and defence. For this to actually work, we should be counting minutes at offence and defence while set to play one position aswell. So 48 minutes might look like PG - 22 minutes offence, PG - 26 minutes defence. That's one game. Good luck getting 48 minutes for defence training. If you change something it should be implemented on all training. Perhaps lowering the minutes to 24 at defence/offence for full training. What happens when you get unlucky and log minutes below 24 on offence, because you played a fast offence and opponent was playing slow.
Disussing how hard it will be to implement is pointless.Generally it is not pointless. It gives an idea whether we can realistically expect for something to be implemented or fixed quickly.