[NUS IFG 2013] Men’s Basketball: The Road to MPSH5

This year, the highly anticipated Inter-Faculty Games (IFG) Men’s Basketball game began on the Saturday of Week Three, August 31^st 2013. In the past few years, we have seen the dominance of two basketball powerhouses, Faculty of Engineering (ENG) and School of Business (BIZ). Since 2008, BIZ has made it into the Top Three six consecutive times, claiming the championship in both 2008 and 2010. On the other hand, ENG, seemingly the title contender since the days of yore, won 2011’s championship by defeating the team from the University Scholars Programme (USP), and 2012’s by a win over BIZ.

This year’s Preliminary Round took place in Sports & Recreation Centre’s (SRC) basketball court, in the morning of Week Three’s Saturday, under the scorching sun. The matches were scheduled between 9:30am to noon. But even before the first match started, most players were already sweating in the sweltering heat, and squinting to see through the sunshine. With no shelter for anyone except for the officials and time-keeping machines, it meant even the players who were on the bench were not spared under the burning heat and unable to rest properly. Each match is 24 minutes long, broken into two 12-minute halves, and each team is able to call for one time-out per half, and limitless substitutions.

First Seed ENG and Third Seed School of Medicine’s (MED) match of Group A, and Second Seed BIZ and Fourth Seed Faculty of Law’s (LAW) match of Group B kicked started this year’s games. ENG did not change much with their priorities; because of their bigger sizes and physical style of play, they emphasised rebounding and defence. MED did not pose as much threat as their competition, losing by 12-19. On another court, BIZ had smaller line-ups, but commanded a very deep bench. They emphasised passing of the ball and team communication, which they managed to pull off impressively especially given such a short training period. With several skilled point guards organising and coordinating offense, their offense was a feast for the eyes. The ball was passed around the perimeter while players made quick cuts and runs to split the defence or cut to the hoop. Not only that, they also have several good shooters. In the end, they scored the highest points in the Preliminary Round — a whopping 36 points — in the opening match to defeat LAW.

School of Computing (SOC), School of Design & Environment (SDE), and MED of Group A were of similar competitive levels. All three faculties run fairly decent defences, and their players were generally athletic and physical. They do not have many players who can make plays, but what they lacked in skill they made up with stamina and effort. After the draw (yes, draw; IFG preliminary rounds have no overtime, so draws can occur) of 12-12 between SDE and SOC, the penultimate game between SDE and MED proved to be crucial. In the end, SDE won and advanced to the next round. However, Faculty of Science (SCI) is perhaps seeing an all-time low this year. Losing all four games, they scored just 20 points in total. In the match against ENG, they only managed to obtain just one point. In another match against SDE, in a jaw-dropping fashion, they finished the game with zero points.

Things were equally dramatic in Group B, even for BIZ. Faculty of Arts and Social Science (FASS) came out exceptionally strong this year. They first pulled off an early close game to defeat USP 28-19, and then they lost to LAW in another close game by a mere three points, 13-16. In the deciding game against BIZ, with just 40 seconds to go, FASS was still leading 15-14. Then BIZ executed a good offense in the final seconds to close the intensely fought game, 16-15. As a result, the last game between USP and LAW would decide the fate of all USP, LAW, and FASS. The players in both LAW and USP were not very physical or big in size, but USP saw a crucial mismatch in the position of LAW’s point guard, and exploited it ruthlessly very early on in the game. Ball screens at the top of the three-point line created the mismatch between a point-centre from USP and a medium size point-guard from LAW. Two such screens produced two spot-up threes and enabled USP to command a 10-1 lead. This hole which LAW dug early on in the game proved too deep to crawl out, and despite having a deeper bench, LAW eventually lost the crucial game 14-19. Although USP, LAW, and FASS all had the same win-lose records, FASS eventually advanced to the Semi-Final by differences of points.

In the Semi-Final stage onwards, all teams were almost equally athletic and physical. The team with the more diverse offense, playmakers, and stronger team defence will prevail.

The Semi-Final took place on Week Four’s Wednesday night on SRC’s basketball courts. ENG met with FASS, and BIZ played against SDE. FASS’ performance improved tremendously from last year and they are now much stronger and more athletic. Their team has a diverse range of players of various positions, and they also have depth on the bench. Their No. 8 point guard, who is explosive with good ball handling and footwork, contributed significantly to FASS’s success this year. Despite that, ENG controlled the game throughout and fended off FASS 50-25.

BIZ’s offense revolved around their centre No. 15, who is one of most skilful centres IFG has seen this year. He possesses great court vision and often shouts out to communicate with the whole team to coordinate runs on both ends of the floor. His post-ups are very difficult to guard as he has excellent footwork and is also a good post passer. BIZ’s No. 7 point guard controls the game pace and sees the court like few others and is another good ball handler and passer. In BIZ’s offense, they would often feed the post first, and then their faster and smaller players would cut and run the floor and pass the ball around. Their offense is patient and well-executed. On the defensive end, they often run a man-to-man defence. This is when their team communication shines and poses so much trouble for their opponents. Every player communicates quickly and efficiently, and makes sure everybody stays with their opponent, leaving little room for easy shots or baskets. SDE is arguably more athletic, but their line-ups were playing with less teamwork. BIZ defeated SDE in less than three quarters, 69-41.

BIZ and ENG are clearly the better teams. On 19^th September Thursday night, they will face each other for the second time, two years in a row. How will ENG counter BIZ’s line-up that emphasises motion, ball movement, and team communication? How will BIZ answer to ENG’s dominant size and strong physicality? Only time will tell, and it will surely be an exciting matchup*. May the better team win.