[ad_1]
The Lithuanian national team field was crowned by two control matches in Tallinn. On the first day of the competition, the Lithuanians unexpectedly lost 85:92 to the Estonians, and on Saturday they at least partially rehabilitated and 82:59 defeated Latvian opponents.
The “Baltic Way” Cup allowed us to get a closer look at basketball players, who will compete in Lithuania’s twelfth national team and the Olympic team that will take place next summer. The portal Krepsinis.net reviewed the individual performance of the players of the Lithuanian national team and rated it with ratings.
Mountaineer
# 5 Kalnietis Blankets (19 min., 7.5 points, 0.5 res. Per minute, 2 credits, 0.5 per minute, 2 points). Rating – 4.
During two control matches, M. Kalnietis only gave one effective pass, and the team’s attack, which took him to the field, often seemed quite static.
In the match with the Estonians, Kerras Kriisa hit the player of the Lithuanian national team twice unexpectedly and forced the latter to make a mistake. M. Kalniečius also had a difficult time defending himself from his direct opponents. Perimeter players from Estonia and Latvia have created shooting opportunities.
The defender’s main advantage in the game was a good hit “from the game”, which reached 50 percent, so M. Kalnietis took his opportunity to accumulate points quite productively.
Sedekersky
# 8 Tadas Sedekerskis (16 min., 6 points, 4.5 rebounds, 1 rebound, 2 rebounds, 0.5 rebounds, 8.5 assists). Rating – 5.5.
Although Darius Maskoliūnas said Tadas Sedekerskis’s position in the national team is still unclear, but seeing the competition between the “third number” players, it is natural for the young talent to try to present himself as a heavy forward.
Since Gytis Masiulis and Arnoldas Kulbokas were not present at this match, T. Sedekerskis had a great opportunity to appear before the coaches.
Tadas main advantage is that after retrieving the ball, he can successfully drive it to the opponent’s side. What was missing most in his game was a harder fight closer to the basket. Neither Estonians nor Latvians had physically strong “fourth numbers”, but the Lithuanian national team striker was unable to gain any tangible advantage closer to the basket.
In attack, T. Sedekerskis can also offer a shot from the three-point zone, which is simply mandatory for a player of this position in modern basketball. T.Sedekerskis could further reveal himself to the type of average attackers like Jonas Valančiūnas or Artūras Gudaitis as the “fourth issue”, which could expand the attack.
Jokubaitis
# 13 Rokas Jokubaitis (16.5 min., 3 points, 2 rebounds, 3 repetitions, 0.5 points, 6 points). Rating – 5.5.
R. Jokokaitis’s game during these two games did not surprise or disappoint. The player handled the team attack quite well and made good use of the team’s height in two-on-two situations. The player also managed to avoid the stupid mistakes that are typical of attack organizers at such a young age.
What was most lacking in R. Jokubaitis’s game was the ability to complete attacks on his own. This was especially evident in the match with the Estonians, who turned well on defense and sometimes closed all transfer options. In more than 10 minutes of that game, the basketball player made a single serve. In the meeting with the Latvians, the player looked at the basket much more frequently and threw 5 total two-point points, but did not make a single three-point shot in two games.
The fact that the Olympic team has been postponed for a year may benefit R. Jokubaitis. The young player who is improving very quickly would already be realistically claiming to be in the top twelve of the national team, and next year the ranks of Kaunas “Žalgiris” should only further strengthen those positions.
Blaževičius
# 23 Marekas Blaževičius (16.5 minutes, 8 points, 6.5 rebounds, 1 res., 2 points, 12.5 points). Rating – 6.
For a tall man, this summer should be extremely difficult psychologically. Often, when evaluating this player’s actions on the field or external decisions, he forgets that he is only 18 years old and already faces enormous attention and pressure.
Perhaps this was partly reflected in the match with Estonia. M. Blaževičius seemed confused and often late in making decisions both in attack and defense. Although the Estonian front was not physically the strongest, the experienced Christian Kitsing was able to teach lessons to the less experienced seniors on our team.
We saw a better version of Marek in a match with Latvia. There, the midfielder scored points both after the rebounds in attack and after a successful two-on-two game. It’s true, we practically didn’t see Marek playing pikenpopo situations, and hitting from a medium range could also greatly expand your attack possibilities.
What was most lacking in M. Blaževičius’s game was speed. Although the basketball player worked a lot on physical training in the summer, he would like a little more explosive energy from the young player. Now the midfielder seemed quite heavy at times.
Dimša
# 33 Tomas Dimša (18.5 min., 8 points, 4 repetitions, 1 res., 1 p., 1 rep., 9 points). Rating – 6.5.
The defender was probably the only basketball player in the Lithuanian national team who was stronger in the game with Estonia than in the game the following day with Latvia.
T.Dimša hit three long shots in the Estonian basket, and in various situations successfully sharpened the game with breakthroughs. The potential of this basketball player in attack remains a mystery, and the visible progress with each season allows us to believe in his ability to play at the highest level as well.
In the match with Latvia, T.Dimša also played for the “third number” for some time, but in this position the basketball player felt less confident.
After the first game with Estonia, there was a lot of talk about the fact that the Lithuanian national team allowed far away from the highest opponents to choose balls under our basket. In the game the next day, T. Dimša grabbed 7 balls himself and the lack of more fights did not allow him to hesitate.
Birutis
# 11 Laurynas Birutis (21.5 min., 12 pts, 6.5 rebounds, 1 res., 2 credits, 0.5 min., 16.5 points). Rating – 6.5.
The 213-cm-tall striker had fairly obvious physical advantages over opponents’ front-line players, but this was far from always possible.
It seems an elemental “two-on-two” attack could end points in the Estonian basket, but opponents, who concentrated their defense far below the basket, were able to stop the Lithuanian midfielder, and his passes were often too slow or inaccurate. . The fact that L. Birutis’ medium shot limped, to put it mildly, limped also made it easier for opponents.
There were practically no rivals in defense. Although D. Maskoliūnas emphasized that there is a risk for Latvian midfielder Kaspars Berzinis on the three-point line, it was costly to pay that risk: the latter scored 5 points from three points on 9.
Still, in the match with Latvia, L. Birutis’ game left a better impression. The key to what you need from a midfielder in such situations is a quick and good decision. In this match, the center was already more successful in completing the attacks themselves, and better threw the ball to the three-point line.
Bendus
# 22 Eimantas Bendžius (22 min, 3 points, 3 repetitions, 1 repetition, 2 repetitions, -2 points). Rating – 2.
The striker was able to help the Lithuanian national team during the tournament only in the meeting with Estonia and that match did not take place for E. Bendius.
The tall man had plenty of room and opportunities to punish opponents with long throws, but his goal was reached that night in Tallinn: E. Bendžius caught just 1 of three points out of 8.
The striker closest to the basket did not have much to offer, and the game on the low five, when E. Bendžius played in the center forward position, also did not yield the desired results.
It is to be hoped that such matches do not occur in the striker’s game, as it remains one of the most realistic options among the “fourth numbers” in the Lithuanian national team.
Grigonis
# 40 Marius Grigonis (24 min., 16.5 points, 3.5 rebounds, 2 res., 0.5 bl., 20 points). Rating – 8.
In both matches, a large part of the Lithuanian national team’s game revolves around this defender, in whose hands the ball was most often.
The game with Estonia has shown that he is not the best version of M. Grigonis we have yet seen. As other players on the Lithuanian national team must admit, when he broke into the opponent’s penalty area, he often just looked for fouls or was simply confused by his own actions.
M. Grigonis, who scored only 1 of 9 shots “out of the game” in the game with Estonia, still scored 14 points and was the most productive in our national team. During the match with Latvia, the Lithuanian showed a much stronger shot from all distances and scored the highest number of points again: 19.
Currently, he is the most versatile player in the Lithuanian national team, who has repeatedly tried to play even with his back to the basket. It may still take time for Marius to fully recover from that injury, but it is already clear that this will be one of the most important players for the Lithuanian national team in future battles.
Lekavičius
# 43 Lukas Lekavičius (20.5 minutes, 9.5 points, 0.5 rebounds, 5.5 res. Per minute, 0.5 points per minute, 0.5 per minute), 12 p. bal.). Rating – 6
The impression was that L. Lekavičius felt better when R. Jokubaitis or M. Kalnietis were at his side in the square. When he doesn’t need to organize a game, L.Lekavičius can do what he knows best: snatch up the opponent’s defense.
Most probably already yearned for those defenders float, that we could see again during this tournament. Admittedly, the old problems in defense did not disappear anywhere and even several times opponents in the three-point zone could easily attack the hands of the Lithuanian national team defender raised too high.
Although L. Lekavičius was not the most important figure in the Lithuanian national team game, he is always the person who can give a lot of positive energy when he gets up from the bench and this is where his strength is.
Butkevičius
# 51 Arnas Butkevičius (21.5 min., 7.5 points, 4.5 rebounds, 1.5 innings, 0.5 innings, 11 helpful votes). Rating – 5.5.
Although the striker’s numbers don’t seem bad, it is he who can be held responsible for some of the loss in the basketball game against Estonia.
It was perimeter players like Janari Joesaar or Sander Raieste who recovered most of those balls. Together these two Estonians caught up to 22 balls, and 10 of them, below our basket. The Lithuanian national team forwards, including A. Butkevičius, can be said to have had a hard time dealing with their direct opponents.
A.Butkevičius himself played on the attack in the usual style and attacked the basket mainly in a quick attack or after the opportunities created for him by his teammates.
Ulanov
# 92 Edgaras Ulanovas (24.5 min., 4 points, 5.5 rebounds, 2.5 res., 1.5 points, 6 useful votes). Rating – 4.5.
If the Lithuanian national team had needed a victory at all costs in the match with Estonia, E. Ulanov, playing the basket again, we probably would have seen him much more often.
The striker was now more of a consecutive player and neither of them took the initiative more frequently, receiving good ball appearances closer to the basket from their teammates.
Although E.Ulanovas spent most of his time on the pitch for all Lithuanian players in the match with Estonia, he did not actually become the leader. The same accusations against unbuttoned rivals that are directed against A. Butkevičius should also apply to this forward.
E. Ulanov, famous for his love, definitely should not allow the weaker, lower Estonians to take control of the Lithuanian penalty area, especially when the middle forwards of the Lithuanian national team moved up in their defense.
Help us create great content – become a sponsor of Krepsinis.net >>
[ad_2]
