Game Scouting Reports | Paulius Murauskas: Lithuania U16 vs. Serbia U16–2020 TBF Tournament

I’m Kuzey, 19. I’ve been writing about basketball since I was 9. I have been working in Eurosport Turkey for the last 1,5 years. I have written on various sites and magazines before. I’ve been working as a freelance scout for three years. I worked as a consultant. I have interviewed dozens of prospects such as Theo Maledon, Deni Avdija, Henri Drell, Aleksej Pokusevski, Arturs Kurucs, Yves Pons and dozens of notable basketball people such as Luis Scola, Xavi Pascual, Jonathan Givony, Dimitris Itoudis, Joan Plaza, Sarunas Jasikevicius, Derrick Williams. I write an article every day. I live in Turkey, I go to all the Euroleague and Youth League games. MY BIGGEST GOAL IS SCOUTING! Anyway, don’t forget to follow me on Twitter and feel free to DM!

25 minutes

26 points

9/12 FG

3/5 3PTS (2/3 CnS, 1/2 movement)

Four rebounds

Five assists

Three turnovers

Plus 17

29 INDEX

Physical

The upper body of Paulius Murauskas looks good. I think every part of his upper body is wide and full of muscle. His shoulders are wide and strong. His arms are long and strong. He is a little heavy, PM has to balance the fat ratio. The lower body of Murauskas needs to develop. His feet are quick but lacking in hip mobility and strength. I think his body is very strong for someone who is 16 years old. My favorite thing here is that he knows how to use his power.

Offense

Murauskas played perfectly on offense in this match. He scored 26 points and showed many special skills. I think the most important thing was his three-point shots. It is a good thing for a 16-year-old prospect with a 6–9 height to use deep range shots. In the second minute of the first quarter, he used the screen in the off-ball motions to run, took the ball, and used the deep range shot. In the first minute of the third quarter, he brought the ball, dribbled four times and hit the three. 12 seconds before the end of the third quarter, he found a three-point hit as a CnS shooter against the pressure. He was always able to create spacing during the match. This is a very valuable thing. He was good at scoring or assisting on offense after the dribble. Before the end of the first quarter, he used his body and created a space around the painted area, took contact and changing his direction. He played ISO six times in the last five minutes of the second quarter, and after dribbling in three ISOs, he threw good passes. In three of the others, he went to the b, basket after doing the reverse and hit the two layups. He’s not a good transition player. In the last four minutes of the second quarter, his team made six transitions, but Murauskas was one of the last players to reach the half-court in all of these attacks. I think the problem here is not speed. Murauskas played with high performance whenever he wanted during the match. For example, he avoided taking the ball in the last period of the match, was not active. When the team could not score on offense, he did not try to back defense, just walked. This created a question mark in me about his appetite for basketball and his BBIQ.

Defense

What I liked most about Paulius Murauskas’ defense in this match was his lateral movement and off-ball defense. Murauskas did not show anything about athletics during the match. Vertical pop didn’t use. PM showed his fluency in a few sequences (third quarter, 9:11) but overall athleticism was not very good. The same was true on defense, but I think the lateral movement was very good. Since he moved laterally in five positions between the first two and seven minutes of the second quarter, he closed the spacing of ​​his opponent and did not give his opponent a chance in these five positions. He showed many good things about off-ball defense. He followed up the screen well in two and third periods. He wandered around the screen 14 times and made mistakes in only three positions. He always fought in the post zone and won these battles. But he did unnecessary help defense in many parts of the match. He showed unnecessary help defense in two positions in the fourth quarter, four positions in the third quarter, and one position in the second quarter. For switch defense, he showed good things on Fs and Cs. He could not defend Serbia’s shooter and quick guard, but he completely covered their wings and painted area channels. He was a defensive playmaker. He constantly warned his friends, but the problem here is the same as offense. When he wanted, he showed perfect defense.