A bizarre moment unfolded in the CBA, as Tongxi chose not to foul despite trailing by just one point in the closing moments. The decision sparked major controversy, with fans lashing out at head coach Wang Shilong, raising questions and even calling for his dismissal.

What unfolded in these two games offers a striking contrast—not just in performance, but in mindset and decision-making.

Game 1: Shenzhen vs Guangsha — A model of competitive execution

Shenzhen delivered a dominant performance at home, overwhelming Guangsha on both ends of the floor.

This was a textbook example of how a team should approach a game:
👉 high intensity
👉 clear execution
👉 strong intent to win

There was no ambiguity—Shenzhen played to finish the game early and decisively.

In contrast, Tongxi’s loss to Ningbo raises serious questions—not about talent, but about decision-making.

Despite trailing by just 1 point with 25 seconds remaining, Tongxi:

Only with 3 seconds left did they commit a foul—far too late to realistically recover.

In modern basketball strategy, this scenario is well understood:

👉 Down 1 point
👉 Limited time

The correct approach is to foul early, extend the game, and maximize possessions.

By delaying the foul, Tongxi effectively:

This is not just a mistake—it’s a structural failure in game management.

What makes this more concerning is repetition.

In a previous game against Beijing, Tongxi faced a similar late-game situation—and again chose not to foul.

This suggests:
👉 not a one-off decision
👉 but a recurring tactical approach

These two games highlight a fundamental truth in competitive sports:

Shenzhen executed both.
Tongxi, unfortunately, did neither when it mattered most.