WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final (/thread-4934.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final (/thread-4934.html)
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - treefan - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 10:07 AM)wbbfan2 link Wrote:[quote author=garvin link=topic=7652.msg59933#msg59933 date=1363003649]
I can only guess whether Chiney was tired, but she certainly wasn't herself -- she missed several shots that, even under pressure, she ordinarily makes; she wasn't as effective an offensive rebounder as usual; she didn't have her customary cat-quickness to loose balls under the basket.
Also -- not just with respect to Chiney -- we haven't given UCLA's defense enough credit in this thread. It was absolutely tenacious.
I thought Brewer in particular was a defensive force.
[/quote]
She was, a brutal force. And probably has 40 lbs on her Chiney. Big centers are a tough match for Chiney as she is really a 4.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - WAcard - 03-11-2013
UCLA watched the Uconn game tape and did to Chiney what they did, she still has not learned from that experience, why would she think a falling down shot is better than passing to an open teammate as I recall Bonnie was 3 of 5 and that kept us in the game in the first half nd Sara had also hit a 3. Something needs to change in her game. Amber grew up in the last half of the second half but and it's a big but she was not good before that dribbling too much and not playing much D. She did finally start fighting and realized she did not want to lose, UCLA also made some bad D errors allowing her to go left after forcing her right for most of the game. I am for one quite excited as we have a team who have been put down by not only everyone else by also us. Those girls showed they are not just there to make up the rest of the team on the court and came to play even though everything is run through the 2 and possibly Jos who was a none. Looking forward to Tara hopefully realizing that!!!!
We can win and if Chiney wants her life to be a heck of a lot easier than just worrying about racking up points and boards she will learn to pass.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - 81alum - 03-11-2013
The Fast Break Club has a spectacular photograph of Amber going up through the trees for the game winning shot.Â
http://fbccardinalnews.blogspot.com/
This photo encapsulates her game and the win.
There is a similar photo among the AP photos, but this is the best, and I'm not sure where it comes from. Take a look.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - Viking_Guy - 03-11-2013
A couple of more thoughts.
(1) This is a defensive gameplan we're going to see a lot more of - tight coverage on the perimeter and passers and a whole lot of traffic in the paint. And unless Stanford has more players willing and able to do a better job off the dribble, it will work. I know that I may sound like a broken record, but right now, teams KNOW that the drive is not a threat. They have to take away the open look at a jumper and the easy entry pass to Chiney with high hands, and all that happens if they overcommit high is Stanford will have to make a more difficult bounce pass into Chiney; the perimeter, with the exception of Amber, is not going to drive around them and go to the hoop. Or at least is not very efficient at that maneuver. Jos and Mikaela both drove yesterday, but generally from a high post position, not the three point line. The one time Taylor tried, she ended up committing an offensive foul going against three defenders, instead of trying a pull-up jumper. Or better yet, dishing the ball to an open Jos on the weak side, even if it had to be a jump pass. But it's hard to blame people for being inexperienced on the drive, because Stanford doesn't run it often at all. Beyond Amber, Sara is the most willing, but she and most of her teammates don't have the quickness to easily separate from a good defender and get to the rim before the defense can rotate.
It's also tough to do with the current setup, because Chiney is ALWAYS going to drag two defenders into the paint if she's always camped down low. Meaning a driver is going to have potentially three players to contend with unless Chiney clears the lane. Which is why I liked the high pick look Amber was running off late in the game - she had a lot of success because Chiney's defender was having to recover from the perimeter, opening up more room low in the paint. Same with Mikaela driving across the lane - Chiney, and her defender essentially became a two person pick, because the defender was unwilling to leave Chiney to pick up the drive.
(2) I also think we're going to see teams put A LOT of pressure on Amber. I would really like to see a couple of rotations with both Amber and Jasmine out there, just to cut down on the load a little and to help out against the pressure Stanford is sure to see. The tournament, as people say time and again, is a guard-oriented event, whether because of the quality of the defenses, the laxity of the officiating, or the impact of the three point line. Stanford has essentially been playing one guard, one tweener shooting guard small forward in James (who doesn't have a great handle or the speed to break a press herself), and a bunch of power forwards as starters.
(3) All that being said, it was a quality win over a quality opponent who had all of the motivation in the world to beat Stanford, and who had more rest after a MUCH easier game on Saturday, both in terms of score and physicality. And who is very familiar with the Cardinal. A lot of commenters on some of the women's basketball boards were saying this just showed how overrated Stanford is, and any team who is in their region has to be "licking their chops."
Um, Notre Dame had tremendous problems putting away SOUTH FLORIDA on Sunday. USF, #52 in the RPI. There is not a team in the Big East other than UConn who is nearly as good as UCLA. And Louisville, the next best team, is roughly equivalent to Colorado.
The potential Notre Dame-UConn match is the only one tougher remaining for any of the teams than UCLA. Kentucky lost to Texas A&M, Duke beat a consistently overrated North Carolina, and Penn State lost in the Big 10 semis to a not-very-good Michigan State team. And Baylor, playing this year's Big XII, had the easiest conference of any of the contenders - hell, I hate the fact that Brittany Griner is getting accolades for scoring 50 points against a team that trotted out a lineup without a single starter taller than 5'11" in Kansas State. The second toughest team in their conference? #24 Iowa State.
Stanford UCLA was the equivalent of a Sweet 16 matchup. Against an opponent that matches up well against Stanford. Stanford-Cal would've been the equivalent of an Elite 8 matchup, if da Bares had kept up their end of the bargain. But like almost every other 2 seed aspiring to a #1, they folded up their tent early.
(4) The officiating? Well, I hope we don't see much looser officiating in the NCAAs than we've seen over the last two games. But again, it was the wild inconsistency that killed me. And I think there's still a massive bias in favor of the charge call that is really changing the game, even with the restricted arc - the amount of flopping going on is crazy. I do think the officials should have the ability to call an unsportsmanlike technical foul against players that "exaggerate" - I remember watching one of the Pac-12 tournament games featuring Cal, when Brittany Boyd was guarding someone in the corner. The player brought her arms up and over, and Boyd's head snapped back - late. The whistle blew for an offensive foul, and they went to the replay. Which showed the offensive player's elbows and forearms missed Boyd by an inch or so. No correction, no punishment for Boyd - the only purpose of the replay was to potentially assess a flagrant foul. Um, why not have the ability to at least try to deter obvious embellishment?
That being said, Chiney's first foul was dumb, and a reversion to some of her past tendencies to pick up a silly foul - she was boxed out by three people and slapped down over someone's shoulder.
More later,
VG
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - 81alum - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 11:09 AM)WAcard link Wrote:UCLA watched the Uconn game tape and did to Chiney what they did, she still has not learned from that experience, why would she think a falling down shot is better than passing to an open teammate as I recall Bonnie was 3 of 5 and that kept us in the game in the first half nd Sara had also hit a 3.I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. I'm curious what VG's sharp eyes saw on this front. It seemed to me that UConn defended Chiney by pushing her out of the paint before she got the ball, but that UCLA defended her by trying to deny her the pass, but also by pushing her with their bodies even when she did get the ball close--the latter was seldom called.Â
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - 81alum - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 11:36 AM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:A couple of more thoughts.I, for one, always appreciate your insights, VG. Could you explain this just a bit? I'm not sure how you can have both tight covereage on the perimeter and also a whole lot of traffic in the paint--if everyone is out on the perimeter how can they be clogging the paint? But it certainly seemed as if they were in both places at the same time!
(1) This is a defensive gameplan we're going to see a lot more of - tight coverage on the perimeter and passers and a whole lot of traffic in the paint. And unless Stanford has more players willing and able to do a better job off the dribble, it will work.
Is Corri Close an unusually gifted defensive coach? It seems to me that UCLA put on two defenses in a row that were shockingly effective. Seeing C.al held to such low numbers followed by the Chiney shut-down makes her seem like a genius.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - Viking_Guy - 03-11-2013
81A--
From my (admittedly untrained) viewpoint:
Against Cal, UCLA played a lot of a "flat" 2-3 zone, intended to deny entry passes to the post by dropping the 2 defenders almost into the lane and daring Boyd, Pierre and Jemerigbe to shoot from the wing. It also denied Clarendon her favorite spot, the corner 3. In the quarter, Jemerigbe was able to hit from the wing. Against UCLA, she was ice cold.
Against us, I think they realized that for the most part, Stanford's perimeter players are hesitant to launch immediately on receiving the ball (with the notable exception of Bonnie and to a lesser extent Sara). Also, Chiney is almost always operating solo inside (four out on the perimeter, including the other post). What that means to me is that the Bruins were able to maintain pressure on the ball and the two adjacent perimeter players, while leaving two players down low, one directly on Chiney and the other ready to go to her inside shoulder. There is an open player for Stanford, but to reach her means a long and dangerous pass from one side to the opposite corner. (It's really hard to describe this without the diagrams I see in my head).
Think of it this way - with Stanford's perimeter players being hesitant to drive (everyone except Amber, really) and mostly hesitant to shoot, three perimeter defenders can press HARD against 4 perimeter passers by bodying up against the ball and the two adjacent perimeter players. The fifth defender maintains constant contact with Chiney, and the fourth can float in the lane. If Stanford tries to reverse the ball, that hesitation allows either the perimeter defense to shift, or the fourth defender to rotate out while the opposite perimeter defender drops in as Chiney crosses the lane to set up on the opposite post. Also, as the ball moves around Stanford's perimeter it tends to stop at each "station", as each defender tries to determine if she has an opening into Chiney, rather than "whipping" around the perimeter. That slight hesitation also encourages those adjacent defenders to get in the passing lane and force the passes to move even further outside, or leads to tipped balls.
It takes some key parts to work - length and quickness on the perimeter (if our tall perimeter can see/pass over you, ball pressure becomes harder to maintain), and an inside defender whom Chiney can't simply overwhelm going to the baseline or straight up, rather than across the lane. (It helps if the ref don't call bodychecks as Chiney spins and goes up; I love how she spins, goes up and ends up 2 feet further under the backboard then she started while the defender only "maintained verticality").
Normally, there are two ways to punish defenses that press hard on the perimeter - drive past them, or back-cut them. The problem is, Chiney (and her two defenders) are waiting in the lane. And a dangerous backcut really calls for a "cutter" type player, who is both dangerous on the perimeter and quick enough to create separation from an overcommitted defender with the backcut, rather than Stanford's compliment of tall but not very quick perimeter passers. The most natural target for backcuts would be Amber (although they don't often overcommit on her outside shot), and they tried yesterday to get that working a bit, but the defenders UCLA had on her (Williams, especially) were really quick; she never could get enough of a step to open up a clear passing angle.
The other way, which seemed to be Stanford's play in the second part of the second half yesterday, was to pull Chiney and her primary defender away from the basket. That pulls both the primary and to a certain extent that secondary defender away, spreading the floor. But spreading the floor only works if you've got players willing to cut and drive into the creases it opens up. Amber was willing, and Sara is willing if not as able to get a good look. But very few other players in Stanford's rotation are willing to put the ball on the floor, quick enough to get an angle on their defender and confident enough to finish solidly at the hoop. And also able to deal with the propensity I mentioned to favor the charge call over the block (again, I really love how defenders who are still and being driven past at an angle collapse at the slightest touch and often get the call).
One other mode of attack is the high pick and roll, again, pulling Chiney away from the basket. Amber did that well yesterday, too; when Chiney's defender didn't hedge and Amber's defender dropped under the pick, she pulled up for the 14-footer.
More generally, Stanford's measured, controlled pace on offense tends to not punish defenses for overcommitting, whether on the full court press, the half court trap, or ball pressure on the perimeter. The constant reassessment (Can I feed Chiney? If not, then do I have a shot? If not, then pass...) of Stanford's halfcourt offense enables defenses to close gaps and recover without ever really feeling that threatened.
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining it more clearly; don't have the technical coaching language. And there's a lot more to it, both in terms of positioning, specific match-ups (having Bonnie opposite corner as Chiney works across the lane helps out, preventing the offside perimeter from dropping in, e.g)
VG
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - Viking_Guy - 03-11-2013
Oh, it also helps if Chiney is dog-tired, possibly under the weather, and has had the heck beaten out of her by two teams in the last 48 hours.
VG
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - CompSci87 - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 11:36 AM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:A lot of commenters on some of the women's basketball boards were saying this just showed how overrated Stanford is, and any team who is in their region has to be "licking their chops."
This is typical East-coast bias at work. It's axiomatic that the Pac-12 is weak, so if one Pac-12 team beats another by a big margin, that just confirms that the loser is weak and says nothing for the winner who merely feasted on a cupcake, while if one Pac-12 team wins in a tough battle, it just proves the winner was overrated because they struggled against a weak Pac-12 team.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - CompSci87 - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 01:42 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:(It helps if the ref don't call bodychecks as Chiney spins and goes up; I love how she spins, goes up and ends up 2 feet further under the backboard then she started while the defender only "maintained verticality").
There was so much of that. Refs seem to call pushing fouls only if you push by extending your arms away from your body, rarely if you body up and step into the offensive player.
Quote:And also able to deal with the propensity I mentioned to favor the charge call over the block (again, I really love how defenders who are still and being driven past at an angle collapse at the slightest touch and often get the call).
OTOH, I hate the blocking call when a driver is going around/past a defender who is giving ground, and intentionally leans/jumps/angles sideways into the defender to create contact and draw a foul. Those are more prevalent in the NBA than WCBB, but I hate them there too. I think a lot more should be no-calls.
***
Great posts, VG!
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - treefan - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 11:09 AM)WAcard link Wrote:UCLA watched the Uconn game tape and did to Chiney what they did, she still has not learned from that experience, why would she think a falling down shot is better than passing to an open teammate as I recall Bonnie was 3 of 5 and that kept us in the game in the first half nd Sara had also hit a 3. Something needs to change in her game. Amber grew up in the last half of the second half but and it's a big but she was not good before that dribbling too much and not playing much D. She did finally start fighting and realized she did not want to lose, UCLA also made some bad D errors allowing her to go left after forcing her right for most of the game. I am for one quite excited as we have a team who have been put down by not only everyone else by also us. Those girls showed they are not just there to make up the rest of the team on the court and came to play even though everything is run through the 2 and possibly Jos who was a none. Looking forward to Tara hopefully realizing that!!!!
We can win and if Chiney wants her life to be a heck of a lot easier than just worrying about racking up points and boards she will learn to pass.
a bit harsh on Chiney, a first team All American, who has had little help in the paint and perimeter for that matter. I seriously doubt Chiney worries about racking up pts and boards for herself.Â
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - treefan - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 12:10 PM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=WAcard link=topic=7652.msg59945#msg59945 date=1363025380]I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. I'm curious what VG's sharp eyes saw on this front. It seemed to me that UConn defended Chiney by pushing her out of the paint before she got the ball, but that UCLA defended her by trying to deny her the pass, but also by pushing her with their bodies even when she did get the ball close--the latter was seldom called.
UCLA watched the Uconn game tape and did to Chiney what they did, she still has not learned from that experience, why would she think a falling down shot is better than passing to an open teammate as I recall Bonnie was 3 of 5 and that kept us in the game in the first half nd Sara had also hit a 3.
[/quote]
agree with 81's analysis of UConn and UCLA's D on Chiney. But also agree with VG that every team will try to employ the same D as UCLA - tempting our guards to dribble penetrate. This will certainly be true if see a quick backcourt team like Kentucky, Duke or A&M. Sure would help Amber to have Toni back there with her. As Tara said, we struggled more with Amber on the bench than we did with Chiney sitting.
I would add that we've seen this movie before as many of Stanford's teams have had the same issue having very few dribble penetrators (either by lack of skill or coaching design). Our O was starting so high that when (and if) Chiney got the ball, she already had 2 people on her. We need more give and go's and screens, then dump to open player. We have seen Tinkle/Ruef/Chiney do it just not enough, especially if Tinkle is at the 3 and Ruef is at the elbow looking to pass (which she does great) to Chiney down low.
UCLA got burned by putting so much pressure on Chiney and letting Orrange blow past them. Kudos again to Amber!
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - 76lsjumb - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 03:40 PM)treefan link Wrote:[quote author=WAcard link=topic=7652.msg59945#msg59945 date=1363025380]
UCLA watched the Uconn game tape and did to Chiney what they did, she still has not learned from that experience, why would she think a falling down shot is better than passing to an open teammate as I recall Bonnie was 3 of 5 and that kept us in the game in the first half nd Sara had also hit a 3. Something needs to change in her game. Amber grew up in the last half of the second half but and it's a big but she was not good before that dribbling too much and not playing much D. She did finally start fighting and realized she did not want to lose, UCLA also made some bad D errors allowing her to go left after forcing her right for most of the game. I am for one quite excited as we have a team who have been put down by not only everyone else by also us. Those girls showed they are not just there to make up the rest of the team on the court and came to play even though everything is run through the 2 and possibly Jos who was a none. Looking forward to Tara hopefully realizing that!!!!
We can win and if Chiney wants her life to be a heck of a lot easier than just worrying about racking up points and boards she will learn to pass.
a bit harsh on Chiney, a first team All American, who has had little help in the paint and perimeter for that matter. I seriously doubt Chiney worries about racking up pts and boards for herself.
[/quote]
It seems to me that, for any future defense to be as effective against Chiney as U.C.L.A's was last night, the coach will also have to ensure that: (1) Chiney is [apparently] under the weather, along with JOs; (2) Chiney has gotten mercilessly beaten up for TWO straight nights ahead of time; (3) Chiney has had to play 40 minutes in a reasonably intense game that ended roughly nineteen hours earlier; and (4) she lost an hour of sleep to DST the night before. Any coach that manages to do all of those things in this year's NCAA tourney DESERVES to win... ;D
As for next year's Pac-12 championship tourney, as long as we're going to sell out to ESPN such that the championship game has to be the third game in three nights, it seems to me we're going to continue to see these stinkers where both teams looked gassed from virtually the beginning of the game.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - treefan - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 01:42 PM)Viking_Guy link Wrote:81A--
From my (admittedly untrained) viewpoint:
Against Low APR U, UCLA played a lot of a "flat" 2-3 zone, intended to deny entry passes to the post by dropping the 2 defenders almost into the lane and daring Boyd, Pierre and Jemerigbe to shoot from the wing. It also denied Clarendon her favorite spot, the corner 3. In the quarter, Jemerigbe was able to hit from the wing. Against UCLA, she was ice cold.
Against us, I think they realized that for the most part, Stanford's perimeter players are hesitant to launch immediately on receiving the ball (with the notable exception of Bonnie and to a lesser extent Sara). Also, Chiney is almost always operating solo inside (four out on the perimeter, including the other post). What that means to me is that the Bruins were able to maintain pressure on the ball and the two adjacent perimeter players, while leaving two players down low, one directly on Chiney and the other ready to go to her inside shoulder. There is an open player for Stanford, but to reach her means a long and dangerous pass from one side to the opposite corner. (It's really hard to describe this without the diagrams I see in my head).
Think of it this way - with Stanford's perimeter players being hesitant to drive (everyone except Amber, really) and mostly hesitant to shoot, three perimeter defenders can press HARD against 4 perimeter passers by bodying up against the ball and the two adjacent perimeter players. The fifth defender maintains constant contact with Chiney, and the fourth can float in the lane. If Stanford tries to reverse the ball, that hesitation allows either the perimeter defense to shift, or the fourth defender to rotate out while the opposite perimeter defender drops in as Chiney crosses the lane to set up on the opposite post. Also, as the ball moves around Stanford's perimeter it tends to stop at each "station", as each defender tries to determine if she has an opening into Chiney, rather than "whipping" around the perimeter. That slight hesitation also encourages those adjacent defenders to get in the passing lane and force the passes to move even further outside, or leads to tipped balls.
It takes some key parts to work - length and quickness on the perimeter (if our tall perimeter can see/pass over you, ball pressure becomes harder to maintain), and an inside defender whom Chiney can't simply overwhelm going to the baseline or straight up, rather than across the lane. (It helps if the ref don't call bodychecks as Chiney spins and goes up; I love how she spins, goes up and ends up 2 feet further under the backboard then she started while the defender only "maintained verticality").
Normally, there are two ways to punish defenses that press hard on the perimeter - drive past them, or back-cut them. The problem is, Chiney (and her two defenders) are waiting in the lane. And a dangerous backcut really calls for a "cutter" type player, who is both dangerous on the perimeter and quick enough to create separation from an overcommitted defender with the backcut, rather than Stanford's compliment of tall but not very quick perimeter passers. The most natural target for backcuts would be Amber (although they don't often overcommit on her outside shot), and they tried yesterday to get that working a bit, but the defenders UCLA had on her (Williams, especially) were really quick; she never could get enough of a step to open up a clear passing angle.
The other way, which seemed to be Stanford's play in the second part of the second half yesterday, was to pull Chiney and her primary defender away from the basket. That pulls both the primary and to a certain extent that secondary defender away, spreading the floor. But spreading the floor only works if you've got players willing to cut and drive into the creases it opens up. Amber was willing, and Sara is willing if not as able to get a good look. But very few other players in Stanford's rotation are willing to put the ball on the floor, quick enough to get an angle on their defender and confident enough to finish solidly at the hoop. And also able to deal with the propensity I mentioned to favor the charge call over the block (again, I really love how defenders who are still and being driven past at an angle collapse at the slightest touch and often get the call).
One other mode of attack is the high pick and roll, again, pulling Chiney away from the basket. Amber did that well yesterday, too; when Chiney's defender didn't hedge and Amber's defender dropped under the pick, she pulled up for the 14-footer.
More generally, Stanford's measured, controlled pace on offense tends to not punish defenses for overcommitting, whether on the full court press, the half court trap, or ball pressure on the perimeter. The constant reassessment (Can I feed Chiney? If not, then do I have a shot? If not, then pass...) of Stanford's halfcourt offense enables defenses to close gaps and recover without ever really feeling that threatened.
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining it more clearly; don't have the technical coaching language. And there's a lot more to it, both in terms of positioning, specific match-ups (having Bonnie opposite corner as Chiney works across the lane helps out, preventing the offside perimeter from dropping in, e.g)
VG
you explained it quite well. In essence, imho, our guards and wings need to pass more crisply and be less predictable. Head fake, pass fake, change of direction, dribble penetrate, bounce pass back door, etc. We can make up for not being as quick by being more efficient (see Gonzaga men). Also, as much as I dislike Geno, I appreciate the way his teams pass and dribble beautifully. Each possession by each player has a distinct purpose.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - Yellowlab - 03-11-2013
I think VG explained it quite well. My mental image is of Jason Kidd. He knows where he is going to pass the ball before he has finished catching it. The defense has no time to rotate, and somebody gets an open look. I don't mean to suggest that we should expect players to be like Jason Kidd. Hardly. I just mean to suggest that watching him for just for a short time, even as he nears 40, would help illustrate the diagram in VG's head. Kidd can't do the dribble penetration like he used to, but he rotates the ball around the perimeter with zero hesitation.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - CompSci87 - 03-11-2013
One way I think Stanford's O has improved over the course of the season is that players are making their reads faster and thus passing the ball sooner. Not to say it still couldn't be better! Possibly the fatigue factor yesterday was slowing them down more.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - CompSci87 - 03-11-2013
(03-11-2013, 08:29 AM)81alum link Wrote:The press conference can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvoZ5p9MYzQ
An interesting Tara observation:Â having Chiney out of the game in the first half was less of a problem than having Amber out of the game.
A further point from the video: Tara said that she didn't sit Chiney just because she had two fouls, but also because she thought Chiney could use the rest. She said if this had not been the third game in 3 days, she would have put Chiney back in during the first half.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - treefan - 03-11-2013
I also thought Tara kept Chiney on the bench in the first half to rest her. Good to hear her say she would have put her back in if it wasn't 3rd game in 3 days, that she trusts Chiney not to pick up 3rd foul.
I've noticed the other big games where Chiney got in foul trouble (Baylor F4, A&M F4, some UConn games) that she is pumped up and tries to do much, gets frustrated with physical play (no call on opposing team/player) and slaps or grabs back.
Re: WBB: Stanford 51 UCLA 49 Final - meos - 03-11-2013
Quote:(1) This is a defensive gameplan we're going to see a lot more of - tight coverage on the perimeter and passers and a whole lot of traffic in the paint. And unless Stanford has more players willing and able to do a better job off the dribble, it will work.
Agreed. Interestingly, in the Colorado press conf, Tara said that it was a driver's game, and she told everyone to drive. Which answered the question for me of why Sara and Taylor went plowing into people for charges. The players need to modify coach-speak to fit their skill sets. Fine for Amber to do that; but the other perimeter players should drive until they get to an opening to shoot their shot (or make a pass; but I'd prefer to see them agressive and shooting the ball). When Sara turned the corner on a screen, she had an open easy jumper just inside the free-throw line; but she kept going and charged instead. These are the kinds of drives and shots they need to practice -- pull up for short range shots. Same thing with Ruef; come to a balanced stop facing the basket and shoot her shot (she ends up getting herself twisted up by planting her pivot foot on a stop instead of balancing out with a short two foot jump stop facing the basket before the shot). Little things they can do and practice to be more effective in game situations.
They can drive, just not go too deep (where they can't control their body momentum or contort themselves like Amber). With these refs though, even Amber can get a bad call of someone running under her, while not close to being set defensively.
The team has been improving all year. Sunday's result is really the proof statement on that.
And they can get better still by refining some skills and play patterns a little bit more.
BTW .. one reason appreciative fans talk about these things, is because we observe these are the kinds of skills and play improvements the team will require [if they want to win]when facing talent that is equal or greater than their own. It is all about finding a way to win, and this team has been growing and getting better at that.
My distraction wasn't as dire as Nancy3's - Redrum - 03-11-2013
BSaut I only saw the first half. Well, even then I had to take time away from the TV. Told my wife-- when Stanford was up by 10 and had icicles on their shooting hands-- the Stanford would pay for no putting more distance between them and UCLA. Saw the half-time score and just got a queasy feeling. Apparently it was warranted. But, we won so nyah-nyah-nayah to the UC schools.