The CardBoard
WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 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: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem (/thread-4611.html)

Pages: 1 2

WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 81alum - 12-29-2012

Things started well.  A completely packed house, the band playing, the crowd roaring during introductions.  Nneka was in attendance and spoke to the crowd before the game.  It was Joslyn's birthday.  I watched the UConn players as they warmed up and they seemed to be missing a lot of jumpers.  And a few minutes in we were 5-5 and all was well.

After that, the game became increasingly painful to watch.  I almost hesitate to delve into the post mortem.  But we looked so bad that it made me wonder about C.al and the future of the season.  Was our offensive ineptitude unique to Connecticut's excellent defense, or was UConn giving a blueprint on how to shut us down?  Or did South Carolina already supply the blueprint, which Connecticut could execute more effectively with better personnel?

On defense we did reasonably well.  A number of lapses, but we held UConn to a respectable 61 which is 24 points below their average.  UConn made 6 threes, but attempted 24, so we held them to 25%, which is well below their average of 40%+.  If you asked most fans before the game whether we would be happy holding Connecticut to 61 I think they would have said "yes."

Our offense was a tragedy of epic proportions.  The AP article says we shot 19.3% which is the lowest percentage and with lowest number of field goals Stanford has made--the article did not say if that was historical data or this season's.  In any case, it was our worst home loss since 1983 when we lost to Long Beach State 96-51.  That, however, is in the pre-Tara era, so this is officially Tara's worst home loss ever.

Often we seemed to get the ball up the court with only 15-20 seconds left, and then we seemed to dawdle, with fairly little ball movement.  Then there would be a desperate effort to get a shot off and the shots were usually poor selections.  It seemed to me that our players--all of them but Bonnie--seemed to be playing with fear.  This was so strange given how they played Baylor.  It almost seemed that they could play loose against Baylor with no one in the stands, but against UConn with 7000 fans and a home streak on the line, they got very very tight.

Here is a key statistic:  we had 3 assists to 14 turnovers.  Three (3) assists for the whole game.  That does not sound like a Tara coached team at all.  A far, far cry from the triangle days when there were nearly as many assists as baskets.

Before the game I said that Chiney had to be able to win her opportunities, but she was often mobbed and had to take poor shots--and got a bit unlucky too with the rolls.  Her jumper was not much in evidence.  Many of her shots were from much further away than usual--she reminded me of the Lopez twins who would bank it in from the edge of the paint--but almost none of those shots went down for her.  So even though she had 18 points she was 6-22.  Anytime Chiney misses 16 shots in a game I think we are going to lose.  In fairness, she seldom got the ball in a good position to score, and when she did the refs allowed the UConn linebackers to tackle her.

Another key to the game was that Joslyn needed to have a good offensive game.  She only took five shots and wound up with 2 points.

The third key was that we needed to make some threes.  Bonnie made two.  Overall, we were 2/14.  This is shaping up to be a second year in a row in which our three point shooting is distinctly sub-par for a Stanford team.

Ruef was 0/4 for free throws--which is a shame because she showed some initiative in getting to the line a couple of times.

Going down the line is equally depressing.  Toni was 2/11, Amber 0/6, Taylor 0/3.  Bonnie came in and gave us our only lift of the game when she hit her two three pointers.  Geno called a timeout after that and changed the defense to shut her down.  I noticed while they were doing that Chiney had a little more success inside.  I think we needed the three point threat to open it up for Chiney.

Not only does the home streak end, but 35 points has to be some sort of record for fewest points scored by Stanford. 

What does all this mean?  The charitable view is that UConn is very good and our poor offensive outing was all Connecticut defense.  Perhaps Stanford got rattled--Chiney certainly did not seem like her usual self, for example.  The not so charitable view is that Tara's new offense is simply not working.  I kept thinking back to how the triangle did beat Connecticut in the national semifinals and again two years ago, and wonder if the new offense is particularly vulnerable to UConn's style of defense.  They made it almost impossible to cut to the basket.  Only jumpers would have beaten them today.

Then there was the officiating.  I was in cheap seats at the end and saw the play under the basket pretty well.  They allowed amazing amounts of contact.  That also favored the jump shooting team.

I'm particularly interested in what some of the rest of you think needs to happen going forward.  Again, our defense was nothing to be ashamed of, which is the only consoling thought.  But what must we do to get our offense on track for C.al and the league, not to mention the tournament?

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - Yellowlab - 12-29-2012

Offense?  What offense?  There was plenty of stagnation, but no offense to speak of.  Why would you continue to post Chiney on Dolson when that clearly wasn't working? 

We do keys to the game prior to every game, and one of mine was "How are the refs going to call the physical play?"  The answer was they weren't.  I give Dolson credit, I think she's a bit of a dirty player, but she is smart dirty.  If they were going to let her get away with her bumps and pushes, she was going to bump and push all game long.  One time it looked like Ruef was getting under her skin and Dolson committed a flagrant .99 foul to pick up her first.  I almost ended up admiring her for her well timed and, if not subtle at least not blatant fouling.

What would've happened, if they had whistled her for a couple early fouls?  Probably the same thing.  UConn was better at just about every position, and actually has some depth this year.  They look like the betting favorite at this point, with Baylor being the only team I think might match up with them.

However, Stanford's lack of movement on offense was mind boggling.  We've seen plenty of pointless perimeter passing by Stanford teams in the past, but I cannot recall a more stagnant offense.  The South Carolina game was bad, but this was much, much worse.

If we were going to post someone, it should've been Ruef, or possibly Tinkle.  Chiney should've been moving, cutting and slashing.  Dolson could not guard her away from the rim, but she could when she was between Chiney and the rim down low.  We played right into that over and over.

I've never seen a Stanford team beaten like that at Maples.  This wasn't a wake up call, this was a warning shot saying: "Don't get on the same court as UConn again."  (This year.)

Amber was so clearly discouraged that it looked as though she might actually have been sulking, although that might be an unfair, as well as unkind thing to say.  Toni kept attacking, but she, too often, does not finish strongly at the rim.  Jos does not go up strong to the rim, when she gets her opportunities, and is too much of a finesse player for a player of her size.

If you pound the ball into Chiney you take away what is perhaps her greatest asset: O-bounding.  When someone else attacked the rim, Chiney got several second chance put backs.  I will also agree with 81alum that some of her shots looked good right up until they rimmed out.  It might just have been one of those games for her.  The bottom line is that, if Chiney has one of those games against a good team in the tournament, that will be the end of the line for this year's team.

I should do what MT does and watch a game a second time prior to posting about it, but how am I going to watch that again?   

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - Yellowlab - 12-29-2012

I just looked at the stats and I noticed they credited Ruef with only 1 block.  She had 3 by my count.  I like her, but she should be down low on offense (her perimeter jump shot has gone AWOL) and she has to make her free throws when she does get fouled.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 81alum - 12-29-2012

We have three challenging road games in a row in the space of four days (Jan 4-6-8)--at Colorado (11-0), at Utah (9-2), and at C.al (10-1).  I hope our players can develop selective amnesia quickly, because they need to put this behind them quickly.  Then we come home to play C.al again on January 13.  This could be by far the toughest part of PAC-12 play, and we will need to get our offense back on track.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - Oasis - 12-29-2012

One of the nice things about sports, when it gets too awful, is you can just think about something else.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 81alum - 12-29-2012

It seems to be official.  This was the worst shooting performance by Stanford since they started keeping statistics.  Also the fewest baskets. 

Quote:Stanford suffered through its worst shooting performance in the history of its program, making a mere .193 (11 of 57) of its shots. The Cardinal made just 5-of-33 shots for 15 percent in first half, leading to a 31-13 deficit. The Huskies held a 20-point lead (29-9) late in the half.

"We struggled running any offense," VanDerveer said. "Credit their defense but a lot of that is on us. We missed shots we normally make. It was a bad day. This happened and now we have to get better."

The 11 made baskets were also a historic low. The previous low was 17, the last time nearly six years ago. The 26-point margin is also the largest ever for a Stanford team at Maples Pavilion. The last time the Cardinal was beaten by 20 points or more at home was in 1986.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=28063

The media seems to be suggesting that Dolson had excellent scouting information on Chiney.  Geno says that Dolson was going to defend Chiney until Dolson proved that she couldn't.  Dolson said
Quote:"Chris Dailey and Marisa Moseley [UConn assistants] emphasized to us what Chiney can do and what she'd likely try to do," Dolson said. "I had a lot of information going into the game. … I just tried to make her take hard shots, the kind she maybe didn't want to take."
http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-women/hc-uconn-stanford-1230-20121229,0,1382036,full.story

Chiney looked like she was constantly taking shots from further out and off balance.  I'd say the plan worked, and every team in the Pac 12 is now studying Dolson to see precisely what she did.  Hopefully no one else will have her ability to execute that game plan. 

Something pointed out in the articles that I just confirmed.  Most of our points came on put-backs or freethrows resulting from offensive rebounds.  If you eliminated the put-backs we made only two baskets in the first half--the first one by Joslyn 10 seconds in, and then a jumper by Toni.  In the second half again not a single clear shot until Bonnie made her two threes, and after that nada. 

Unless I am mistaken, Chiney made only one shot that did not come from an Oboard.

Perhaps Oasis has the right idea.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - Leftcoast - 12-29-2012

You guys have done what I thought impossible - I'm so, so glad I have DirecTV and couldn't watch the game.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 81alum - 12-29-2012

(12-29-2012, 09:43 PM)Leftcoast link Wrote:You guys have done what I thought impossible - I'm so, so glad I have DirecTV and couldn't watch the game.
Hah!  Sorry to spoil your happiness, but the game is now available on ESPN3 replay online.  I can't bring myself to watch it.
http://espn.go.com/watchespn/index#type/replay/sport/basketball/league/NCAAW/

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 81alum - 12-30-2012

Well, I did watch parts of the game again, as much to hear the commentary as anything else.  Doris Burke and Rebecca Lobo had a few thoughtful things to say about the debacle.  They both pointed out that while Connecticut's defense was good, that Chiney was missing many shots that she usually made--that she did make against Baylor, for example.  Tara said something similar about the team during the press conference.  This, or foul trouble, or injury will happen again at some point and we are going to need a much more diverse offense.

They also had interesting things to say about Jasmine.  They clearly think she needs to get more minutes and develop into a bigger contributor in league play, and figuring out which guard position she will play.



Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - burger - 12-30-2012

(12-29-2012, 04:54 PM)81alum link Wrote:Often we seemed to get the ball up the court with only 15-20 seconds left, and then we seemed to dawdle, with fairly little ball movement.  Then there would be a desperate effort to get a shot off and the shots were usually poor selections.

This is an apt description of the men's team, too.  I hope that whatever the men have going wrong isn't contagious.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - tfeldstein - 12-30-2012

I really have to believe that if was coaching the first half Stanford would have scored more than 13. Great job Tara.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - Viking_Guy - 12-30-2012

Ooof.

Well, that was the worst performance I've seen out of the women's team in a long time.  As in pre-Nicole Powell days.  I've never seen the lack of passion and urgency from a Cardinal team that I saw in those last ten minutes.  Oh, and Geno is still a punk - having your starters in with 3 minutes left up 26?

UConn did play great defense, but as people have said, so did Stanford - I would've been happy pre-game with the Huskies scoring 61 points.

The game pointed out some of the things we always gripe about, and I'm at the point where I'm not sure it will ever change.

First, Stanford, for whatever reason, will never be great against the press - for the reason we've said again and again: when they break the press, they then don't punish it AT ALL by trying to take advantage of the defense being out of position.  Amber and Toni would break it, or get it to Chiney at half court, and then simply STOP.  It's as if the press break is COMPLETELY unconnected to any offensive plan, to the extent that Mikaela Ruef was the best driving option we had after breaking the press in the game yesterday.  Twice she got the ball in a 3 on 2 at the top of the arc after the press had been broken, and twice she put her head down and went to the basket (albeit the first time only after the crowd started yelling at her to do so midway through the second half).  UConn was never made to pay ANY price for having three of their defenders at halfcourt or beyond, or at least not consistently enough to force them to change.

Let me put it this way - when every time the press is broken I'm screaming "ATTACK THE BASKET" and whoever is handling the ball is doing a slow dribble and holding up a hand trying to signal in a play, something's wrong.

I don't know what it is, if Tara's perfectionism intimidates our guards into not wanting to play a more open style (or we can't recruit guards that are strong in that mode because they don't want to play for her), or they and the coaching staff honestly believe that our halfcourt offense is stronger 5 v 5 than a 3 on 2 break, but for decades it's been a weakness of Stanford teams (witness oh so many heart-breaking collapses against Tennessee over the years).  I don't know of a short term solution, other than perhaps running the press break through the bigs rather than the guards (I remember advocating for Jayne Appel standing at midcourt against the press, given her height and passing ability, to take the ball and then try to hit a cutting or driving guard or wing player in transition).  But even when Chiney got the ball as a press breaker, she would simply hold it high and wait for a handoff to a guard.  At which point we had 15 seconds left to run "offense."

And that offense?  Well, it appeared to me in the first half that Stanford didn't recognize what appeared to be essentially a 3-2 collapsing zone look.  The space was always on the baseline and in the corners, and yet every play was initiated from the top, and almost never made it to the corner at all - it was toss the ball around the perimeter, set one pick at the wing and have a guard either drive into the middle of five defenders or try to hit a low-percentage floater, or force the ball into Chiney 1 on 3.  Oh, and have that guard be trapped down low and give up transition opportunities to the Huskies.  I didn't see ONE kick to the corner off a drive in the first half, but more importantly I did see the two uninvolved wing players sort of standing out at the three point line on the wing rather than moving to the space in the corner.  What kick outs there were aimed at those wing players - who happened to be standing where the 2 other defenders could guard them, box them out and help out in the lane if necessary.

No baseline screens for shooters?  No stack plays with Chiney and Jos setting a double screen in the key and then rolling to different spots?  Nope, nothing except slow dribble, toss the ball around the perimeter, then try to pull off the men's team "offense."

To be honest, I think the team came close to getting booed by the home crowd yesterday.  If they hadn't been quite so dumbfounded, it might have happened.

I was hopeful about the officiating because Missy Barlow didn't trot out before the game... and to be fair, it looked like a late-round NCAA game in terms of officiating - anything that doesn't draw blood is allowed in the paint, but god help you if you breathe on a perimeter player who is "driving."  Which again always redounds to Stanford's disadvantage, because driving is never the team's default option.  Again to be fair, Stanford has tended to have stronger posts than perimeter players (again, wondering if stronger perimeter players don't want to play for Tara. Think about recruiting, especially recently - Stanford's top recruits have all been forwards and posts.  Appel.  Nneka.  Tinkle (although Sara James was higher-rated, I believe). Chiney.  This year, Allyson Beebe.  Next year, both top recruits are forwards, and the guards are not nearly as highly regarded).  But it was really disheartening to have Chiney getting hacked around and banged every time she went to the basket without drawing a foul, when the same level of body contact at the other end resulted in UConn taking FTs.

I guess it all comes down to "players who can create their own shots" - or in Stanford's case, "players plus offensive coaching and systems that can create good looks for them."  Kaleena Mosqueeda-Lewis and other UConn players were always a threat to drive, but also could hit the step-back three pointer.  Stanford's players tried to drive, but when the open three pointer is not really a threat, the drive is much easier to defend, either by the primary defender or by help from others.  Take away Chiney and Bonnie, and the rest of the team was 3-31 from the field.  9%.

Yuck.

VG


Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - Viking_Guy - 12-30-2012

Prior to the game yesterday, I said we needed to have Toni and Jos have great games to win.  Toni at least tried to attack.  But for me, the game really ended with about 10 minutes left, when Jos, under the basket, got an offensive rebound because 3 defenders were hacking at Chiney, and instead of going back up from literally one foot against maybe one 5'8" or so defender, put the ball on the floor and dribbled back out to the perimeter.

As people have said, playing tight, scared or intimidated was definitely the mode last night.  But when a 6'4" power forward, down double digits in the second half, defaults to "I shouldn't immediately go back up with this ball from inside 2 feet," something is wrong.  That may be the correct play up double digits, but certainly not last night.

VG


Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - needle - 12-30-2012

Quote: Kaleena Mosqueeda-Lewis and other UConn players were always a threat to drive, but also could hit the step-back three pointer.  Stanford's players tried to drive, but when the open three pointer is not really a threat, the drive is much easier to defend, either by the primary defender or by help from others.

I think this pretty much nails it.

Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis is very, very impressive.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - treefan - 12-30-2012

Excellent summary as usual, VG. I agree with all your points. Jos dribbled out because she was used as a wing her first 3 years and hasn't been in the habit of playing as a true post. I'm afraid this may cost us this year because Chiney needs help in the post. What happened to Taylor? She was brobdingnagian in Baylor game but hasn't seen much PT. We need her 3s and boarding.

UConn fans have the nerve to be upset about "our" physical play. The no call on Dolson is first half was big as it would have been her 2nd, thus forcing her to bench. However, Geno may have played her anyway because he was short handed in the post and he does not strictly adhere to 2 foul sit rule like Tara.

The game was so painful to watch. We looked like we were still on break and feet in mud.Clearly Chiney was frustrated the rest of the team followed suit. It's the worse loss I've witnessed at Maples, including many TN meltdowns, FSU and Minn in NCAAs, Cal 5 yrs ago, and even the H game.

I was behind the band and I'm sure you heard me screaming with you to ATTACK! My other big beef (along with not attacking the press), is sloppy passing, too much dribbling and lazy passes. Our guards were not ranked in h.s as UConn's, but that's no excuse not to emphasize sound fundamentals like crisp passing and dribbling.

Lastly, agree with you about Geno. Glad he got T-ed up.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - itsasport - 12-30-2012

What a shocking result. Even as a UConn fan, it was painful.  I'm glad a stayed home (thanks for all the kind advise on getting tickets.) UConn has too much talent and they have been trained to a sharp edge. In KML, Stewart, Hartley, Dolson, and Faris,  you have three certain present and future All Americans, I think Dolson will also make it, possibly this year, but probably next year with Griner gone.  I think Faris deserves to be one also, especially with her outside shooting this year. Banks is also playing at a high level.

They play great team defense and; offensively, they are excellent passers (re: their assist average.) They all can shoot the three and take the ball inside.

Jefferson (future All-American), Tuck and Stokes are just beginning to show their potential; but, Geno already has enough confidence in them to play them in important minutes.

When Geno is asked why he has won so many championships, he responds, it's not so hard if you have the best players. If Tara and Geno switched teams, she would have won.  It is just the hard truth. 

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 81alum - 12-30-2012

Well, Itsasport, UConn is very talented and played very well on defense.  I do think we could have put up a much better fight.  Even your own Rebecca Lobo noted that Chiney was missing many shots that she usually made--that she did make when contested by Griner--so I don't think her collapse was all due to Dolson.  Also most of our missed 3 point attempts were uncontested, self-inflicted wounds. 

In short, I don't think this game was only about a disparity in talent, but partly about our talent not performing to its usual ability while yours did.  That is the responsibility of the coach, so I'd have to say that Geno outdid Tara this time.  UConn played with less fear on our home court than our own team did. 

In any case, next year's recruits will begin to balance the talent equation, given that we got two that Geno also wanted.  But I think UConn has a great year or two ahead, especially if it can get past Baylor this year.  I'll be watching that game with interest!

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - treefan - 12-31-2012

I agree with itsasport. It comes down to personnel in women's bball, and same is true for vball and soccer. There is very little parity in all three sports, and when Geno gets the top h.s player 7 times, it's bound to help him win many games and championships. By comparison, Stanford has 2 top h.s. bball players, Nneka and Chiney.

Also, as VG said, it's all about guards and to go deep in NCAAs, you need guard play, true for women and men. We have been stymied by injuries to guards over the last 10 yrs (King x2, Carey for good, Ros Gold Onwude, Murphy x2, JJ Hones x2 (drunken golf cart escapade notwithstanding). I have high hopes for Camp and Green, who were also hurt, but it seems we are always in need of true pg leader.  Bottom line, our guard play is vastly different than UConn's and we need to step it up a notch.

Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - meos - 12-31-2012

Sure, there's an obvious talent difference of AAs and future WNBA players -- advantage Geno (most likely will always be there). That's a given, now what do you do to compete? Can you do more to have a chance to win, or at least have a better competitive game with a much closer score?

The Stan players ran Tara's stuff to a fault, and against this Uconn team with the way the game was called -- the system was not effective. What, no plan B?

(Stanford) You come in undefeated, having beaten a #1, and have been in 4-5 final fours in recent years. Why change/adjust your battle plans that works and wins against 95% of teams?  Year after year its been shown it works, until you hit the NCAA final 2 teams (or Uconn). Then this same exposure is revealed year after year.  If the goal was to show the players (and coaches) where the weaknesses are -- mission accomplished.

I've been waiting for the adjustment  when dealing with the 1-5% of teams, when that need arises. Part of it is the coaches allowing adjustments as part of one of their game plans/systems. Another part is players gaining an aggressiveness and confidence to COMPETE when necessary against the 1-5% teams. But this is something that should be practiced and delivered in (parts of) games during the year, and not expect players to react differently in just one game when they are up against it (with a Uconn or in a final 1 or 2 game at year end). It also means AA level players getting to the top level of their potential -- more quickly at Stanford. During the summer, drilling on high level complete player skills -- equally good on all those skills with both hands. This also means high level development of the basketball IQ part of the game (for the AA level Stan players). For example, for Tara's game plan to have had any chance, you can't fade away from contact in the post. The post shots had to be going toward the basket; forcing contact that could not be ignored. Having a post player with purpose go to the basket for a shot with both hands on the ball, looking for contact on the way(most post shots are one-handed filps or hooks).  The non-AA players can improve the skills there are best at and pick up another within their grasp. In any given game, you need others to step up with stuff they know they can do.  These kinds of things would give the underdog team a better chance to compete against the team with a lot more talent. Stanford is on the more talent side in 95% of games.  I've been waiting for years to see when/if the coaches/team can make better systemic changes and player development changes to compete better in the 1-5% of games where they don't have the better talent on the floor. And yes, Stan could have made some changes and still lost big to this Uconn team, and I'd be OK with that. Looking up the court and seeing someone open and getting the ball to them-yes. Making them pay on the press-yes.

But I'm also realistic. The program is wildly successful. The players are young with many other interests and responsibilities.

Multiple final fours is excellent. During that run, Stanford has not had the #1 player in NCAA.  Over the last 5-10 years (that's ping-ponged between Tenn(Parker), Uconn(Tina,Maya) and Baylor(Griner). So Stan can accept the reality of being the underdog in those signature final 1-2 games.
But I'd love to see a difference in approach in those kind of games, call it the underdog game-plan.

Oh well, one can dream.



Re: WBB: UConn 61 Stanford 35 post mortem - 81alum - 12-31-2012

Soem, we should not forget that we did beat Baylor with Griner, and we have beaten Connecticut twice in the last few years.  Both times we beat Connecticut (national semis and two years ago) it was not all that close, either.  The two most recent Connecticut wins were done with a different offense installed--the triangle--while this is the first year we largely left the triangle behind, on the theory that guards like Amber and Toni were much quicker than guards we have had in the past and we would do well to mix in a lot of pick-and-roll.

Here is a hypothesis, and I wonder what the rest of you think of it.  The new pick-and-roll plays simply do not work against a team with guards that are equally quick like Connecticut and South Carolina.  The triangle, on the other hand, does allow a less athletic team to compete with a more athletic team.  Passes go faster than the most athletic defender can move, and a series of accurate passes and cuts can outdo physical hustle.  In the past, the triangle sometimes worked well enough to defeat Connecticut (though certainly not always.)

The triangle's main weakness is that it requires enormous practice to develop it to a fine edge--it requires players at least a year to learn it well and longer to perfect it.  That level of focus on the triangle has been sacrificed this year as Tara has experimented with other offensive options.  As a result, we are not passing the ball as crisply and confidently as we used to, because we  have become more reliant on dribble-drives and dishes by Toni and Amber.  (I never used to see Stanford attempt a basket before several people had touched the ball, but that happened numerous times  on Saturday, with Toni or Amber trying to dribble to the basket and score--where they were collectively 2-18.)  When Toni and Amber face guards who can shut down their dribble-drives 8 out of 9 times, then we are stuck because we are not that good anymore at the old triangle.