The CardBoard
WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - 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 61 ASU 35 (/thread-6742.html)


WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - 81alum - 02-14-2014

Overview:
Stanford corrected its defensive lapses and throttled ASU tonight.  Amber and Lili repeatedly slashed to the basket, and we won handily in a non suspenseful game.  An impressive way to leave Washington behind.

Before the Game
At the Chalktalk Tempie faced the inevitable fan questions.  She did say that all players were physically able to play, but that Taylor was getting the start over Sara because she had been doing somewhat better in practice and had earned it.  The team had been working extensively on defensive drills and were focusing on clogging the paint and keeping between their players and the basket.  Clearly we did not fear ASU's three point shooting and were preparing to shut down drives to the basket.  Finally, Tempie said that against Washington we should have been more aggressive getting to the basket, especially  since "they were not guarding Amber."  And she noted that we did not look energetic against Washington, and acknowledged that fatigue could have been a factor after a delayed travel schedule.

[i]Flow of the Game[/i]
The game started out as one of the finest defensive efforts I have seen.  After 8 minutes ASU had not made a basket.  They clawed out a few difficult buckets and had 12 points by halftime.  That is what UConn had against us at the half in the championship a few years back.  But we had 32 and the game felt over.  ASU was not making threes, and our defense was making it nearly impossible for them to drive.

In the second half we continued to pull away for a bit, then Tara pulled Chiney uncharacteristically early--perhaps she is learning to rest Chiney on the first game of a weekend so she will have something left in the tank for the second game.  Even in the first half, Tara played some different players--Bri Roberson got a few frenetic minutes and Erica Payne was in for a spell too.  Sara James, though, did not appear until deep in the second half.

This game the strategy on offense appeared to be to avoid three point shots and relearn the old offense.  We took only 4 three point shots (3 of them by Bonnie) and none of them went down, although Bonnie was getting unlucky with the in-and-outs.  But this game we were doing what we should have been doing a lot more against Washington--if Chiney was covered, Amber would often take the ball to the basket.  Lili had some superb penetration, too.

Also livening things up were two steals and coast-to-coast layups by Amber.  She was fully back in this game.

Performances
Chiney got pulled too early to stay on pace for the records, but she wound up with 20 points on 10-12 shooting--plus 13 rebounds.

Amber was the other notable mainstay, with 14 points and an impressive 5 steals.  She had 3 assists, but the prettiest assist on the night was a long two handed overhead pass from Bonnie to Chiney at the post.

There were not a lot of offensive highlights to discuss in this low scoring game, but the crowd cheered mightily when Tess got a layup.  We also got several back door layups that were executed nicely.  I thought the most interesting performance was Briana Roberson, who played very tight man coverage of her player whenever she was in, and she seemed to have the lateral movement to stay in front of anybody.  She did make some of those frenetic frosh mistakes and picked up a couple of turnovers--but it is easy to see that she is a very talented youngster. 

Finally, I would give an A to whoever did the gameplan this time.  We seemed much better prepared than we were all last weekend.  We were playing a sagging man for the most part, with our defenders standing almost in the paint and shifting to stay between their player and the basket.  If an opposition player drove, she found five players standing in front of her.  If they pulled up to jump shoot, a hand got stuck in their face unless she was well outside.  Good three point shooting could have hurt us, but their best three point shooter is Deja Mann who has only taken 50 shots all year and made 38%.  Last night she was 0/7, and there was no one else we had to seriously worry about from outside the arc.

Overall, ASU shot 24% for the game.

Parting Thoughts:
ASU is supposedly a good team, and that makes this victory impressive.  This game felt a lot more like the way we played a season or two ago, when we had one of the best defenses in our history and really held teams down on the point count.  However, the offense also reverted a little too--mainly just Chiney and Amber.  While I'm glad we did not take 40 three point attempts, it would have been nice to make just a few.


Re: WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - CompSci87 - 02-14-2014

Thanks, 81. Since Tempie led the chalk talk, it must have been Kate who did the scouting report on ASU.

Re: WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - Jskass - 02-15-2014

agreed -- this was night and day vs. the WA game. Defense was full of energy, and forced 30 second shot clock expiration turnovers, which the crowd loved. Score could have been much higher -- (1) several easy looks in the post that didn't fall along with those 3-pointers that went in and out and (2) starters all pulled early -- Amber with 30 minutes had the most playing time.

Our free throws could have been better (5/10 -- but that was because Bonnie was 2/2 and Amber 2/2. Otherwise 1/6 -- so our bigs need to practice it. Clearly they know that -- Chiney was 0 for 2 in first half so when they came out before the second half she was shooting free throws. Great to have a team that works to address their shortfalls, and they showed great drive today. Clearly rose to the challenge of Tara's comments after the WA game about not playing "defense...worth a lick." By the way, very positive article on ESPNW website about Nikki McCray's battle starts off saying that she and Dawn Staley were watching the end of the Stanford-UW game and feeling sorry, knowing what grief the Stanford players would get in practice! It worked -- and would be great to see them keep up the defensive intensity in future games.

Re: WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - 81alum - 02-15-2014

Tara:
Quote:“This game more than any other, Amber really got on a mission. She was attacking, scoring really well. This is the Amber we know and love.”
Charli:
Quote:"We stayed with things, and on a night when any of us just could have wanted to hide our head and cry because we missed everything," Turner Thorne said. "It would have been easy to just get our doors blown off. ... Nobody had a meltdown. I've coached here a lot of times, we've had a lot of meltdowns here."

This was our best defensive performance, in terms of points, since WSU in 2007.

Re: WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - pepper1 - 02-15-2014

I hate to be the half-empty voice on last night's decisive win, but I had two concerns: (1) our defensive success depended again on clogging the key & conceding open 12-15 foot shots -- worked great against Kal & AZ State & not well vs either of the WA schools which had guards that could shoot; and (2) Chiney looked far less than 100% last night, with many of her 13 first half rebounds coming essentially flat footed & her usual energy seemingly absent throughout -- hopefully she's just a bit tired and not nursing an injury that will linger.  And pretty impressive that she can still have the #s she did last night without her A game.

Big kudos to Lilli, Amber & Briana for the energy they brought vs a tough defensive team.  Without the strength inside the Cardinal has had in recent years, their contributions will be increasingly important.

Re: WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - washingtonismoney - 02-15-2014

(02-15-2014, 10:53 AM)ghsfcal link Wrote:I hate to be the half-empty voice on last night's decisive win, but I had two concerns: (1) our defensive success depended again on clogging the key & conceding open 12-15 foot shots ...

Conceding midrange shots is excellent defensive strategy -- they are the worst shots in the game.

Re: WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - nlbphd - 02-15-2014

What I loved most was watching "Coach" Chiney mentoring, encouraging, and directing our younger players!  The "little sister" has become an amazing leader, not to mention quite possibly the best women's bball player in Pac 12 history!  If Chiney doesn't end up president of something she would be an amazing basketball coach -- she understands this game.

Re: WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - 81alum - 02-15-2014

(02-15-2014, 10:53 AM)ghsfcal link Wrote:I hate to be the half-empty voice on last night's decisive win, but I had two concerns: (1) our defensive success depended again on clogging the key & conceding open 12-15 foot shots -- worked great against Kal & AZ State & not well vs either of the WA schools which had guards that could shoot; and (2) Chiney looked far less than 100% last night, with many of her 13 first half rebounds coming essentially flat footed & her usual energy seemingly absent throughout -- hopefully she's just a bit tired and not nursing an injury that will linger.  And pretty impressive that she can still have the #s she did last night without her A game.

Big kudos to Lilli, Amber & Briana for the energy they brought vs a tough defensive team.  Without the strength inside the Cardinal has had in recent years, their contributions will be increasingly important.
Chiney was pulled earlier than usual, and if she has been a little less energetic of late, then she warrants watching tomorrow.  I don't think anything is wrong, but you never know with Tara's players.

You raise an interesting question--was our defense against ASU the same defense that we used against Washington--just better executed and/or less competently attacked?  I think it was quite a different defense, since we knew going in that ASU was more apt to slash than to bomb, while Washington had several excellent three point shooters to keep us from clogging the paint.  ASU was a player defense but we sometimes were 6 feet off of our assigned players.  It is hard to "get around" your defender when they are playing so far back--a little like defensive backs giving a ten yard cushion.

I don't see how we could have done that against the likes of Plum.  As a result, Plum, Davis, and Wetmore got 7 layups against us (not counting many free throws from fouls while they were driving), while we gave up exactly 1 layup to an ASU guard--Promise Amukamura.

Re: WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - BBGuru - 02-15-2014

I liked the changes that were made in this game. We didn't rely on the 3 as our bread and butter and we did a great job.

Amber was on fire and she certainly wasn't looking to be a pass-first distributor. She was out to score from the very beginning and her aggressiveness provided a spark that caught fire with the rest of the team. I like her when she drives. She finds some key soft spots and shoots through them like a bullet.

Chiney didn't get her average, but she got her double double and I guess we have to pick our poison. There are only so many baskets to be made and with more balanced scoring from other players means less getting it into her hands and less points for her.

Thompson slashed and dished well. She had 4-5 great passes that would have been assists had the shooter made the shot.

Ruef did what she always does. I don't think she got enough applause for her performance in the last game. 16 pts and 22 rebounds. 22 rebounds? I'm still clapping for her!

Everybody else did a great job too. I was happy to see Picknell hit a basket. I hope someone is working on footwork with her because we're really going to need her next year.

As for defense, I thought it was much better. Quicker and more aggressive. Whoever said we clogged the paint and it wouldn't have worked well against the likes of Plum and Co., I agree. Hopefully Plum's shot will be way OFF in our next meeting!


Re: WBB: Stanford 61 ASU 35 - WAcard - 02-16-2014

Amber was awesome a true point guard, she has the size to get to the basket without falling down.