Well that was an inconsistent game. We dominated the 1st quarter, but Creighton outscored us in quarters 2 and 4. They were physically overmatched but given their limitations they played a smart and effective game.
The Creighton defense was quite interesting. They absolutely swarmed the paint whenever the ball came inside. Brink and Jones managed to get some shots off over the tops of the teaming masses around them, but by and large they denied the paint to us. They did it in part by sagging way off Lepolo. This is exactly the problem Sniezek used to have, but Lepolo made them pay, going 5/11 from three point range.
They always kept someone on Jump, however, so Jump never got going. She did, however, have the opportunity to pass around her close defender for 3 assists.
So...clog the paint and blanket Jump was the Creighton defensive plan. It required that we find a way to score outside the paint and by someone not named Jump, and Lepolo was the answer. Even before the game at the chalk talk, Kate said that Lepolo needed to be more aggressive with her own shot--and she clearly heard the coaches.
In the first half, but perhaps not in the second, Creighton used an interesting screening technique to get open threes against us. I've seen us use this too--but not for years. The three point shooter stands directly behind a teammate who ducks down a little. It clearly confused our defense about how to defend it. How are you supposed to defend that? Perhaps we should use that for Jump.
We had fewer people in double digit minutes (6) than against Tennessee, but more people got in the game for cameo appearances. This time around Bosgana got 14 minutes--the only bench player to break 10. It was clearly an effort to relieve Jump, but Bogana only took 2 shots, making one trey. Overall, we had just 10 bench points. At the chalk talk, Kate noted that she was not satisfied that we were using our bench sufficiently. I felt vindicated--clearly the coaches feel the same way, but apparently they have not figured out how to solve the problem yet.
The greatest positive, I thought, was the fact that our "bigs" all seemed to be able to defend a three point shooting team like Creighton. I think before the game we thought there might be mismatches at both ends and this would result in a high scoring game. Our bigs might not be able to keep up with and defend the Creighton sharpshooters, and the smaller Creighton players would be unable to defend our bigs. Well, to a degree, both those predictions were wrong. Their Lauren Jensen got her 18 points, and Iriafen and Brink got 25 between them. But none of those point came easily, and a 72-59 win is not exactly an offensive juggernaut.
Overall, we held Creighton to 29% three point shooting and only 20 made baskets, so our defense was good enough. And while their defense was creative and made it hard for us to use our conventional approach, Lepolo stepped up. As a result we had 4 players in double digit points.
Iriafen also had one of her better games in a while. Betts seemed to do everything right on offense except to finish. She caught the ball deep and did NOT dribble it, but turned and took close-in shots. This was exactly what Kate said she needed to do at the chalk talk. Clearly Betts listened. Unfortunately, her normal soft hands hardened a little tonight and she missed both times.
It is hard to argue with a win, and a win in which 4 players scored in double digits. But I am still waiting for that bench scoring to climb.
Biggest takeaway: Lepolo got the message and responded big time!
The Creighton defense was quite interesting. They absolutely swarmed the paint whenever the ball came inside. Brink and Jones managed to get some shots off over the tops of the teaming masses around them, but by and large they denied the paint to us. They did it in part by sagging way off Lepolo. This is exactly the problem Sniezek used to have, but Lepolo made them pay, going 5/11 from three point range.
They always kept someone on Jump, however, so Jump never got going. She did, however, have the opportunity to pass around her close defender for 3 assists.
So...clog the paint and blanket Jump was the Creighton defensive plan. It required that we find a way to score outside the paint and by someone not named Jump, and Lepolo was the answer. Even before the game at the chalk talk, Kate said that Lepolo needed to be more aggressive with her own shot--and she clearly heard the coaches.
In the first half, but perhaps not in the second, Creighton used an interesting screening technique to get open threes against us. I've seen us use this too--but not for years. The three point shooter stands directly behind a teammate who ducks down a little. It clearly confused our defense about how to defend it. How are you supposed to defend that? Perhaps we should use that for Jump.
We had fewer people in double digit minutes (6) than against Tennessee, but more people got in the game for cameo appearances. This time around Bosgana got 14 minutes--the only bench player to break 10. It was clearly an effort to relieve Jump, but Bogana only took 2 shots, making one trey. Overall, we had just 10 bench points. At the chalk talk, Kate noted that she was not satisfied that we were using our bench sufficiently. I felt vindicated--clearly the coaches feel the same way, but apparently they have not figured out how to solve the problem yet.
The greatest positive, I thought, was the fact that our "bigs" all seemed to be able to defend a three point shooting team like Creighton. I think before the game we thought there might be mismatches at both ends and this would result in a high scoring game. Our bigs might not be able to keep up with and defend the Creighton sharpshooters, and the smaller Creighton players would be unable to defend our bigs. Well, to a degree, both those predictions were wrong. Their Lauren Jensen got her 18 points, and Iriafen and Brink got 25 between them. But none of those point came easily, and a 72-59 win is not exactly an offensive juggernaut.
Overall, we held Creighton to 29% three point shooting and only 20 made baskets, so our defense was good enough. And while their defense was creative and made it hard for us to use our conventional approach, Lepolo stepped up. As a result we had 4 players in double digit points.
Iriafen also had one of her better games in a while. Betts seemed to do everything right on offense except to finish. She caught the ball deep and did NOT dribble it, but turned and took close-in shots. This was exactly what Kate said she needed to do at the chalk talk. Clearly Betts listened. Unfortunately, her normal soft hands hardened a little tonight and she missed both times.
It is hard to argue with a win, and a win in which 4 players scored in double digits. But I am still waiting for that bench scoring to climb.
Biggest takeaway: Lepolo got the message and responded big time!