Well, post mortems after big games are always hard. I'm not going to say too much until I see Tara's press conference.
1) It is a loss, and it is a disappointing loss, but at least it was interesting. We really got to see the mind of Tara at work reducing Watkins to 2-15. It was truly a sight to behold, after giving her 51. But of course, other things also needed to happen to get a win, and they did not.
2) We actually shot a few percentage points better than USC although it did not feel like it. But USC took 11 more shots than we did thanks to their 18 O-boards to our 6. That is where the game was lost, in my opinion. Our offense was not very good, but it was good enough to eek out a win if O-boards had been even. But giving them a 12 O-board advantage was deadly. That resulted in a 14-3 second chance points advantage to USC which was their entire lead and then some.
3) I know...I know...don't blame the officials, don't view the game from Stanford colored glasses, etc. But the style of officiating very much affects the style of play. Allowing so much physical contact gives the advantage to a team with stronger, more physical, more aggressive players and takes the advantage away from the game of movement. Brink is hurt by closely called games on defense, but she is helped by closely called games on offense. I don't like this style of officiating or the style of play that it encourages.
4) USC's defense was exactly the same as it was a year and a half ago when they beat us in LA. Pack the paint and smother Jump. It was not a brilliant strategy nor a new one, but it was effective. They denied entrance passes and dared us to shoot threes. We shot 7/19 which was not too bad, but we probably needed 12 of them to be competitive. Iriafen and Brink were fairly successful when they got the ball inside, but they didn't get it in position often enough. They both were turned somewhat into jump shooters, and they did fairly well with that, but not enough.
5) If I were looking for any positives to come out of this, it would be Bosgana's defense and Clardy's defense and steal. They both showed some poise and gave good contributions.
6) I said before the game that we would need to score in the upper 70s to win. Tah dah. We lost the game on offense, or as Tara said between the third and the fourth quarter, "we left our offense at the hotel." I wonder how much of this was Lepolo's limited minutes, or whether Lepolo got removed because the offense was not going well?
7) I wish we had involved Agara a little more on offense. I think she may have the right kind of body control to drive into traffic a bit in that packed paint.
Well, on to the NCAAs, hopefully a couple of games at Maples, and hopefully a better result than last year. I think we will have to get a bit lucky to face the kinds of teams we match up well against to advance deeply. USC is not the kind of team we want to play again.
1) It is a loss, and it is a disappointing loss, but at least it was interesting. We really got to see the mind of Tara at work reducing Watkins to 2-15. It was truly a sight to behold, after giving her 51. But of course, other things also needed to happen to get a win, and they did not.
2) We actually shot a few percentage points better than USC although it did not feel like it. But USC took 11 more shots than we did thanks to their 18 O-boards to our 6. That is where the game was lost, in my opinion. Our offense was not very good, but it was good enough to eek out a win if O-boards had been even. But giving them a 12 O-board advantage was deadly. That resulted in a 14-3 second chance points advantage to USC which was their entire lead and then some.
3) I know...I know...don't blame the officials, don't view the game from Stanford colored glasses, etc. But the style of officiating very much affects the style of play. Allowing so much physical contact gives the advantage to a team with stronger, more physical, more aggressive players and takes the advantage away from the game of movement. Brink is hurt by closely called games on defense, but she is helped by closely called games on offense. I don't like this style of officiating or the style of play that it encourages.
4) USC's defense was exactly the same as it was a year and a half ago when they beat us in LA. Pack the paint and smother Jump. It was not a brilliant strategy nor a new one, but it was effective. They denied entrance passes and dared us to shoot threes. We shot 7/19 which was not too bad, but we probably needed 12 of them to be competitive. Iriafen and Brink were fairly successful when they got the ball inside, but they didn't get it in position often enough. They both were turned somewhat into jump shooters, and they did fairly well with that, but not enough.
5) If I were looking for any positives to come out of this, it would be Bosgana's defense and Clardy's defense and steal. They both showed some poise and gave good contributions.
6) I said before the game that we would need to score in the upper 70s to win. Tah dah. We lost the game on offense, or as Tara said between the third and the fourth quarter, "we left our offense at the hotel." I wonder how much of this was Lepolo's limited minutes, or whether Lepolo got removed because the offense was not going well?
7) I wish we had involved Agara a little more on offense. I think she may have the right kind of body control to drive into traffic a bit in that packed paint.
Well, on to the NCAAs, hopefully a couple of games at Maples, and hopefully a better result than last year. I think we will have to get a bit lucky to face the kinds of teams we match up well against to advance deeply. USC is not the kind of team we want to play again.