[MV72018]

I hear ya Jacko, it's maddening watching it. Hannah got hacked twice in a row shooting 3's in the 4th. That's 6 points. No whistle. But this is the reality of the postseason and we HAVE to adapt. Right or wrong, this is how it is. We all know it's coming - it's not a surprise. It's a different argument, but I do think the refs are doing their job, as long as it's called the same way for both sides. And as 81 mentioned, if they call it close it works against us too because Cam ends up sitting - and we all know what that means. So we don't really want that either.

This aggressive style only becomes an advantage to the other team if our players don't fight back in the same way. We have to match the physicality. Cam does. She is in there battling and hacking and could have been called for 10 fouls herself.  

Some specific examples...Hannah can't get open because they are grabbing and pushing her around when she cuts. Elena gets knocked off the ball when attacking. Cam and Kiki are mauled down low. Yet Forbes kept making shot after shot and never got knocked down once. We continued to "get a hand up" and "stay in position". Think she would have made 12 shots if we were doing the same thing to her? I highly doubt it. How about we get under their skin too?

Potential responses to this could be "that's not us", or "that's dirty", or "that's not how the game should be played" or "I hate watching that" or "someone could get hurt"... Everyone gets to look at it how they want and I respect all views. Personally, I wish we would match the physicality and quit whining about it. Show the other team we won't be intimidated. In my mind, if we don't, we can be the finesse team that watches the Final 4 on TV.

---

This is the kind of game that we lose. Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling. I imagine the coaches will need to remind Brink that she needs to be more patient, and we need move the ball around better to set up better post entry.

Spot on T2.

No one asked Tara the key question in the post-game press conference, although Cam hinted at her view of the matter by saying, after a brief but telling glance at Kiki, that "we were in a weird defense today." Was it the D that Tara opted to put in to limit JuJu that was responsible for the Stanford bigs not being in position to snag their usual large share of rebounds, thereby leading to Stanford's loss? I believe that may well be the case.

Obviously Stanford doesn't have any one player that could keep JuJu under control by herself, so that led to the "weird" Stanford D they played, which left Forbes wide open time after time. As I see it, the Stanford coaches deserve the bulk of the blame for this loss. On the level of game strategy, the one-sided D Tara installed was a disaster because of its impact on our rebounding, And -- a second mistake -- Tara failed to make an adjustment when it was obvious how we were getting both wiped on the O boards and leaving Forbes wide open and getting destroyed by her open shots. IMO, in this game Stanford coaching was abysmal. I heard that mantra "I'm proud of the way X played today" too many times in the most-game presser. I don't think our two bigs were mollified to hear it. 

[MV72018]

I hear ya Jacko, it's maddening watching it. Hannah got hacked twice in a row shooting 3's in the 4th. That's 6 points. No whistle. But this is the reality of the postseason and we HAVE to adapt. Right or wrong, this is how it is. We all know it's coming - it's not a surprise. It's a different argument, but I do think the refs are doing their job, as long as it's called the same way for both sides. And as 81 mentioned, if they call it close it works against us too because Cam ends up sitting - and we all know what that means. So we don't really want that either.

This aggressive style only becomes an advantage to the other team if our players don't fight back in the same way. We have to match the physicality. Cam does. She is in there battling and hacking and could have been called for 10 fouls herself.  

Some specific examples...Hannah can't get open because they are grabbing and pushing her around when she cuts. Elena gets knocked off the ball when attacking. Cam and Kiki are mauled down low. Yet Forbes kept making shot after shot and never got knocked down once. We continued to "get a hand up" and "stay in position". Think she would have made 12 shots if we were doing the same thing to her? I highly doubt it. How about we get under their skin too?

Potential responses to this could be "that's not us", or "that's dirty", or "that's not how the game should be played" or "I hate watching that" or "someone could get hurt"... Everyone gets to look at it how they want and I respect all views. Personally, I wish we would match the physicality and quit whining about it. Show the other team we won't be intimidated. In my mind, if we don't, we can be the finesse team that watches the Final 4 on TV.

---

This is the kind of game that we lose. Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling. I imagine the coaches will need to remind Brink that she needs to be more patient, and we need move the ball around better to set up better post entry.

Spot on T2.

No one asked Tara the key question in the post-game press conference, although Cam hinted at her view of the matter by saying, after a brief but telling glance at Kiki, that "we were in a weird defense today." Was it the D that Tara opted to put in to limit JuJu that was responsible for the Stanford bigs not being in position to snag their usual large share of rebounds, thereby leading to Stanford's loss? I believe that may well be the case.

Obviously Stanford doesn't have any one player that could keep JuJu under control by herself, so that led to the "weird" Stanford D they played, which left Forbes wide open time after time. As I see it, the Stanford coaches deserve the bulk of the blame for this loss. On the level of game strategy, the one-sided D Tara installed was a disaster because of its impact on our rebounding, And -- a second mistake -- Tara failed to make an adjustment when it was obvious how we were getting both wiped on the O boards and leaving Forbes wide open and getting destroyed by her open shots. IMO, in this game Stanford coaching was abysmal. I heard that mantra "I'm proud of the way X played today" too many times in the most-game presser. I don't think our two bigs were mollified to hear it. 

[JohnR34231]

I hear ya Jacko, it's maddening watching it. Hannah got hacked twice in a row shooting 3's in the 4th. That's 6 points. No whistle. But this is the reality of the postseason and we HAVE to adapt. Right or wrong, this is how it is. We all know it's coming - it's not a surprise. It's a different argument, but I do think the refs are doing their job, as long as it's called the same way for both sides. And as 81 mentioned, if they call it close it works against us too because Cam ends up sitting - and we all know what that means. So we don't really want that either.

This aggressive style only becomes an advantage to the other team if our players don't fight back in the same way. We have to match the physicality. Cam does. She is in there battling and hacking and could have been called for 10 fouls herself.  

Some specific examples...Hannah can't get open because they are grabbing and pushing her around when she cuts. Elena gets knocked off the ball when attacking. Cam and Kiki are mauled down low. Yet Forbes kept making shot after shot and never got knocked down once. We continued to "get a hand up" and "stay in position". Think she would have made 12 shots if we were doing the same thing to her? I highly doubt it. How about we get under their skin too?

Potential responses to this could be "that's not us", or "that's dirty", or "that's not how the game should be played" or "I hate watching that" or "someone could get hurt"... Everyone gets to look at it how they want and I respect all views. Personally, I wish we would match the physicality and quit whining about it. Show the other team we won't be intimidated. In my mind, if we don't, we can be the finesse team that watches the Final 4 on TV.

---

This is the kind of game that we lose. Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling. I imagine the coaches will need to remind Brink that she needs to be more patient, and we need move the ball around better to set up better post entry.

Spot on T2.

No one asked Tara the key question in the post-game press conference, although Cam hinted at her view of the matter by saying, after a brief but telling glance at Kiki, that "we were in a weird defense today." Was it the D that Tara opted to put in to limit JuJu that was responsible for the Stanford bigs not being in position to snag their usual large share of rebounds, thereby leading to Stanford's loss? I believe that may well be the case.

Obviously Stanford doesn't have any one player that could keep JuJu under control by herself, so that led to the "weird" Stanford D they played, which left Forbes wide open time after time. As I see it, the Stanford coaches deserve the bulk of the blame for this loss. On the level of game strategy, the one-sided D Tara installed was a disaster because of its impact on our rebounding, And -- a second mistake -- Tara failed to make an adjustment when it was obvious how we were getting both wiped on the O boards and leaving Forbes wide open and getting destroyed by her open shots. IMO, in this game Stanford coaching was abysmal. I heard that mantra "I'm proud of the way X played today" too many times in the most-game presser. I don't think our two bigs were mollified to hear it. 

Yeah, nobody is ever going to accuse Tara of throwing her players under the bus. We could lose by 30 and she probably would say she was proud of how everyone played.

[JohnR34231]

I hear ya Jacko, it's maddening watching it. Hannah got hacked twice in a row shooting 3's in the 4th. That's 6 points. No whistle. But this is the reality of the postseason and we HAVE to adapt. Right or wrong, this is how it is. We all know it's coming - it's not a surprise. It's a different argument, but I do think the refs are doing their job, as long as it's called the same way for both sides. And as 81 mentioned, if they call it close it works against us too because Cam ends up sitting - and we all know what that means. So we don't really want that either.

This aggressive style only becomes an advantage to the other team if our players don't fight back in the same way. We have to match the physicality. Cam does. She is in there battling and hacking and could have been called for 10 fouls herself.  

Some specific examples...Hannah can't get open because they are grabbing and pushing her around when she cuts. Elena gets knocked off the ball when attacking. Cam and Kiki are mauled down low. Yet Forbes kept making shot after shot and never got knocked down once. We continued to "get a hand up" and "stay in position". Think she would have made 12 shots if we were doing the same thing to her? I highly doubt it. How about we get under their skin too?

Potential responses to this could be "that's not us", or "that's dirty", or "that's not how the game should be played" or "I hate watching that" or "someone could get hurt"... Everyone gets to look at it how they want and I respect all views. Personally, I wish we would match the physicality and quit whining about it. Show the other team we won't be intimidated. In my mind, if we don't, we can be the finesse team that watches the Final 4 on TV.

---

This is the kind of game that we lose. Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling. I imagine the coaches will need to remind Brink that she needs to be more patient, and we need move the ball around better to set up better post entry.

Spot on T2.

No one asked Tara the key question in the post-game press conference, although Cam hinted at her view of the matter by saying, after a brief but telling glance at Kiki, that "we were in a weird defense today." Was it the D that Tara opted to put in to limit JuJu that was responsible for the Stanford bigs not being in position to snag their usual large share of rebounds, thereby leading to Stanford's loss? I believe that may well be the case.

Obviously Stanford doesn't have any one player that could keep JuJu under control by herself, so that led to the "weird" Stanford D they played, which left Forbes wide open time after time. As I see it, the Stanford coaches deserve the bulk of the blame for this loss. On the level of game strategy, the one-sided D Tara installed was a disaster because of its impact on our rebounding, And -- a second mistake -- Tara failed to make an adjustment when it was obvious how we were getting both wiped on the O boards and leaving Forbes wide open and getting destroyed by her open shots. IMO, in this game Stanford coaching was abysmal. I heard that mantra "I'm proud of the way X played today" too many times in the most-game presser. I don't think our two bigs were mollified to hear it. 

Yeah, nobody is ever going to accuse Tara of throwing her players under the bus. We could lose by 30 and she probably would say she was proud of how everyone played.

[GK3]

SC gets credit for their scout, and they benefited from refs who declined to make calls in the paint. 

They took away Jump curling to her left off of the hand-off screen by switching instead of having her defender fight through. The player doing the hand-off needed to roll or establish post-position. It felt like we didn't expect the switch so the reaction was late. And, the post who switched out pressed Jump and didn't give her much of a passing lane into the post. That was a great strategic choice and something we'll have to address in the tournament, because that very obviously worked. The split action backdoor cut should have been open, but SC defended it well and guarded high enough to make those passes difficult.

SC decided that the plan was to force Brink to take shots off of her spots. We didn't move the ball around very well, so Brink lost patience and jacked up some bad shots. I haven't watched the presser, but I wouldn't be surprised if VanDerveer thinks the team lacked composure on the offensive end.

We tried to set low post screen for the guards to move through the paint. Here, SC just fouled the bleep out of anyone who was trying to come through. Pushing, grabbing, hip checking, holding. The refs get several demerits for going blind in the paint and then calling cheap-ass crap on screens and choosing selective rebounds to call fouls.

I personally liked the amoeba zone they were using to defend Watkins. Bosgana played really really solid against her. The scout was clearly to force her left and bring a post out to discourage shots. Live or die by those choices. SC made us pay for that, but I can't say I disagree with the plan.

This is the kind of game that we lose. Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling. I imagine the coaches will need to remind Brink that she needs to be more patient, and we need move the ball around better to set up better post entry.

I loved most of Clardy's minutes. Although she's not as good as Lepolo as far as running the offense goes, her decision making is improving; and, she's a pest on defense, annoying, and persistent. She also hasn't yet showed that she's a reliable scorer. But, great minutes today.

---

SC gets credit for their scout, and they benefited from refs who declined to make calls in the paint. 

They took away Jump curling to her left off of the hand-off screen by switching instead of having her defender fight through. The player doing the hand-off needed to roll or establish post-position. It felt like we didn't expect the switch so the reaction was late. And, the post who switched out pressed Jump and didn't give her much of a passing lane into the post. That was a great strategic choice and something we'll have to address in the tournament, because that very obviously worked. The split action backdoor cut should have been open, but SC defended it well and guarded high enough to make those passes difficult.

SC decided that the plan was to force Brink to take shots off of her spots. We didn't move the ball around very well, so Brink lost patience and jacked up some bad shots. I haven't watched the presser, but I wouldn't be surprised if VanDerveer thinks the team lacked composure on the offensive end.

We tried to set low post screen for the guards to move through the paint. Here, SC just fouled the bleep out of anyone who was trying to come through. Pushing, grabbing, hip checking, holding. The refs get several demerits for going blind in the paint and then calling cheap-ass crap on screens and choosing selective rebounds to call fouls.

I personally liked the amoeba zone they were using to defend Watkins. Bosgana played really really solid against her. The scout was clearly to force her left and bring a post out to discourage shots. Live or die by those choices. SC made us pay for that, but I can't say I disagree with the plan.

This is the kind of game that we lose. Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling. I imagine the coaches will need to remind Brink that she needs to be more patient, and we need move the ball around better to set up better post entry.

I loved most of Clardy's minutes. Although she's not as good as Lepolo as far as running the offense goes, her decision making is improving; and, she's a pest on defense, annoying, and persistent. She also hasn't yet showed that she's a reliable scorer. But, great minutes today.

I don't think SC played us much differently than in the last game. They have better athletes on the outside which really hurts our schemes.  We didn't seem to have answers.  The refs played a role, but it did affect both teams at times.  My biggest issue is we got out rebounded by 20.  With Brink, Iriafen and Bosgana we NEVER should get out rebounded by that margin.  Bosgana's rebounding has dropped off markedly once the conference season began, no idea why that happened and this when playing more minutes.  Did it ever look like Tara got on them about the lack of rebounding effort?  The ball takes funny bounces sometimes, but that is a lot of bad bounces.  I think that was really the story of the game.

[GK3]

SC gets credit for their scout, and they benefited from refs who declined to make calls in the paint. 

They took away Jump curling to her left off of the hand-off screen by switching instead of having her defender fight through. The player doing the hand-off needed to roll or establish post-position. It felt like we didn't expect the switch so the reaction was late. And, the post who switched out pressed Jump and didn't give her much of a passing lane into the post. That was a great strategic choice and something we'll have to address in the tournament, because that very obviously worked. The split action backdoor cut should have been open, but SC defended it well and guarded high enough to make those passes difficult.

SC decided that the plan was to force Brink to take shots off of her spots. We didn't move the ball around very well, so Brink lost patience and jacked up some bad shots. I haven't watched the presser, but I wouldn't be surprised if VanDerveer thinks the team lacked composure on the offensive end.

We tried to set low post screen for the guards to move through the paint. Here, SC just fouled the bleep out of anyone who was trying to come through. Pushing, grabbing, hip checking, holding. The refs get several demerits for going blind in the paint and then calling cheap-ass crap on screens and choosing selective rebounds to call fouls.

I personally liked the amoeba zone they were using to defend Watkins. Bosgana played really really solid against her. The scout was clearly to force her left and bring a post out to discourage shots. Live or die by those choices. SC made us pay for that, but I can't say I disagree with the plan.

This is the kind of game that we lose. Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling. I imagine the coaches will need to remind Brink that she needs to be more patient, and we need move the ball around better to set up better post entry.

I loved most of Clardy's minutes. Although she's not as good as Lepolo as far as running the offense goes, her decision making is improving; and, she's a pest on defense, annoying, and persistent. She also hasn't yet showed that she's a reliable scorer. But, great minutes today.

---

SC gets credit for their scout, and they benefited from refs who declined to make calls in the paint. 

They took away Jump curling to her left off of the hand-off screen by switching instead of having her defender fight through. The player doing the hand-off needed to roll or establish post-position. It felt like we didn't expect the switch so the reaction was late. And, the post who switched out pressed Jump and didn't give her much of a passing lane into the post. That was a great strategic choice and something we'll have to address in the tournament, because that very obviously worked. The split action backdoor cut should have been open, but SC defended it well and guarded high enough to make those passes difficult.

SC decided that the plan was to force Brink to take shots off of her spots. We didn't move the ball around very well, so Brink lost patience and jacked up some bad shots. I haven't watched the presser, but I wouldn't be surprised if VanDerveer thinks the team lacked composure on the offensive end.

We tried to set low post screen for the guards to move through the paint. Here, SC just fouled the bleep out of anyone who was trying to come through. Pushing, grabbing, hip checking, holding. The refs get several demerits for going blind in the paint and then calling cheap-ass crap on screens and choosing selective rebounds to call fouls.

I personally liked the amoeba zone they were using to defend Watkins. Bosgana played really really solid against her. The scout was clearly to force her left and bring a post out to discourage shots. Live or die by those choices. SC made us pay for that, but I can't say I disagree with the plan.

This is the kind of game that we lose. Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling. I imagine the coaches will need to remind Brink that she needs to be more patient, and we need move the ball around better to set up better post entry.

I loved most of Clardy's minutes. Although she's not as good as Lepolo as far as running the offense goes, her decision making is improving; and, she's a pest on defense, annoying, and persistent. She also hasn't yet showed that she's a reliable scorer. But, great minutes today.

I don't think SC played us much differently than in the last game. They have better athletes on the outside which really hurts our schemes.  We didn't seem to have answers.  The refs played a role, but it did affect both teams at times.  My biggest issue is we got out rebounded by 20.  With Brink, Iriafen and Bosgana we NEVER should get out rebounded by that margin.  Bosgana's rebounding has dropped off markedly once the conference season began, no idea why that happened and this when playing more minutes.  Did it ever look like Tara got on them about the lack of rebounding effort?  The ball takes funny bounces sometimes, but that is a lot of bad bounces.  I think that was really the story of the game.

[81alum]

Now that I have watched the presser a couple of times, here are my impressions:

1) Tara's scouting report defenses are always gambles of one sort or another.  We gambled that controlling Watkins would so throw USC off that the USC offense would falter.  We knew that Forbes was excellent and giving up 26 points to her was probably OK given that Watkins was held to 9.  But we were punished for the gamble by Padilla, Davis, and Williams, who hit shots that they do not usually hit.  Tara came back to them a couple of times.  Our defense executed the way it was supposed to and stopped Juju, and then Williams, who had hit only 6 three pointers all year long, hits two of them early in the game.  It was very similar to teams sagging off of Lepolo, but once in a while Lepolo hits six treys as she did first game against Cal.  We played the odds and lost.

2) I agree with MV about Cam's look to Kiki when she said responded to the rebounding question "We were in a weird defense, and we tried our best."  Clearly, Cam and Kiki could not rebound well from this amoeba defense.  That can explain the 18 O-boards that SC got.  But what explains the lack of our own O-boards?  Only 6?  That had nothing to do with "the weird defense."  We got only 6 of our 34 misses back.  USC got 18 of their 41 misses back.   I think the reason we did poorly with O-boards was that Brink and Iriafen just were seldom around the basket even when on offense.  

3) Tara was not willing to open up too much, even when questioned specifically, about what was wrong with our offense.  And for good reason.  She will be working to fix it and doesn't want to broadcast our weaknesses to future opponents.  But this is a pattern now that goes back a year and a half to January 2023 when Cal, and then USC, and then lots of teams "solved" our offense by blanketing Jump and packing the paint.  It was and remains a 5-on-3 strategy, and it fails to work when we get good production from players other than our "big three."  Bogana had 9 for us, but we needed her and someone else--Lepolo or Demetre or another bench player--to be in double digits.  They were not.  I stand by my position taken before the game that the principle problem is with our offense.  We looked stagnant at times and players without the ball did not move enough.  We have an offense that can punish a traditional player-to-player defense, and we have shown a zone-busting offense that has beaten conventional zones.  We (as yet) have struggled against the sagging-man defense that Tara herself has popularized over the years, whether it be USC's version, or Colorado's, or Arizona's.

[81alum]

Now that I have watched the presser a couple of times, here are my impressions:

1) Tara's scouting report defenses are always gambles of one sort or another.  We gambled that controlling Watkins would so throw USC off that the USC offense would falter.  We knew that Forbes was excellent and giving up 26 points to her was probably OK given that Watkins was held to 9.  But we were punished for the gamble by Padilla, Davis, and Williams, who hit shots that they do not usually hit.  Tara came back to them a couple of times.  Our defense executed the way it was supposed to and stopped Juju, and then Williams, who had hit only 6 three pointers all year long, hits two of them early in the game.  It was very similar to teams sagging off of Lepolo, but once in a while Lepolo hits six treys as she did first game against Cal.  We played the odds and lost.

2) I agree with MV about Cam's look to Kiki when she said responded to the rebounding question "We were in a weird defense, and we tried our best."  Clearly, Cam and Kiki could not rebound well from this amoeba defense.  That can explain the 18 O-boards that SC got.  But what explains the lack of our own O-boards?  Only 6?  That had nothing to do with "the weird defense."  We got only 6 of our 34 misses back.  USC got 18 of their 41 misses back.   I think the reason we did poorly with O-boards was that Brink and Iriafen just were seldom around the basket even when on offense.  

3) Tara was not willing to open up too much, even when questioned specifically, about what was wrong with our offense.  And for good reason.  She will be working to fix it and doesn't want to broadcast our weaknesses to future opponents.  But this is a pattern now that goes back a year and a half to January 2023 when Cal, and then USC, and then lots of teams "solved" our offense by blanketing Jump and packing the paint.  It was and remains a 5-on-3 strategy, and it fails to work when we get good production from players other than our "big three."  Bogana had 9 for us, but we needed her and someone else--Lepolo or Demetre or another bench player--to be in double digits.  They were not.  I stand by my position taken before the game that the principle problem is with our offense.  We looked stagnant at times and players without the ball did not move enough.  We have an offense that can punish a traditional player-to-player defense, and we have shown a zone-busting offense that has beaten conventional zones.  We (as yet) have struggled against the sagging-man defense that Tara herself has popularized over the years, whether it be USC's version, or Colorado's, or Arizona's.

[Spiny_Norman]

USC is just really good right now. They have all of the pieces to do well in the NCAA tournament assuming that Watkins is healthy. Even without Watkins, they have Forbes who is an experienced, skilled 6 foot guard and presents the same match-up problems as Watkins. They have Padilla, a sharp shooting 3 point specialist who shot 45% from 3 this season. They have rebounding beasts Marshall and Davis to get the missed shots and put them back. And you can see how they have jelled and improved over the course of the season. Frankly they look like a better team than Stanford right now. Stanford looks about the same as they did early to mid-season. USC has improved and passed them. It especially stings that they are doing this with transfers from Harvard, Columbia and Penn.

[Spiny_Norman]

USC is just really good right now. They have all of the pieces to do well in the NCAA tournament assuming that Watkins is healthy. Even without Watkins, they have Forbes who is an experienced, skilled 6 foot guard and presents the same match-up problems as Watkins. They have Padilla, a sharp shooting 3 point specialist who shot 45% from 3 this season. They have rebounding beasts Marshall and Davis to get the missed shots and put them back. And you can see how they have jelled and improved over the course of the season. Frankly they look like a better team than Stanford right now. Stanford looks about the same as they did early to mid-season. USC has improved and passed them. It especially stings that they are doing this with transfers from Harvard, Columbia and Penn.

[Leftcoast]

Match-ups matter and USC's team is a BAD match-up for Stanford.

Arizona played USC twice in the past two weeks - a 95-93 double overtime loss in the last weekend of the regular season and a 65-62 Pac-12 tournament loss.  In other words two VERY close games. Is UofA a better women's basketball team than Stanford? No, but for whaterver reason they matched up better with USC than we did yesterday afternoon.

Stanford's 2024 team is vulnerable to elite teams with athletic guards that can both drive and shoot mid-range jumpers.  Of course, there's a lot of teams like that in the last rounds of the NCAA tournament.  

Let's enjoy the ride and this group of players for however long it lasts while hoping we get a little match-up luck during this NCAA journey.

[Leftcoast]

Match-ups matter and USC's team is a BAD match-up for Stanford.

Arizona played USC twice in the past two weeks - a 95-93 double overtime loss in the last weekend of the regular season and a 65-62 Pac-12 tournament loss.  In other words two VERY close games. Is UofA a better women's basketball team than Stanford? No, but for whaterver reason they matched up better with USC than we did yesterday afternoon.

Stanford's 2024 team is vulnerable to elite teams with athletic guards that can both drive and shoot mid-range jumpers.  Of course, there's a lot of teams like that in the last rounds of the NCAA tournament.  

Let's enjoy the ride and this group of players for however long it lasts while hoping we get a little match-up luck during this NCAA journey.

[BillBradley]

Match-ups matter and USC's team is a BAD match-up for Stanford.

Arizona played USC twice in the past two weeks - a 95-93 double overtime loss in the last weekend of the regular season and a 65-62 Pac-12 tournament loss.  Is UofA a better women's basketball team than Stanford?

Stanford's 2024 team is vulnerable to elite teams with athletic guards that can both drive and shoot mid-range jumpers.  Of course, there's a lot of teams. like that in the last rounds of the NCAA tournament.  

Let's enjoy the ride however long it goes and hope we get a little match-up luck during the journey.

100% agree that matchups are a big deal. However, I have a different opinion about the type of matchup that bothers us. Most of our losses over the past 2 years where Cam has been healthy and available have been to teams that play really physical (USC, Colorado, So Carolina, UCLA, Ole Miss, etc.).  

The reason that we lose to those teams is because of their aggressive style of defense. We even struggled against Cal who totally played the same way a few days ago. The "faceguard Jump pack it in on Cam/Kiki" approach doesn't always cause us problems. Many teams try that, and it's no secret that you should D up Hannah Jump. Oregon State was faceguarding Hannah everywhere, but she was able to free up. She got 13 shots off and was 4-7 from 3.  Why? It's because Van Oelhoffen, Hunter, Parova, etc. are not physical players. Hannah could sprint from spot to spot, without getting shoved, pulled, bumped, etc. and the OSU players would get hung up on our screens. Elena, even Talana could penetrate without getting knocked off the ball.  All our guards really struggle to get open when their movement is restricted. Triangle2 said it perfectly "Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling."

Tara talks about how stagnant we get on offense against these teams, and she's right. It's a mental problem with the players. They stop cutting because they get tired of all the pushing and shoving. They stop sprinting and instead just go through the motions. They get taken out of their game and we can't win if we don't get scoring contributions from them. They want to be allowed to play pretty ball. And as I've mentioned before, on the defensive side, they need to push back.

I hope we get matched up with Iowa, UConn, Notre Dame, etc. I'll admit that their scoring guards are a concern, but we also have a brobdingnagian advantage against those teams down low and they don't play that style of defense that bothers us. My dream regional would have those teams or any of Indiana, VA Tech or NC State. One team I definitely don't want in our bracket is LSU. Nightmare matchup.

---

USC is just really good right now. They have all of the pieces to do well in the NCAA tournament assuming that Watkins is healthy. Even without Watkins, they have Forbes who is an experienced, skilled 6 foot guard and presents the same match-up problems as Watkins. They have Padilla, a sharp shooting 3 point specialist who shot 45% from 3 this season. They have rebounding beasts Marshall and Davis to get the missed shots and put them back. And you can see how they have jelled and improved over the course of the season. Frankly they look like a better team than Stanford right now. Stanford looks about the same as they did early to mid-season. USC has improved and passed them. It especially stings that they are doing this with transfers from Harvard, Columbia and Penn.

Very much agree to this observation Spiny. USC has improved a ton and could win it all.

[BillBradley]

Match-ups matter and USC's team is a BAD match-up for Stanford.

Arizona played USC twice in the past two weeks - a 95-93 double overtime loss in the last weekend of the regular season and a 65-62 Pac-12 tournament loss.  Is UofA a better women's basketball team than Stanford?

Stanford's 2024 team is vulnerable to elite teams with athletic guards that can both drive and shoot mid-range jumpers.  Of course, there's a lot of teams. like that in the last rounds of the NCAA tournament.  

Let's enjoy the ride however long it goes and hope we get a little match-up luck during the journey.

100% agree that matchups are a big deal. However, I have a different opinion about the type of matchup that bothers us. Most of our losses over the past 2 years where Cam has been healthy and available have been to teams that play really physical (USC, Colorado, So Carolina, UCLA, Ole Miss, etc.).  

The reason that we lose to those teams is because of their aggressive style of defense. We even struggled against Cal who totally played the same way a few days ago. The "faceguard Jump pack it in on Cam/Kiki" approach doesn't always cause us problems. Many teams try that, and it's no secret that you should D up Hannah Jump. Oregon State was faceguarding Hannah everywhere, but she was able to free up. She got 13 shots off and was 4-7 from 3.  Why? It's because Van Oelhoffen, Hunter, Parova, etc. are not physical players. Hannah could sprint from spot to spot, without getting shoved, pulled, bumped, etc. and the OSU players would get hung up on our screens. Elena, even Talana could penetrate without getting knocked off the ball.  All our guards really struggle to get open when their movement is restricted. Triangle2 said it perfectly "Teams that defend high and put pressure on top disrupt the offensive flow. Also, the pretty motion game falls apart when the refs allow the defense to disrupt without calling the fouling."

Tara talks about how stagnant we get on offense against these teams, and she's right. It's a mental problem with the players. They stop cutting because they get tired of all the pushing and shoving. They stop sprinting and instead just go through the motions. They get taken out of their game and we can't win if we don't get scoring contributions from them. They want to be allowed to play pretty ball. And as I've mentioned before, on the defensive side, they need to push back.

I hope we get matched up with Iowa, UConn, Notre Dame, etc. I'll admit that their scoring guards are a concern, but we also have a brobdingnagian advantage against those teams down low and they don't play that style of defense that bothers us. My dream regional would have those teams or any of Indiana, VA Tech or NC State. One team I definitely don't want in our bracket is LSU. Nightmare matchup.

---

USC is just really good right now. They have all of the pieces to do well in the NCAA tournament assuming that Watkins is healthy. Even without Watkins, they have Forbes who is an experienced, skilled 6 foot guard and presents the same match-up problems as Watkins. They have Padilla, a sharp shooting 3 point specialist who shot 45% from 3 this season. They have rebounding beasts Marshall and Davis to get the missed shots and put them back. And you can see how they have jelled and improved over the course of the season. Frankly they look like a better team than Stanford right now. Stanford looks about the same as they did early to mid-season. USC has improved and passed them. It especially stings that they are doing this with transfers from Harvard, Columbia and Penn.

Very much agree to this observation Spiny. USC has improved a ton and could win it all.

[JohnR34231]

If you look at ESPN's projections (Bob K has posted them) the good news is we could play Indiana to get to the Great Eight.
The bad news is we would have to play LSU to get to the Final Four.

[JohnR34231]

If you look at ESPN's projections (Bob K has posted them) the good news is we could play Indiana to get to the Great Eight.
The bad news is we would have to play LSU to get to the Final Four.

[Jskass]

Would love to see Clardy start against one of those fast and physical teams.

[Jskass]

Would love to see Clardy start against one of those fast and physical teams.

[OCcardinal]

I hope we get matched up with Iowa, UConn, Notre Dame, etc. I'll admit that their scoring guards are a concern, but we also have a h uge advantage against those teams down low and they don't play that style of defense that bothers us.

Notre Dame's Hannah Hidalgo scares the heck out of me. Did you see what she did in the U19 World Cup this summer? More than a scoring guard. She's the #1 defending guard in the country (something Clark isn't). I'd worry Hannah would disrupt our offense to negate our talent advantage down low.

[OCcardinal]

I hope we get matched up with Iowa, UConn, Notre Dame, etc. I'll admit that their scoring guards are a concern, but we also have a h uge advantage against those teams down low and they don't play that style of defense that bothers us.

Notre Dame's Hannah Hidalgo scares the heck out of me. Did you see what she did in the U19 World Cup this summer? More than a scoring guard. She's the #1 defending guard in the country (something Clark isn't). I'd worry Hannah would disrupt our offense to negate our talent advantage down low.

[BosCard]

I’m hoping that the silver lining of our recent loss is that it helps us rebound better in case we need to employ a similar defense against Iowa’s Clark or ND’s Hidalgo or UConn’s Bueckers.  If the temporary pain helps make us better for the tournament then that’s all that really matters

[BosCard]

I’m hoping that the silver lining of our recent loss is that it helps us rebound better in case we need to employ a similar defense against Iowa’s Clark or ND’s Hidalgo or UConn’s Bueckers.  If the temporary pain helps make us better for the tournament then that’s all that really matters

[acerep]

My report on the three tournament games is on the Fast Break Club site, www.stanfordfbc.org.

[acerep]

My report on the three tournament games is on the Fast Break Club site, www.stanfordfbc.org.

[GK3]

My report on the three tournament games is on the Fast Break Club site, www.stanfordfbc.org.

As I see it we lost this game due to our lack of rebounding and being reduced to playing 2 on 5 when we had the ball. If we got out rebounded due to scheme then Tara needs to take some responsibility.  Better teams are proving that they can let Kiki and Cameron get their points if they can take away our outside game. We do not have guards who can beat good guards off the dribble. As result we get stagnant offensively and often being forced to chuck up poor percentage shots. Under these circumstances we have to rebound better. The tournament will present a lot of challenges to our staff and players.

[GK3]

My report on the three tournament games is on the Fast Break Club site, www.stanfordfbc.org.

As I see it we lost this game due to our lack of rebounding and being reduced to playing 2 on 5 when we had the ball. If we got out rebounded due to scheme then Tara needs to take some responsibility.  Better teams are proving that they can let Kiki and Cameron get their points if they can take away our outside game. We do not have guards who can beat good guards off the dribble. As result we get stagnant offensively and often being forced to chuck up poor percentage shots. Under these circumstances we have to rebound better. The tournament will present a lot of challenges to our staff and players.