[liveoak]

To me, this game resembled the Ole Miss game of last year...a Stanford team that expects to win fairly easily is defeated by a quick and relentlessly attacking smaller team. I'm glad that this occurred before the one and done tournaments, since Stanford can now plan for this type of defense instead of being surprised by it. This now means that Stanford has to win out to get sole possession of the regular season Pac-12 title. The OSU game next week will be lit...and I will be there cheering Stanford on. Here are a few other thoughts:

• Arizona is quicker than Stanford position by position and that changes how Stanford plays their offense. This has caused problems when Stanford runs their offense and nothing is open - I saw this in the fourth quarter yesterday
  
• This Stanford team is not used to that level of pressure defense. I've been at every home game and several Pac-12 away games, including Arizona away, and this is the first time this year that I have seen this level of pressure from a Stanford opponent. Arizona was face-guarding individual players to deny them the ball and Stanford really had difficulty with it.
  
• Several of the Stanford turnovers came when a Stanford player received the ball at the high post with their back to basket and an Arizona player on a double-team stole the ball from the blind side. 
  
• Stanford got ahead in the fourth quarter and appeared to me to relax a bit; Arizona didn't relax and kept attacking.
  
• The drop-off in post play from Cam and Kiki to Kiki and Brooke is significant; Cam and Kiki are posts, while Brooke's best work is done at the high post or the wing. 
  
• Chloe had her best game of the year, and to me, looks like she will get more playing time.
  
• Adia Barnes did a superb job of preparing her team for Stanford; her game plan directly attacked Stanford's tendencies. 
  
• Stanford didn't adjust to Arizona's game in the fourth quarter and didn't play well. I'm not sure how much this is coaching and how much this is on the players.
  

---

At the Cardboard conclave ar the half, I bemoaned Iriafen’s lack of defense. I don’t expect her to be Brink, but I do expect her to defend her opponent.  She was often not guarding anyone when shots went up, and when she was, her arms weren’t up. 

But as I watched the 2nd half and watched her drop her raised arms as her opponent shot over her, it struck me that she was probably under orders not to defend so as to not pick up fouls. My assumption that the coaches must have told her this points to an inability to defend, but that this game was on the coach’s instructions.

Kiki is be far our best post player with Cam out...so I can understand instructing her to not foul.

[liveoak]

To me, this game resembled the Ole Miss game of last year...a Stanford team that expects to win fairly easily is defeated by a quick and relentlessly attacking smaller team. I'm glad that this occurred before the one and done tournaments, since Stanford can now plan for this type of defense instead of being surprised by it. This now means that Stanford has to win out to get sole possession of the regular season Pac-12 title. The OSU game next week will be lit...and I will be there cheering Stanford on. Here are a few other thoughts:

• Arizona is quicker than Stanford position by position and that changes how Stanford plays their offense. This has caused problems when Stanford runs their offense and nothing is open - I saw this in the fourth quarter yesterday
  
• This Stanford team is not used to that level of pressure defense. I've been at every home game and several Pac-12 away games, including Arizona away, and this is the first time this year that I have seen this level of pressure from a Stanford opponent. Arizona was face-guarding individual players to deny them the ball and Stanford really had difficulty with it.
  
• Several of the Stanford turnovers came when a Stanford player received the ball at the high post with their back to basket and an Arizona player on a double-team stole the ball from the blind side. 
  
• Stanford got ahead in the fourth quarter and appeared to me to relax a bit; Arizona didn't relax and kept attacking.
  
• The drop-off in post play from Cam and Kiki to Kiki and Brooke is significant; Cam and Kiki are posts, while Brooke's best work is done at the high post or the wing. 
  
• Chloe had her best game of the year, and to me, looks like she will get more playing time.
  
• Adia Barnes did a superb job of preparing her team for Stanford; her game plan directly attacked Stanford's tendencies. 
  
• Stanford didn't adjust to Arizona's game in the fourth quarter and didn't play well. I'm not sure how much this is coaching and how much this is on the players.
  

---

At the Cardboard conclave ar the half, I bemoaned Iriafen’s lack of defense. I don’t expect her to be Brink, but I do expect her to defend her opponent.  She was often not guarding anyone when shots went up, and when she was, her arms weren’t up. 

But as I watched the 2nd half and watched her drop her raised arms as her opponent shot over her, it struck me that she was probably under orders not to defend so as to not pick up fouls. My assumption that the coaches must have told her this points to an inability to defend, but that this game was on the coach’s instructions.

Kiki is be far our best post player with Cam out...so I can understand instructing her to not foul.

[pefloresjr]

Definitely a really rough game for Lepolo and all the backups except Clardy.  Even if we had finished out the win in the final three minutes, it would have been a game that showed our weaknesses.  The main being our lack of consistent scoring from the guards.  I agree that it is mostly a result of our difficulties in consistently recruiting elite guards.  Haley Jones was obviously elite but last year her shooting percentages fell in every category.  She may have been unhappy but was also a person who was focused on being more than just a basketball player.  Her podcast is called Sometimes I Hoop emphasizing the point.  This year's guards have exceeded my expectations in most games and for the season.  But we don't have players who can create their own shot with any consistency.  At the end of the game, I felt that Arizona was excited and energized by the fact that they had a chance to win and our team became tense.  Two damn bank shots went in and we couldn't find a response without Cam.  

Arizona plays a hyper aggressive defense but their guards go for lots of steals by trying to jump in front of or knock down every pass.  I thought they got away with some clear fouls, especially when contesting our guards bringing the ball up the court, but nothing really far out of the norm.  However, Arizona's center and forwards were coached to be very physical in the paint and it was mostly directed at Kiki.  They were constantly pushing her to the top of the key.  Not the normal jockeying by using body position but full on two hand and hand and forearm pushes.  I've rarely seen refs look the other way with so much use of hands.  If they had called that defense anywhere in the normal range, the game would have been out of range for Arizona to get hot in the last few minutes.  I haven't watched the recording yet, but at the game, Kiki was regularly pushed by the defenders and she was clearly frustrated by it.  I was surprised she didn't lose her cool and retaliate.  (I don't know if anyone else saw it but after the game some Arizona players tried to huddle up on the Stanford logo and Kiki put a stop to it and made them gather to the side of the Stanford team and logo.)  

On Kiki's defense.  I think she was definitely coached to stay at the bottom of the key and not follow anyone out to defend jump shots.  However, in other games when she plays with Cam, she does and she usually doesn't get her hands up on the shooters.  I have noticed it as a weakness in her defensive game since last year.  I feel like she doesn't move her feet to get back as well when her hands are up.  As a result, she is more likely to be called for a foul if the shooter takes it to the hoop.  I just think it is something she has to work to improve.  She is very hard working and makes lots of hustle plays all over the court so it's not an issue of being lackadaisical.  

I didn't think we were outcoached, I thought we played like a team that was missing its best player and emotional leader.  Our weaknesses were exposed and our players didn't step up and get it done.  I have been pleasantly surprised at our performance in big games this year and #3 felt like we were over-ranked.  I still see us as a likely top eight team that has the possibility of doing better or worse.  In my opinion, they can go as far as Cam can take them.  Hopefully she plays great in the tournament and enough other players are able to step up in each game.  Hopefully tomorrow, we will see Cam on the court and we will play better.  I care less about setbacks and losses if the team keeps progressing and the young players can make a bigger impact in big games.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Definitely a really rough game for Lepolo and all the backups except Clardy.  Even if we had finished out the win in the final three minutes, it would have been a game that showed our weaknesses.  The main being our lack of consistent scoring from the guards.  I agree that it is mostly a result of our difficulties in consistently recruiting elite guards.  Haley Jones was obviously elite but last year her shooting percentages fell in every category.  She may have been unhappy but was also a person who was focused on being more than just a basketball player.  Her podcast is called Sometimes I Hoop emphasizing the point.  This year's guards have exceeded my expectations in most games and for the season.  But we don't have players who can create their own shot with any consistency.  At the end of the game, I felt that Arizona was excited and energized by the fact that they had a chance to win and our team became tense.  Two damn bank shots went in and we couldn't find a response without Cam.  

Arizona plays a hyper aggressive defense but their guards go for lots of steals by trying to jump in front of or knock down every pass.  I thought they got away with some clear fouls, especially when contesting our guards bringing the ball up the court, but nothing really far out of the norm.  However, Arizona's center and forwards were coached to be very physical in the paint and it was mostly directed at Kiki.  They were constantly pushing her to the top of the key.  Not the normal jockeying by using body position but full on two hand and hand and forearm pushes.  I've rarely seen refs look the other way with so much use of hands.  If they had called that defense anywhere in the normal range, the game would have been out of range for Arizona to get hot in the last few minutes.  I haven't watched the recording yet, but at the game, Kiki was regularly pushed by the defenders and she was clearly frustrated by it.  I was surprised she didn't lose her cool and retaliate.  (I don't know if anyone else saw it but after the game some Arizona players tried to huddle up on the Stanford logo and Kiki put a stop to it and made them gather to the side of the Stanford team and logo.)  

On Kiki's defense.  I think she was definitely coached to stay at the bottom of the key and not follow anyone out to defend jump shots.  However, in other games when she plays with Cam, she does and she usually doesn't get her hands up on the shooters.  I have noticed it as a weakness in her defensive game since last year.  I feel like she doesn't move her feet to get back as well when her hands are up.  As a result, she is more likely to be called for a foul if the shooter takes it to the hoop.  I just think it is something she has to work to improve.  She is very hard working and makes lots of hustle plays all over the court so it's not an issue of being lackadaisical.  

I didn't think we were outcoached, I thought we played like a team that was missing its best player and emotional leader.  Our weaknesses were exposed and our players didn't step up and get it done.  I have been pleasantly surprised at our performance in big games this year and #3 felt like we were over-ranked.  I still see us as a likely top eight team that has the possibility of doing better or worse.  In my opinion, they can go as far as Cam can take them.  Hopefully she plays great in the tournament and enough other players are able to step up in each game.  Hopefully tomorrow, we will see Cam on the court and we will play better.  I care less about setbacks and losses if the team keeps progressing and the young players can make a bigger impact in big games.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[liveoak]

I didn’t watch the game but the box score shows AZ scoring 31 in the 4th Q after every other Q was in the teens. What happened? Foul trouble? Tired legs? Did we walk off the floor?

Arizona with only 7 players, one of whom fouled out, should have had the tired legs, not us.  What happened is:

1) Arizona freshman guard Jada Williams scored 14 pts on 4/4 shooting, including 3/3 from long range, including two ridiculous shots that banked in.   She was 0/3 from three point range in quarters 1-3.

2) We turned the ball over 6 times in the 4th quarter.  I am sad to say that Lepolo turned it over 4 times in the quarter. 

3) We took 11 shots in the 4th quarter.  We had 0 O-boards in the 4th quarter, and only 3 rebounds total.  In comparison, Arizona took 16 shots, had 5 offensive rebounds, and 9 rebounds total. 

IN SUMMARY, an Arizona player got hot, we turned the ball over, and we got grossly out rebounded in that quarter.

After this game, does anyone still think Lepolo is an adequate or acceptable point guard? 39 minutes played, 2 points, 2 assists, and 7 turnovers. And it's not as if this Arizona team is to be confused with South Carolina. Why does Bosgana start? She played only 3 minutes, whereas Clardy played 20. Let Clardy start. She was the only significant contributor off the bench. Look at the lines of Bosgana, Ogden, Agara, and Harriel: the four of them played 28 minutes and scored 3 points. Not going to cut it. Against quality D, the Cardinal is basically a two- or three-person team, depending on whether Jump is on or off that day. Jump started strong hitting those two early threes, but wound scoring only 13 in 40 minutes. Demetre did a fairly nice job standing in for Brink, although her trey shot was off and she got no foul shots in 35 minutes. At this point, I'm increasingly skeptical that the Cardinal will win the Pac-12 tournament, much less get to the EE or FF. I think Stanford is at serious risk of losing the same frustrating way we did last year, to Ole Miss. Any team that plays relentless D, be it Colorado, USC, Ole Miss, or South Carolina, is going to give our guards fits, cause a ton of Stanford turnovers, and make it very difficult to get clean entry passes to Brink and Iriafin.

I would agree that Lepolo had a bad game against Arizona, but I believe that this take on Lepolo is a little strong. She has had a number of good games this year and has been very steady. Note that here opponent last night is probably the quickest guard in the conference.  Clardy (in my view) has had some trouble adjusting to college ball. Last night, in my view, was the first time that she looked fully up to speed as a college player - and I was really glad to see it.

Bosgana is good against tall wings but struggles with covering short quick players.  Ogden or maybe Harriel appear to be the people to replace Bosgana in these situations. Clardy is needed to backup the point guard.

[liveoak]

I didn’t watch the game but the box score shows AZ scoring 31 in the 4th Q after every other Q was in the teens. What happened? Foul trouble? Tired legs? Did we walk off the floor?

Arizona with only 7 players, one of whom fouled out, should have had the tired legs, not us.  What happened is:

1) Arizona freshman guard Jada Williams scored 14 pts on 4/4 shooting, including 3/3 from long range, including two ridiculous shots that banked in.   She was 0/3 from three point range in quarters 1-3.

2) We turned the ball over 6 times in the 4th quarter.  I am sad to say that Lepolo turned it over 4 times in the quarter. 

3) We took 11 shots in the 4th quarter.  We had 0 O-boards in the 4th quarter, and only 3 rebounds total.  In comparison, Arizona took 16 shots, had 5 offensive rebounds, and 9 rebounds total. 

IN SUMMARY, an Arizona player got hot, we turned the ball over, and we got grossly out rebounded in that quarter.

After this game, does anyone still think Lepolo is an adequate or acceptable point guard? 39 minutes played, 2 points, 2 assists, and 7 turnovers. And it's not as if this Arizona team is to be confused with South Carolina. Why does Bosgana start? She played only 3 minutes, whereas Clardy played 20. Let Clardy start. She was the only significant contributor off the bench. Look at the lines of Bosgana, Ogden, Agara, and Harriel: the four of them played 28 minutes and scored 3 points. Not going to cut it. Against quality D, the Cardinal is basically a two- or three-person team, depending on whether Jump is on or off that day. Jump started strong hitting those two early threes, but wound scoring only 13 in 40 minutes. Demetre did a fairly nice job standing in for Brink, although her trey shot was off and she got no foul shots in 35 minutes. At this point, I'm increasingly skeptical that the Cardinal will win the Pac-12 tournament, much less get to the EE or FF. I think Stanford is at serious risk of losing the same frustrating way we did last year, to Ole Miss. Any team that plays relentless D, be it Colorado, USC, Ole Miss, or South Carolina, is going to give our guards fits, cause a ton of Stanford turnovers, and make it very difficult to get clean entry passes to Brink and Iriafin.

I would agree that Lepolo had a bad game against Arizona, but I believe that this take on Lepolo is a little strong. She has had a number of good games this year and has been very steady. Note that here opponent last night is probably the quickest guard in the conference.  Clardy (in my view) has had some trouble adjusting to college ball. Last night, in my view, was the first time that she looked fully up to speed as a college player - and I was really glad to see it.

Bosgana is good against tall wings but struggles with covering short quick players.  Ogden or maybe Harriel appear to be the people to replace Bosgana in these situations. Clardy is needed to backup the point guard.

[M T]

I think Cam's illness was referenced as being one that was going around the team.  I wonder if any of the other players were not yet fully recovered.

[M T]

I think Cam's illness was referenced as being one that was going around the team.  I wonder if any of the other players were not yet fully recovered.

[M T]

After this game, does anyone still think Lepolo is an adequate or acceptable point guard?

I'll add my voice to the others that say yes.  And, furthermore, she IS the point guard.  One can't say Muir should fire her.
Before this, by far her worst game of the season, this sophomore was top 20 in the country in A/TO. 
She's got a better +/- for the season than Iriafen.

Maybe your requirement for "acceptable" is an All-American.....  She's not that, at least not yet.

[M T]

After this game, does anyone still think Lepolo is an adequate or acceptable point guard?

I'll add my voice to the others that say yes.  And, furthermore, she IS the point guard.  One can't say Muir should fire her.
Before this, by far her worst game of the season, this sophomore was top 20 in the country in A/TO. 
She's got a better +/- for the season than Iriafen.

Maybe your requirement for "acceptable" is an All-American.....  She's not that, at least not yet.

[81alum]

Lots of attention, deservedly, about the turnovers--especially in the 4th quarter.  But what about the rebounding?  In the fourth quarter we gave up 5 O-boards to a shorter team and did not get a single one for ourselves.  Those gave Arizona crucial points and were momentum-changers too.  In my view, the poor rebounding was nearly as much a cause of the loss as the turnovers.  Not having Cam was certainly part of the problem, but it can't be the whole problem.  Rebounding is part skill but part desire, and it felt as if we got tight and stopped boxing out effectively and stopped being aggressive on the boards.  

That can be changed--that is not a result of any kind of talent deficit.

[81alum]

Lots of attention, deservedly, about the turnovers--especially in the 4th quarter.  But what about the rebounding?  In the fourth quarter we gave up 5 O-boards to a shorter team and did not get a single one for ourselves.  Those gave Arizona crucial points and were momentum-changers too.  In my view, the poor rebounding was nearly as much a cause of the loss as the turnovers.  Not having Cam was certainly part of the problem, but it can't be the whole problem.  Rebounding is part skill but part desire, and it felt as if we got tight and stopped boxing out effectively and stopped being aggressive on the boards.  

That can be changed--that is not a result of any kind of talent deficit.

[MV72018]

After this game, does anyone still think Lepolo is an adequate or acceptable point guard?

I'll add my voice to the others that say yes.  And, furthermore, she IS the point guard.  One can't say Muir should fire her.
Before this, by far her worst game of the season, this sophomore was top 20 in the country in A/TO. 
She's got a better +/- for the season than Iriafen.

Maybe your requirement for "acceptable" is an All-American.....  She's not that, at least not yet.

What I look for in an acceptable point guard is someone with good handles (plural), who can score from three or on drives when needed, who delivers crisp passes rather than lame ducks, whose passes arrive at the right times and in proper position for catch and shoots, and who does not turn the ball over often WHEN PRESSED. As for yout "at least not yet," do you seriously believe that is a possibility? If so, that makes one of us.

[MV72018]

After this game, does anyone still think Lepolo is an adequate or acceptable point guard?

I'll add my voice to the others that say yes.  And, furthermore, she IS the point guard.  One can't say Muir should fire her.
Before this, by far her worst game of the season, this sophomore was top 20 in the country in A/TO. 
She's got a better +/- for the season than Iriafen.

Maybe your requirement for "acceptable" is an All-American.....  She's not that, at least not yet.

What I look for in an acceptable point guard is someone with good handles (plural), who can score from three or on drives when needed, who delivers crisp passes rather than lame ducks, whose passes arrive at the right times and in proper position for catch and shoots, and who does not turn the ball over often WHEN PRESSED. As for yout "at least not yet," do you seriously believe that is a possibility? If so, that makes one of us.

[UltimateCard]

To me, this game resembled the Ole Miss game of last year...a Stanford team that expects to win fairly easily is defeated by a quick and relentlessly attacking smaller team. I'm glad that this occurred before the one and done tournaments, since Stanford can now plan for this type of defense instead of being surprised by it. This now means that Stanford has to win out to get sole possession of the regular season Pac-12 title. The OSU game next week will be lit...and I will be there cheering Stanford on. Here are a few other thoughts:

• Arizona is quicker than Stanford position by position and that changes how Stanford plays their offense. This has caused problems when Stanford runs their offense and nothing is open - I saw this in the fourth quarter yesterday
  
• This Stanford team is not used to that level of pressure defense. I've been at every home game and several Pac-12 away games, including Arizona away, and this is the first time this year that I have seen this level of pressure from a Stanford opponent. Arizona was face-guarding individual players to deny them the ball and Stanford really had difficulty with it.

At the chalk talk, Tempie said that they practiced all week against pressure from the scout team and it did not go well. So not a surprise. 

Tempie also mentioned that the scout team is mostly men (plus Lauren Green) who are quicker, bigger, stronger, and that other schools do the same. Then she said something that puzzled me - if women were put on the scout team, they’d have to be offered a spot on the roster because of equity (Title IX?) concerns. Did others hear the same? If so, can someone explain?

I think Cam's illness was referenced as being one that was going around the team.  I wonder if any of the other players were not yet fully recovered.

A friend who sits behind the bench said at halftime that Elena was having coughing fits all through the first half.

[UltimateCard]

To me, this game resembled the Ole Miss game of last year...a Stanford team that expects to win fairly easily is defeated by a quick and relentlessly attacking smaller team. I'm glad that this occurred before the one and done tournaments, since Stanford can now plan for this type of defense instead of being surprised by it. This now means that Stanford has to win out to get sole possession of the regular season Pac-12 title. The OSU game next week will be lit...and I will be there cheering Stanford on. Here are a few other thoughts:

• Arizona is quicker than Stanford position by position and that changes how Stanford plays their offense. This has caused problems when Stanford runs their offense and nothing is open - I saw this in the fourth quarter yesterday
  
• This Stanford team is not used to that level of pressure defense. I've been at every home game and several Pac-12 away games, including Arizona away, and this is the first time this year that I have seen this level of pressure from a Stanford opponent. Arizona was face-guarding individual players to deny them the ball and Stanford really had difficulty with it.

At the chalk talk, Tempie said that they practiced all week against pressure from the scout team and it did not go well. So not a surprise. 

Tempie also mentioned that the scout team is mostly men (plus Lauren Green) who are quicker, bigger, stronger, and that other schools do the same. Then she said something that puzzled me - if women were put on the scout team, they’d have to be offered a spot on the roster because of equity (Title IX?) concerns. Did others hear the same? If so, can someone explain?

I think Cam's illness was referenced as being one that was going around the team.  I wonder if any of the other players were not yet fully recovered.

A friend who sits behind the bench said at halftime that Elena was having coughing fits all through the first half.

[CompSci87]

A friend who sits behind the bench said at halftime that Elena was having coughing fits all through the first half.

I was wondering why she didn't go back in. Even when she doesn't play a lot, she usually starts both halves.

[CompSci87]

A friend who sits behind the bench said at halftime that Elena was having coughing fits all through the first half.

I was wondering why she didn't go back in. Even when she doesn't play a lot, she usually starts both halves.

[qwerty49]

Almost by definition, isn’t someone always open against a pressure defense? And we couldn’t find that after a week of practice? And that open player couldn’t be Jump or Demetre at the 3pt line? 

Maybe someone who saw the game can tell me what I’m missing here.  It just sounds like a perfect storm of illness, weak preparation and weaker execution.

[qwerty49]

Almost by definition, isn’t someone always open against a pressure defense? And we couldn’t find that after a week of practice? And that open player couldn’t be Jump or Demetre at the 3pt line? 

Maybe someone who saw the game can tell me what I’m missing here.  It just sounds like a perfect storm of illness, weak preparation and weaker execution.

[Card10Fan]

Brink is back. Talana is out with a knee injury. She’s day to day and expected back next weekend. Apparently been battling all season long.

[Card10Fan]

Brink is back. Talana is out with a knee injury. She’s day to day and expected back next weekend. Apparently been battling all season long.

[CompSci87]

Almost by definition, isn’t someone always open against a pressure defense? And we couldn’t find that after a week of practice? And that open player couldn’t be Jump or Demetre at the 3pt line? 

Maybe someone who saw the game can tell me what I’m missing here.  It just sounds like a perfect storm of illness, weak preparation and weaker execution.

This was tight one on one defense, not usually doubling the ball handler.

[CompSci87]

Almost by definition, isn’t someone always open against a pressure defense? And we couldn’t find that after a week of practice? And that open player couldn’t be Jump or Demetre at the 3pt line? 

Maybe someone who saw the game can tell me what I’m missing here.  It just sounds like a perfect storm of illness, weak preparation and weaker execution.

This was tight one on one defense, not usually doubling the ball handler.

[BillBradley]

I think posters are drastically understimating how difficult it is to instantly play without your superstar and be effective. Look at what happened when UCLA played without Betts. Or imagine how bad Iowa would be if they had to start playing without Clark. It's not so much that the remaining players aren't talented enough. It's about all the other stuff that goes into the making of a high performing team. On defense, for example...Our guards have practiced all season on a defensive system where the guards go over every screen, forcing dribble penetration right into Cam. On top of her blocks, Cam contests so many more shots! All that just goes away without her in there. That's just one example of it not being just about everyone's individual talent - it's how it's all connected.
 
My point is that Cam's presence is everything for this team. It dictates how the players have come to play together on the court, and they can't be expected to instantly "be that other type of player" (even one they used to be). It would take weeks to change everything around, not a few days. I know a lot of posters get caught up in the recruiting rankings. To paraphrase..."we are sooo much better than Arizona because we have players ranked much higher than them, so we should have beaten them even without Cam. Why didn't player X score more? What is player Y even doing out there?". It's not remotely close to being the right way to look at it. The other players' worlds are upside down on the court. There's a ton of role confusion, lack of leadership...even simple things like who talks in the huddle. 

Anyway, I'm not overreacting to the loss. It doesn't surprise me one bit that we lost without her. We've lost 4 games all year: At Gonzaga (Cam sick), at Colorado (Top 5 team in the country, at their place, Cam in foul trouble), home vs. USC (to one of the greatest shooting performances ever in womens college hoops by Juju), and now to Arizona (Cam sick).

[BillBradley]

I think posters are drastically understimating how difficult it is to instantly play without your superstar and be effective. Look at what happened when UCLA played without Betts. Or imagine how bad Iowa would be if they had to start playing without Clark. It's not so much that the remaining players aren't talented enough. It's about all the other stuff that goes into the making of a high performing team. On defense, for example...Our guards have practiced all season on a defensive system where the guards go over every screen, forcing dribble penetration right into Cam. On top of her blocks, Cam contests so many more shots! All that just goes away without her in there. That's just one example of it not being just about everyone's individual talent - it's how it's all connected.
 
My point is that Cam's presence is everything for this team. It dictates how the players have come to play together on the court, and they can't be expected to instantly "be that other type of player" (even one they used to be). It would take weeks to change everything around, not a few days. I know a lot of posters get caught up in the recruiting rankings. To paraphrase..."we are sooo much better than Arizona because we have players ranked much higher than them, so we should have beaten them even without Cam. Why didn't player X score more? What is player Y even doing out there?". It's not remotely close to being the right way to look at it. The other players' worlds are upside down on the court. There's a ton of role confusion, lack of leadership...even simple things like who talks in the huddle. 

Anyway, I'm not overreacting to the loss. It doesn't surprise me one bit that we lost without her. We've lost 4 games all year: At Gonzaga (Cam sick), at Colorado (Top 5 team in the country, at their place, Cam in foul trouble), home vs. USC (to one of the greatest shooting performances ever in womens college hoops by Juju), and now to Arizona (Cam sick).

[old spanish trail]

I think posters are drastically understimating how difficult it is to instantly play without your superstar and be effective. Look at what happened when UCLA played without Betts. Or imagine how bad Iowa would be if they had to start playing without Clark. It's not so much that the remaining players aren't talented enough. It's about all the other stuff that goes into the making of a high performing team. On defense, for example...Our guards have practiced all season on a defensive system where the guards go over every screen, forcing dribble penetration right into Cam. On top of her blocks, Cam contests so many more shots! All that just goes away without her in there. That's just one example of it not being just about everyone's individual talent - it's how it's all connected.
 
My point is that Cam's presence is everything for this team. It dictates how the players have come to play together on the court, and they can't be expected to instantly "be that other type of player" (even one they used to be). It would take weeks to change everything around, not a few days. I know a lot of posters get caught up in the recruiting rankings. To paraphrase..."we are sooo much better than Arizona because we have players ranked much higher than them, so we should have beaten them even without Cam. Why didn't player X score more? What is player Y even doing out there?". It's not remotely close to being the right way to look at it. The other players' worlds are upside down on the court. There's a ton of role confusion, lack of leadership...even simple things like who talks in the huddle. 

Anyway, I'm not overreacting to the loss. It doesn't surprise me one bit that we lost without her. We've lost 4 games all year: At Gonzaga (Cam sick), at Colorado (Top 5 team in the country, at their place, Cam in foul trouble), home vs. USC (to one of the greatest shooting performances ever in womens college hoops by Juju), and now to Arizona (Cam sick).

Agree

[old spanish trail]

I think posters are drastically understimating how difficult it is to instantly play without your superstar and be effective. Look at what happened when UCLA played without Betts. Or imagine how bad Iowa would be if they had to start playing without Clark. It's not so much that the remaining players aren't talented enough. It's about all the other stuff that goes into the making of a high performing team. On defense, for example...Our guards have practiced all season on a defensive system where the guards go over every screen, forcing dribble penetration right into Cam. On top of her blocks, Cam contests so many more shots! All that just goes away without her in there. That's just one example of it not being just about everyone's individual talent - it's how it's all connected.
 
My point is that Cam's presence is everything for this team. It dictates how the players have come to play together on the court, and they can't be expected to instantly "be that other type of player" (even one they used to be). It would take weeks to change everything around, not a few days. I know a lot of posters get caught up in the recruiting rankings. To paraphrase..."we are sooo much better than Arizona because we have players ranked much higher than them, so we should have beaten them even without Cam. Why didn't player X score more? What is player Y even doing out there?". It's not remotely close to being the right way to look at it. The other players' worlds are upside down on the court. There's a ton of role confusion, lack of leadership...even simple things like who talks in the huddle. 

Anyway, I'm not overreacting to the loss. It doesn't surprise me one bit that we lost without her. We've lost 4 games all year: At Gonzaga (Cam sick), at Colorado (Top 5 team in the country, at their place, Cam in foul trouble), home vs. USC (to one of the greatest shooting performances ever in womens college hoops by Juju), and now to Arizona (Cam sick).

Agree

[SkiBum80]

I think posters are drastically understimating how difficult it is to instantly play without your superstar and be effective. Look at what happened when UCLA played without Betts. Or imagine how bad Iowa would be if they had to start playing without Clark. It's not so much that the remaining players aren't talented enough. It's about all the other stuff that goes into the making of a high performing team. On defense, for example...Our guards have practiced all season on a defensive system where the guards go over every screen, forcing dribble penetration right into Cam. On top of her blocks, Cam contests so many more shots! All that just goes away without her in there. That's just one example of it not being just about everyone's individual talent - it's how it's all connected.
 
My point is that Cam's presence is everything for this team. It dictates how the players have come to play together on the court, and they can't be expected to instantly "be that other type of player" (even one they used to be). It would take weeks to change everything around, not a few days. I know a lot of posters get caught up in the recruiting rankings. To paraphrase..."we are sooo much better than Arizona because we have players ranked much higher than them, so we should have beaten them even without Cam. Why didn't player X score more? What is player Y even doing out there?". It's not remotely close to being the right way to look at it. The other players' worlds are upside down on the court. There's a ton of role confusion, lack of leadership...even simple things like who talks in the huddle. 

Anyway, I'm not overreacting to the loss. It doesn't surprise me one bit that we lost without her. We've lost 4 games all year: At Gonzaga (Cam sick), at Colorado (Top 5 team in the country, at their place, Cam in foul trouble), home vs. USC (to one of the greatest shooting performances ever in womens college hoops by Juju), and now to Arizona (Cam sick).

Agree

Likewise agree about team being out of sync in many ways without Cam.
And I was very critical of Lepolo earlier in the season, because she did not seem much of a scoring threat,
and some teams were starting to sag off of her when in shooting range, to double others down low, clogging the paint making it tougher on our bigs. And she did not have a good AZ game, and at a bad time.
But over the season she has stepped up her shooting, now having 3rd most scored threes, just behind Harriel, at a decent pct of 37.8%.
And has established an assist;turnover ratio better than 2:1 with by far most assists on team.
She still is not much of a danger to drive and shoot, doing it rarely, but she has proved to be good in ball handling generally, defense generally, and enough of an outside shooter to deserve to be guarded.
So I get why she's still on Coach's list for main point guard.

[SkiBum80]

I think posters are drastically understimating how difficult it is to instantly play without your superstar and be effective. Look at what happened when UCLA played without Betts. Or imagine how bad Iowa would be if they had to start playing without Clark. It's not so much that the remaining players aren't talented enough. It's about all the other stuff that goes into the making of a high performing team. On defense, for example...Our guards have practiced all season on a defensive system where the guards go over every screen, forcing dribble penetration right into Cam. On top of her blocks, Cam contests so many more shots! All that just goes away without her in there. That's just one example of it not being just about everyone's individual talent - it's how it's all connected.
 
My point is that Cam's presence is everything for this team. It dictates how the players have come to play together on the court, and they can't be expected to instantly "be that other type of player" (even one they used to be). It would take weeks to change everything around, not a few days. I know a lot of posters get caught up in the recruiting rankings. To paraphrase..."we are sooo much better than Arizona because we have players ranked much higher than them, so we should have beaten them even without Cam. Why didn't player X score more? What is player Y even doing out there?". It's not remotely close to being the right way to look at it. The other players' worlds are upside down on the court. There's a ton of role confusion, lack of leadership...even simple things like who talks in the huddle. 

Anyway, I'm not overreacting to the loss. It doesn't surprise me one bit that we lost without her. We've lost 4 games all year: At Gonzaga (Cam sick), at Colorado (Top 5 team in the country, at their place, Cam in foul trouble), home vs. USC (to one of the greatest shooting performances ever in womens college hoops by Juju), and now to Arizona (Cam sick).

Agree

Likewise agree about team being out of sync in many ways without Cam.
And I was very critical of Lepolo earlier in the season, because she did not seem much of a scoring threat,
and some teams were starting to sag off of her when in shooting range, to double others down low, clogging the paint making it tougher on our bigs. And she did not have a good AZ game, and at a bad time.
But over the season she has stepped up her shooting, now having 3rd most scored threes, just behind Harriel, at a decent pct of 37.8%.
And has established an assist;turnover ratio better than 2:1 with by far most assists on team.
She still is not much of a danger to drive and shoot, doing it rarely, but she has proved to be good in ball handling generally, defense generally, and enough of an outside shooter to deserve to be guarded.
So I get why she's still on Coach's list for main point guard.

[qwerty49]

Almost by definition, isn’t someone always open against a pressure defense? And we couldn’t find that after a week of practice? And that open player couldn’t be Jump or Demetre at the 3pt line? 

Maybe someone who saw the game can tell me what I’m missing here.  It just sounds like a perfect storm of illness, weak preparation and weaker execution.

This was tight one on one defense, not usually doubling the ball handler.

We got taken down by one-on-one D? Oh jeez. Now that I think about it, that’s even worse.

[qwerty49]

Almost by definition, isn’t someone always open against a pressure defense? And we couldn’t find that after a week of practice? And that open player couldn’t be Jump or Demetre at the 3pt line? 

Maybe someone who saw the game can tell me what I’m missing here.  It just sounds like a perfect storm of illness, weak preparation and weaker execution.

This was tight one on one defense, not usually doubling the ball handler.

We got taken down by one-on-one D? Oh jeez. Now that I think about it, that’s even worse.

[81alum]

I think posters are drastically understimating how difficult it is to instantly play without your superstar and be effective. Look at what happened when UCLA played without Betts. Or imagine how bad Iowa would be if they had to start playing without Clark. It's not so much that the remaining players aren't talented enough. It's about all the other stuff that goes into the making of a high performing team. On defense, for example...Our guards have practiced all season on a defensive system where the guards go over every screen, forcing dribble penetration right into Cam. On top of her blocks, Cam contests so many more shots! All that just goes away without her in there. That's just one example of it not being just about everyone's individual talent - it's how it's all connected.
 
My point is that Cam's presence is everything for this team. It dictates how the players have come to play together on the court, and they can't be expected to instantly "be that other type of player" (even one they used to be). It would take weeks to change everything around, not a few days. I know a lot of posters get caught up in the recruiting rankings. To paraphrase..."we are sooo much better than Arizona because we have players ranked much higher than them, so we should have beaten them even without Cam. Why didn't player X score more? What is player Y even doing out there?". It's not remotely close to being the right way to look at it. The other players' worlds are upside down on the court. There's a ton of role confusion, lack of leadership...even simple things like who talks in the huddle. 

Anyway, I'm not overreacting to the loss. It doesn't surprise me one bit that we lost without her. We've lost 4 games all year: At Gonzaga (Cam sick), at Colorado (Top 5 team in the country, at their place, Cam in foul trouble), home vs. USC (to one of the greatest shooting performances ever in womens college hoops by Juju), and now to Arizona (Cam sick).

Much truth to this.  Certainly the losses to Gonzaga, Colorado, and now Arizona feel as if they fit this pattern and confirm your analysis.  But Brink played 37 minutes against USC, and we defeated UCLA  Oregon State without Brink at all, so there are a couple of counter examples to indicate that the team can win against tough competition without Brink and can also lose with her. 

I think we fans probably thought (subconsciously at least) that if we could beat UCLA Oregon State without Brink that Arizona would not be a problem.  And we thought wrong.

[81alum]

I think posters are drastically understimating how difficult it is to instantly play without your superstar and be effective. Look at what happened when UCLA played without Betts. Or imagine how bad Iowa would be if they had to start playing without Clark. It's not so much that the remaining players aren't talented enough. It's about all the other stuff that goes into the making of a high performing team. On defense, for example...Our guards have practiced all season on a defensive system where the guards go over every screen, forcing dribble penetration right into Cam. On top of her blocks, Cam contests so many more shots! All that just goes away without her in there. That's just one example of it not being just about everyone's individual talent - it's how it's all connected.
 
My point is that Cam's presence is everything for this team. It dictates how the players have come to play together on the court, and they can't be expected to instantly "be that other type of player" (even one they used to be). It would take weeks to change everything around, not a few days. I know a lot of posters get caught up in the recruiting rankings. To paraphrase..."we are sooo much better than Arizona because we have players ranked much higher than them, so we should have beaten them even without Cam. Why didn't player X score more? What is player Y even doing out there?". It's not remotely close to being the right way to look at it. The other players' worlds are upside down on the court. There's a ton of role confusion, lack of leadership...even simple things like who talks in the huddle. 

Anyway, I'm not overreacting to the loss. It doesn't surprise me one bit that we lost without her. We've lost 4 games all year: At Gonzaga (Cam sick), at Colorado (Top 5 team in the country, at their place, Cam in foul trouble), home vs. USC (to one of the greatest shooting performances ever in womens college hoops by Juju), and now to Arizona (Cam sick).

Much truth to this.  Certainly the losses to Gonzaga, Colorado, and now Arizona feel as if they fit this pattern and confirm your analysis.  But Brink played 37 minutes against USC, and we defeated UCLA  Oregon State without Brink at all, so there are a couple of counter examples to indicate that the team can win against tough competition without Brink and can also lose with her. 

I think we fans probably thought (subconsciously at least) that if we could beat UCLA Oregon State without Brink that Arizona would not be a problem.  And we thought wrong.

[BobK]

Missed the weekend being sick. But it was Oregon State without Cam

[BobK]

Missed the weekend being sick. But it was Oregon State without Cam

[81alum]

Missed the weekend being sick.  But it was Oregon State without Cam

Thanks Bob!  Hope you feel better soon.  I fixed the post.  Not sure why I mixed up the two games in that post--I got it right in my other posts.

[81alum]

Missed the weekend being sick.  But it was Oregon State without Cam

Thanks Bob!  Hope you feel better soon.  I fixed the post.  Not sure why I mixed up the two games in that post--I got it right in my other posts.

[M T]

We tend to overlook external factors in assessing wins and losses and attribute everything to the abilities & effort of players and the skill & effectiveness of the coaches.  Certainly, when we look back at previous year's losses, we don't usually put asterisks too account for external factors affecting unexpected losses or wins.  I bet Harvard doesn't put an asterisk on one win where their opponent lost 40% of their starters immediately before .

I'm not sure that I'd put the Arizona loss in any particular pattern other than one for seasonal respiratory illness.  That goes for losses by any team, any sport, anywhere.  Yes, you hope that illnesses are somewhat infrequent and don't affect too many players on your team at once.

Yet one loss can dramatically affect an elite team's season.

For Stanford, there is actually a decent measure of the levels of illness on campus (students primarily but staff as well) in the measurements here.

If it isn't the policy already, if I were Stanford, I'd consider requiring dorm roommates to be on different teams (WBB and WWP for instance).  On travel, I'd want to minimize players rooming together if they play similar positions.

[M T]

We tend to overlook external factors in assessing wins and losses and attribute everything to the abilities & effort of players and the skill & effectiveness of the coaches.  Certainly, when we look back at previous year's losses, we don't usually put asterisks too account for external factors affecting unexpected losses or wins.  I bet Harvard doesn't put an asterisk on one win where their opponent lost 40% of their starters immediately before .

I'm not sure that I'd put the Arizona loss in any particular pattern other than one for seasonal respiratory illness.  That goes for losses by any team, any sport, anywhere.  Yes, you hope that illnesses are somewhat infrequent and don't affect too many players on your team at once.

Yet one loss can dramatically affect an elite team's season.

For Stanford, there is actually a decent measure of the levels of illness on campus (students primarily but staff as well) in the measurements here.

If it isn't the policy already, if I were Stanford, I'd consider requiring dorm roommates to be on different teams (WBB and WWP for instance).  On travel, I'd want to minimize players rooming together if they play similar positions.