(03-22-2023, 10:47 AM)WBB fan Wrote: (03-21-2023, 09:46 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: Good comments. Just to quibble on one point, it's only been in recent years that Tara has played 11, because there were so many who could play and Tara hoped to run a lot and wear the opponents down. In past years she would typically tighten the rotation a lot by tournament time.
Exactly right. And if you go back a lot of years, to 1989-90 and the 1st Natty, Tara really had a restricted rotation. That year, even when way ahead, she stuck mostly to a 6 player rotation -- the starting line-up (Jennifer Azzi, Katie Steding, Sonia Henning, Trisha Stevens, Julie Zeilstra) plus Val Whiting coming off the bench as a freshman. Beyond that, at times she brought in Stacy Parsons and occasionally, Martha Richards, who had been HS player of the year in 87-88. Other than those, the others got very little playing time. Of course, the five plus Val did include 3 who ultimately were All Americans (Azzi, Henning, Whiting) and two who were National Freshman of the year (Henning and Whiting, coming off the bench in 1989-90). Seems to me that it was an approach quite similar to the one that Geno uses today at U Conn -- have a core team and keep them in, even when way ahead, and they will really know how to play with each other. Not saying it's the right approach, and it certainly doesn't contribute to developing bench players for the future, nor to keeping people fresh, but it was the way Tara did it then. As CompSci87 says correctly, it's only in very recent years that Tara has moved to a much broader rotation.
Good points. I think Tara increased the rotation because (1) so many better players and wanting to keep them involved and happy and (2) she moved much more to match ups, so for example, we saw Nnopu comming in whenever it looked like the opponent had quick guards who were abusing us on O.
I like the tighter rotation for the reason that you mention plus it forces those players to adapt to all kinds of different opponents/styles or else you find another one of our players who is capable of adapting. I'm ok with playing lots of players early in the season against weaker teams, and that also helps give an idea of who is capable off the bench. Best teams to me historically, MBB or WBB, HS, college, or Pro have always been ones with 5 top players (or best ones on the team) usually balnced in terms of skills and size, with a 6th man who might even be better than one of the starters but doesn't start because of a need at a position (i.e. excellent ball handler or defender), and then 2 or 3 bench players who are capable of filling in and filling roles in the event of fouls, injuries, or just giving starters a short blow.
The real trick is finding those 5 dependable starters that mesh their skills and size well. Our problem this year was Tara could never find that combo.
1. With all our post depth, we never settled on a great compliment to Brink. Belibi started out injured. Kiki at first looked liek the one, but she regressed as the season went on. Betts was still a little raw but developed. Don't know about Prechtel.
PG situation was never settled. Started out with idea of Haley at the point, didn't work out, and went to Lepolo. Lepolo was ok but noit really the answer for what we needed. Nivar got more time there, but also not the answer as she wasn't a natural PG. With Lepolo/Nivar at PG, Jump at the 2, that meant Haley at the 3 or 4 depending on whether we had 1 or 2 posts on the floor. At the three with a second post, that left only Jump as an outside threat. Using her at the 4 and bringing in Demetre or Bosgana (altho Tara often went with Nnopu) - something myself and others talked about - gave us another shooter. But, it put our post depth on the bench. This was a problem facing teams with two capable bigs, as well as defeating the purpose of post depth - and I can't imagine our posts to be very happy with splitting occasional minutes subbing for Brink.
Haley's inability to shoot threes not only made it easier for teams to defend her and keep down her scoring (I would argue that if she had been a proficient 3 point shooter, she would have been equivalent to CLark or other top scorers in the country), but this hurt the overall offense. It made it dfficult to find a combo of players that provided a balanced offense that waas tough to defend. We had the talented players both on the court and on the bench, just not in the right combination. Unless we had a really O minded PG (i.e. takes and makes a good number of threes, drives and scores), we desperately needed a good outside shooter at the three. Haley wasn't it. Move here to the 4 and we lose post strength and with Haley doing much of the ballhandling and trying to penetrate, the middle gets clogges.
But the dilemma for Tara was that how do you not have Haley on the court? She is too talented, a team leader, able to do things others can't, and highly versatile - not to neglect that no way would Haley or the team or observers stood for her not playing or playing as much. Haley meshed well when we had Hulls, Wilson, Kianna who could make threes or slash and score, Haley's lack of three point shooting didn't make any difference and she could just rely on her strengths.
I actually think next year we will be better without her. It allows us to go with two true post players AND insert a scorer who is an outside threat and hopefully also good at mid and driving. That alone will improve us. If Lepolo and/or Nivar can step up and also become offensive threats, then we are talking about a true NC contender. So Tara need to find that best 2nd post (I prefer Betts) and the best SF (most likely Demetre, Bosgana - maybe an Iriafen if she could develop some perimeter skills?). Maybe as a frosh Ogden is that player, but not haven't seen her or no D1 experience, premature. Get strong play from the 3 position combined with dynamite post play and our PGs don't ahve to be superstars, but if they improve, we're good.
