[cardcrimson]

First game I've watched and will be the last until the Final Four if they get there.

We'll try to politely ignore your impressions as a non-fan.  It sounds like you watched on TV and were probably a victim of spin of the ESPN homers.

A little harsh, don't you think? Please don't count me in on your "We'll try to politely ignore" commentary. Sheesh.

---

What a great review. Thanks!

Just getting home after the overtime and the long wait to hear from Tara and Dawn.  In reading this thread I find myself much happier with our athletes than some other Cardboarders.

Negatives:

Let's get the true negatives out of the way--the inbounds that failed when Jones couldn't find anyone, Lepolo reversed direction or it would have been an easy inbounds.  I have no idea what went wrong there, but it was a critical failure.  And then the timeout that wasn't.  The coaches should have made sure that the players all understood the game situation and clearly they did not.

Also on the negative side of the ledgdf were our 22 turnovers.  In fact, I do attribute our loss mainly to those, given that South Carolina had 11.  Hard to give the other side 11 more chances and expect to win.  South Carolina is longer and more athletic than most other teams in the nation, which usually translates into a lot of deflected passes and turnovers.  Good for our players to experience that now rather in the tournament for the first time.

If not the turnovers, the loss could equally be attributed to Brink's 5 fouls.  She was our best offensive weapon and our offense stagnated without her.

Jones did not appear to play well, but I believe that was for two reasons: 1) South Carolina keyed on her, and 2) she was always the player with the ball at the end of the shot clock trying to make something happen.  She has been in a bit of a slump and it continues.  But for the person who watched 5 minutes and pronounced judgment: she did have 6 assists and 9 rebounds, although her offense did look bad at the end.

Positives. 

South Carolina is the most relentless and successful rebounding team in the nation, and we out rebounded them.  Offensive rebounds were essentially even.  That is a gigantic feat.

Our passing was superior to South Carolina's, by quite a margin.  15 assists to 9 assists.

The scouting report defense worked to a T.  We held Boston down most of the game, and held Cooke to 3/13.  Our athletes did what the coaches asked them to do.

Brink's offensive play was outstanding.  Again, it was the fouls.  But she was able to hit enough treys to force the defense to come to her, and then she could attack the basket.  Staley singled her out for praise.

Lepolo more than held her own, showing some offense and good ball handling, generating 6 assists to 3 turnovers. 

Analysis and Questions:

Iriafen, who has been so good around the block, was clearly bothered by the aggressive defense by big posts, and was not her usual self around the basket.  But she has a terrific jump shot.  Why did she not do some jumpers?

During the chalk talk Kate mentioned that South Carolina would hang all over Jump, and we would need to run some screens for her.  We did once or twice and it worked.  Why did we not do more of that?  This reminds me so much of Karlie's senior year--good teams shut her down by denying her the ball.

Betts was 2/2.  Why did we not give her more minutes?  What was it about her brief time in the game that made Tara decide she was not ready for more?  Was she victimized on defense?

The game was not officiated well, although presumably the bad calls evened out.

I entirely agree that the game may have turned on the ref's call that gave Emma-Nnopu two shots rather than an and-one.  That was an egregious call coming at a critical moment.  At first I did not understand what had happened, since the correct call was so obvious.

Boston in the fourth quarter was getting away with ridiculous fouling when on defense.  In one case she draped her arms over the shoulders of Jones, from behind, holding both arms back.  I guess players-of-the-year can get away with that.  I think South Carolina's defense "improved" in the fourth quarter when the refs stopped calling the game so tightly.  But while Boston could pin both arms of her mark, Brink got ejected for brushing a forearm while blocking a shot.

Conclusion:

South Carolina played two worthy opponents before us, this was our first real test.  We need a lot more games like this to challenge us and help us develop--we are a significantly younger team that South Carolina.  In fact, even before the game I was mulling over whether a win or a loss would be more valuable to us, given that we have crushed a lot of weaklings before now and could become overconfident.  I am concerned about seeding implications for the NCAAs, but not too concerned.  As we know from the past, if you aspire to win a natty, it matters not one whet whether you are seeded first or second.  So as a fan I am disappointed--I had hoped for better--but if I were a coach I might be fine with this result, giving me a way of getting the athletes to focus on necessary improvements, and a few were exposed as such.

[cardcrimson]

First game I've watched and will be the last until the Final Four if they get there.

We'll try to politely ignore your impressions as a non-fan.  It sounds like you watched on TV and were probably a victim of spin of the ESPN homers.

A little harsh, don't you think? Please don't count me in on your "We'll try to politely ignore" commentary. Sheesh.

---

What a great review. Thanks!

Just getting home after the overtime and the long wait to hear from Tara and Dawn.  In reading this thread I find myself much happier with our athletes than some other Cardboarders.

Negatives:

Let's get the true negatives out of the way--the inbounds that failed when Jones couldn't find anyone, Lepolo reversed direction or it would have been an easy inbounds.  I have no idea what went wrong there, but it was a critical failure.  And then the timeout that wasn't.  The coaches should have made sure that the players all understood the game situation and clearly they did not.

Also on the negative side of the ledgdf were our 22 turnovers.  In fact, I do attribute our loss mainly to those, given that South Carolina had 11.  Hard to give the other side 11 more chances and expect to win.  South Carolina is longer and more athletic than most other teams in the nation, which usually translates into a lot of deflected passes and turnovers.  Good for our players to experience that now rather in the tournament for the first time.

If not the turnovers, the loss could equally be attributed to Brink's 5 fouls.  She was our best offensive weapon and our offense stagnated without her.

Jones did not appear to play well, but I believe that was for two reasons: 1) South Carolina keyed on her, and 2) she was always the player with the ball at the end of the shot clock trying to make something happen.  She has been in a bit of a slump and it continues.  But for the person who watched 5 minutes and pronounced judgment: she did have 6 assists and 9 rebounds, although her offense did look bad at the end.

Positives. 

South Carolina is the most relentless and successful rebounding team in the nation, and we out rebounded them.  Offensive rebounds were essentially even.  That is a gigantic feat.

Our passing was superior to South Carolina's, by quite a margin.  15 assists to 9 assists.

The scouting report defense worked to a T.  We held Boston down most of the game, and held Cooke to 3/13.  Our athletes did what the coaches asked them to do.

Brink's offensive play was outstanding.  Again, it was the fouls.  But she was able to hit enough treys to force the defense to come to her, and then she could attack the basket.  Staley singled her out for praise.

Lepolo more than held her own, showing some offense and good ball handling, generating 6 assists to 3 turnovers. 

Analysis and Questions:

Iriafen, who has been so good around the block, was clearly bothered by the aggressive defense by big posts, and was not her usual self around the basket.  But she has a terrific jump shot.  Why did she not do some jumpers?

During the chalk talk Kate mentioned that South Carolina would hang all over Jump, and we would need to run some screens for her.  We did once or twice and it worked.  Why did we not do more of that?  This reminds me so much of Karlie's senior year--good teams shut her down by denying her the ball.

Betts was 2/2.  Why did we not give her more minutes?  What was it about her brief time in the game that made Tara decide she was not ready for more?  Was she victimized on defense?

The game was not officiated well, although presumably the bad calls evened out.

I entirely agree that the game may have turned on the ref's call that gave Emma-Nnopu two shots rather than an and-one.  That was an egregious call coming at a critical moment.  At first I did not understand what had happened, since the correct call was so obvious.

Boston in the fourth quarter was getting away with ridiculous fouling when on defense.  In one case she draped her arms over the shoulders of Jones, from behind, holding both arms back.  I guess players-of-the-year can get away with that.  I think South Carolina's defense "improved" in the fourth quarter when the refs stopped calling the game so tightly.  But while Boston could pin both arms of her mark, Brink got ejected for brushing a forearm while blocking a shot.

Conclusion:

South Carolina played two worthy opponents before us, this was our first real test.  We need a lot more games like this to challenge us and help us develop--we are a significantly younger team that South Carolina.  In fact, even before the game I was mulling over whether a win or a loss would be more valuable to us, given that we have crushed a lot of weaklings before now and could become overconfident.  I am concerned about seeding implications for the NCAAs, but not too concerned.  As we know from the past, if you aspire to win a natty, it matters not one whet whether you are seeded first or second.  So as a fan I am disappointed--I had hoped for better--but if I were a coach I might be fine with this result, giving me a way of getting the athletes to focus on necessary improvements, and a few were exposed as such.