12-31-2012, 03:19 PM
Sure, there's an obvious talent difference of AAs and future WNBA players -- advantage Geno (most likely will always be there). That's a given, now what do you do to compete? Can you do more to have a chance to win, or at least have a better competitive game with a much closer score?
The Stan players ran Tara's stuff to a fault, and against this Uconn team with the way the game was called -- the system was not effective. What, no plan B?
(Stanford) You come in undefeated, having beaten a #1, and have been in 4-5 final fours in recent years. Why change/adjust your battle plans that works and wins against 95% of teams? Year after year its been shown it works, until you hit the NCAA final 2 teams (or Uconn). Then this same exposure is revealed year after year. If the goal was to show the players (and coaches) where the weaknesses are -- mission accomplished.
I've been waiting for the adjustment when dealing with the 1-5% of teams, when that need arises. Part of it is the coaches allowing adjustments as part of one of their game plans/systems. Another part is players gaining an aggressiveness and confidence to COMPETE when necessary against the 1-5% teams. But this is something that should be practiced and delivered in (parts of) games during the year, and not expect players to react differently in just one game when they are up against it (with a Uconn or in a final 1 or 2 game at year end). It also means AA level players getting to the top level of their potential -- more quickly at Stanford. During the summer, drilling on high level complete player skills -- equally good on all those skills with both hands. This also means high level development of the basketball IQ part of the game (for the AA level Stan players). For example, for Tara's game plan to have had any chance, you can't fade away from contact in the post. The post shots had to be going toward the basket; forcing contact that could not be ignored. Having a post player with purpose go to the basket for a shot with both hands on the ball, looking for contact on the way(most post shots are one-handed filps or hooks). The non-AA players can improve the skills there are best at and pick up another within their grasp. In any given game, you need others to step up with stuff they know they can do. These kinds of things would give the underdog team a better chance to compete against the team with a lot more talent. Stanford is on the more talent side in 95% of games. I've been waiting for years to see when/if the coaches/team can make better systemic changes and player development changes to compete better in the 1-5% of games where they don't have the better talent on the floor. And yes, Stan could have made some changes and still lost big to this Uconn team, and I'd be OK with that. Looking up the court and seeing someone open and getting the ball to them-yes. Making them pay on the press-yes.
But I'm also realistic. The program is wildly successful. The players are young with many other interests and responsibilities.
Multiple final fours is excellent. During that run, Stanford has not had the #1 player in NCAA. Over the last 5-10 years (that's ping-ponged between Tenn(Parker), Uconn(Tina,Maya) and Baylor(Griner). So Stan can accept the reality of being the underdog in those signature final 1-2 games.
But I'd love to see a difference in approach in those kind of games, call it the underdog game-plan.
Oh well, one can dream.
The Stan players ran Tara's stuff to a fault, and against this Uconn team with the way the game was called -- the system was not effective. What, no plan B?
(Stanford) You come in undefeated, having beaten a #1, and have been in 4-5 final fours in recent years. Why change/adjust your battle plans that works and wins against 95% of teams? Year after year its been shown it works, until you hit the NCAA final 2 teams (or Uconn). Then this same exposure is revealed year after year. If the goal was to show the players (and coaches) where the weaknesses are -- mission accomplished.
I've been waiting for the adjustment when dealing with the 1-5% of teams, when that need arises. Part of it is the coaches allowing adjustments as part of one of their game plans/systems. Another part is players gaining an aggressiveness and confidence to COMPETE when necessary against the 1-5% teams. But this is something that should be practiced and delivered in (parts of) games during the year, and not expect players to react differently in just one game when they are up against it (with a Uconn or in a final 1 or 2 game at year end). It also means AA level players getting to the top level of their potential -- more quickly at Stanford. During the summer, drilling on high level complete player skills -- equally good on all those skills with both hands. This also means high level development of the basketball IQ part of the game (for the AA level Stan players). For example, for Tara's game plan to have had any chance, you can't fade away from contact in the post. The post shots had to be going toward the basket; forcing contact that could not be ignored. Having a post player with purpose go to the basket for a shot with both hands on the ball, looking for contact on the way(most post shots are one-handed filps or hooks). The non-AA players can improve the skills there are best at and pick up another within their grasp. In any given game, you need others to step up with stuff they know they can do. These kinds of things would give the underdog team a better chance to compete against the team with a lot more talent. Stanford is on the more talent side in 95% of games. I've been waiting for years to see when/if the coaches/team can make better systemic changes and player development changes to compete better in the 1-5% of games where they don't have the better talent on the floor. And yes, Stan could have made some changes and still lost big to this Uconn team, and I'd be OK with that. Looking up the court and seeing someone open and getting the ball to them-yes. Making them pay on the press-yes.
But I'm also realistic. The program is wildly successful. The players are young with many other interests and responsibilities.
Multiple final fours is excellent. During that run, Stanford has not had the #1 player in NCAA. Over the last 5-10 years (that's ping-ponged between Tenn(Parker), Uconn(Tina,Maya) and Baylor(Griner). So Stan can accept the reality of being the underdog in those signature final 1-2 games.
But I'd love to see a difference in approach in those kind of games, call it the underdog game-plan.
Oh well, one can dream.