That is how it is listed on the WNBA web site. They go by where they were playing when drafted.
Which is crazy because they (Seattle) was posting their practice sessions online and the chemistry and flow was on point! Then you see them in an actual game, well like you said, they looked sloppy. They lacked effort. Golden State Valkyries played with more energy & effort than Seattle! The Seattle veterans gotta figure things out and get things on track. It is only one game but talk about bad first impressions. Holy smokes.
Skylar always gets her points regardless of anyone else. She has always been hard to play with where she has been.
It's a nothing burger that people are trying to make into a bigger deal because of who was involved. The call was correct, however I wish the term flagrant wasn't used for that type of foul. It should be seen as unnecessary contact, like in the NFL.
Thanks. I knew I was missing something, so I appreciate your taking the time to explain it to me. I wasn't aware of the flak A'ja was getting last year, and honestly, I don't get it. Shouldn't all players be trying to chase an MVP? Of course, not everyone has the same tools and capacity as A'ja (or Phee, Stewie, Caitlin, AT, JJ, etc) to compete for one, but shouldn't every player compete as hard as she can every game?
If anyone is writing her off after one game, they're biased and/or know nothing about the game itself. Having a favourite is understood, however it's impossible to say who will be MVP after one game in a season.
Yeah. I watched the game and I agree, it was a nothing burger. I was more annoyed with Angel Reese flopping and trying to make it into something. Her post-game conference comments were solid. I also agree on the foul call. The flagrant one was over the top as well as giving Aliyah Boston a technical. I might have missed the reasoning behind the tech call but all I saw was Boston stepping between Reese and Clark. Sure she touched Reese but if that is the standard going forward, I see a whole bunch of techs being issued this season.
Agreed! And all of these women looked the part of MVP in their respective games (and thank you for adding Stewie because she's been missing from MVP discussions). There was no separator, to me. They all have a legit case.
I agree that she's hard to play with, but I think it has more to do with her emotions running wild than her actual game. She did not do a satisfactory job of controlling tempo last night, and what was a chaotic Seattle Storm offensive showing looked even more discombobulated due to her inability to organize her team.
I love her competitive fire. I am sure it rubs some people the wrong way, but you can't deny she is going to give her best out there every game. She gave her all out there the rest of the team, they were MIA. As for her not winning any titles. She came pretty close to winning a title in Unrivaled. I look at players like Dawn Staley, Sylvia Fowles, Seimone Augustus, and Nneka Ogwumike, college years, those players didn't win titles in college. When they got to the pros, minus Dawn, they won titles, but they needed another player to step up and bring that extra. In the case of Fowles and Augustus, that meant adding Maya Moore and Lindsay Whalen. Players that step up and play to their potential. Gabby shocked me. I was not expecting that Gabby. I was looking for the Olympic Gabby. We shall see. It was 1 game. I am sure Seattle, especially their "Big 3" will shine. They got Dallas next.
Wasn't Diggins part of the Mercury team that lost to the Sky in the Finals as well? It's amazing what we'll forget when trying to make a point.
Which is why I think how technicals are defined needs to change. When I hear the word "flagrant", I'm thinking something egregious happened, like Thomas' clothesline on Reese last season.
Cancontent, I am confused by your post. In the WNBA, a flagrant foul is not a technical foul. A flagrant foul results in unnecessary or excessive contact. Unsportsmanlike conduct results in a technical foul. While you can have both on the same play, it makes sense to separate the two. Clark's act was not deemed to be unsportsmanlike, hence no technical. It was, however, deemed to be either unnecessary or excessive.
If I heard Lobo correctly yesterday, there is an emphasis on freedom of movement for the referees. We're going to hear a lot of whistles until players adjust if this is the case.
The definition of what's considered flagrant is my issue, especially because of how people interpret that word. Flagrant gives the impression of intent to cause harm, in my opinion.
Connecticut has looked smoother than I thought they would so far, and Bria was definitely part of that. One of my takeaways from the first two days of the season was that a bunch of teams seem to lack solid posts, but a frontcourt of Tina Charles and Olivia N-O is not a bad place to start with Kariata Diaby and Rayah Marshall ready to deploy—and let's not forget about Aneesah, undersized, but with the heart of a lion. I'll look forward to seeing what's in store for the Sun this season.
Two points: First, a clear path foul is a personal foul, not a technical foul. See Rule #12 (Fouls and Penalties), Section B (Personal Fouls), Section I (Types), Penalties paragraph (6). FWIW, Section A speaks to Technical Fouls.
Thanks for the correction. I'm thinking of the FIBA interpretation where it's considered unsportsmanlike and the player fouled gets 2 free throws.