Discussion in 'UConn Women's Basketball' started by JavaMan, Sep 7, 2017.
She's not that complicated. LOL
Questionable selections in my opinion:
I don't know how USA basketball made their selections but there are several players who have had much better seasons than these ladies.
Don't get me wrong, I love Uconn Wbb but Tuck and Stokes did not really light up the league this year. The potential is there but there are numerous others who have put better career/recent season numbers.
Plum and Weise? vs J.Thomas, B.Sykes, A.Gray? Someone objectively convince me how to justify these picks/omissions.
I do believe there is a bit of politics everywhere. So previous USA BB experience, coaches input, spotlight, reputation etc. There are some very deserving players who are not given a shot.
Actually, you may be leaping to a conclusion. Some invitees may have opted out because of where they think their energy has to be focused in this time period. Some of what dawn said hinted at that I believe.
We only know of two invitees that opted out. As for who were invited, that is not clear. Equally not clear is whether some other invitees opted out. What is clear is that there are several players with much better performance than players on the published list. Yet somehow they are on the list. It is open as to why.
Barring upsets, we should see a Lynx v. Sparks battle for the crown.
That may mean other spots being given, it may not.
When you voluntarily opt out of Worlds, it gives you a red mark for the Olympics. I basically think Parker is retiring from Team USA basketball.
So who should have been left off, and who should have been invited?
Totally petty/petulant and indicative of the attitude that helped cost her a spot on the Olympic team in the first place. Lack of humility, taking responsibility for her past actions, and essentially cutting off her nose to spite her face. #TrueColors...
Yes and yes.
No-one I know was surprised. The surprising part was that USA asked her. Maybe they thought they should out of respect
I wish Moriah had been invited. I know she can't play, but she can observe and coach. I think she's as smart a player as Sue was at that age. When Mo is healthy, she sure looks like the PG of the future, especially the way USABB likes to play.
There was a time when, as an Olympics was 6 months away, USABB would pick a dozen all-stars, bring them together a couple of times for a couple of days and send them to the Games to win gold. Their game plan would be to give 2 or 3 of them 10-15 shots a game. Bring the ball up, clear out for one of them and let them beat their man. The team would rely on superior athleticism and physicality as their defensive plan.
That changed sometime just before or just after Geno was selected as coach. I don't remember where exactly I read it but there was an interview with some of the USABB leadership where they said that they were trying to develop a program that took players at a young age and slowly expose them to a style of play that emphasised a team concept rather than a star concept. I think that there are/were players who didn't accept that style of play which is more like Golden State. "Stars" who were not interested in setting screens and working hard at team defense and made excuses to miss team sessions got left behind (and we all know to whom I am referring).
The best team isn't necessarily the 10 statistically best players. My thoughts about players like Tuck and Stokes being invited has more to do at this point of their careers with their value as practice players than their prospects of making the team. They have a good idea of how to play in a team concept, practice at a very high energy level and are willing to do the things that don't show up in box scores.
I see USABB becoming a true developmental program where players are brought in young and over the course of 10 years are taught to play a style that is reminiscent of UConn-style BB. I think that is the point of the U23 team that played that exhibition tournament in Japan. Those that show up every summer, show ability and buy into the concept will have a heads up when a national team is chosen. The national team will not be the dozen top players but rather the dozen top players who fit the program. Prima donna's need to leave their tiaras at home.
Who was left off/who should have been invited?
Just for giggles pick two:
Morgan adds value well beyond her stats. She is steady as a rock, a calming influence who knows where everyone on the court belongs and what they should be doing. Five years ago, she was the only player who could defend Stewie. She may still be. In that sense, she is like Asjha Jones, a solid but undersized defender.
Kiah had a so-so season this year as she played with Kia Vaughn. If she ups her game, she could be an elite defender, shot-blocker, and rebounder. There's always room for someone who can stop Liz Cambage or the post players who beat our U-19 team.
It really changed prior to the 1996 Olympics - when they pulled together a team and trained them for a year (and their college coach took a year away from Stanford.) From then on with the exception of the 2006 WC team the NT has been a pretty consistent team with at least 8 returning star players and consistently 2 'rookies' being trained for the team. The 2006 WC team stands out because the starting center, PG, and PF and a few others from the 2004 Olympics were not available/not on the 2006 team and they struggled to a Bronze. Most of those players returned for the 2008 Olympics and order was restored.
>The best team isn't necessarily the 10 statistically best players. My thoughts about players like Tuck and Stokes being invited has more to do at this point of their >careers with their value as practice players than their prospects of making the team. They have a good idea of how to play in a team concept, practice at a very >high energy level and are willing to do the things that don't show up in box scores.
Yet even still players who play hard, practice hard, hustle and produce were not invited. This is a Uconn board and I am a Uconn fan but the intangibles argument doesn't cover skipping over players who have just as good intangibles with higher production. As I said before, there is some politics involved in the selection process.
Given the intangibles argument would you agree that the "best player" isn't necessarily the one with the best stats? Should intangibles - team play, hustle, impact etc go into determining who is the best player?
The problem with intangibles is - Well they are intangibles. They are hard to recognize just by watching a few games. Fans who follow a team through out their season ( or multiple seasons ) might recognize what intangibles a team member brings to a team. That is provided they are even capable of recognizing them to begin with. Most fans fans tend to focus purely on stats. Now fans will often recognize and point out the intangibles that certain players on the team they follow bring to the table. But how many fans know the intangibles that players from other teams bring? That is a variable that tends to create a built in bias affecting objectivity in respect to fans in general. Very understandable but still a reality.
Of course Nnecka is smart. She went to Stanford! On the other hand, Parker went to Tennessee. You draw you own conclusion...
Or they can just decline the invite, effectively "retire/quit" USA basketball, and tweet silly comments about "fooling me twice".
Her true colors showed when she averaged a triple double in USA's last overseas Olympic tune up tour and both EDD and Breanna Stewart remarked how much they appreciated Parker as a teammate for her guidance and leadership... which is virtually what every teammate Parker has had says about her, including the smart Stanford graduate Nneka.
And what past actions does she have to take responsibility for? Choosing to have her knee scoped instead of playing at the 2014 World's?
I thought that she showed a not so flattering side of herself when, right after she was not chosen for the team she posted that old video of her dunking at UConn in the final seconds when someone with class wouldn't have rubbed her opponents' noses in it. Reminded me of a spoiled child who has a tantrum when they don't get what they want.
I don't think anyone denies her great talent.
Candice parker is on espn first take now.
Did they ask her about her petty vindictive childish tweet?
There's way more to it than that - you must know this. There are REASONS (as in PLURAL) that she was left off the Olympic team and at least some of them had zero to do with her basketball talent (or any kind of vendetta Geno or the committee was accused of having towards her).
So yeah, her latest unfortunate decision followed immediately by her tweet (that was dripping with petulance and innuendo) do indeed show her true colors. And no, I'm not going to get into it on a public form. But many of us who post frequently on this forum (and probably yours as well) know of the other reasons that transpired outside of the public eye. And that's what I meant by saying her #truecolors are shining thru - and it has zero to do with her basketball talents, which are extensive.
So you can post whatever you like about how great her stats are/were, or some comments that someone had about her, and pretend like that is the universal and absolute truth. But just because someone says something over and over does not make it true, or in this case, universal and absolute. There's a lot more going on beneath the surface when it comes to Parker and USA basketball,and her "falling out" is self inflicted.
Separate names with a comma.