Danger head to head with Canada wins

[BroadwayVa]

I'm not a pundit but caption read their words: During the game , and in reruns, one or more spoke of Danger and how she was leading Canada in most categories. I'm not happy with stats except during the game, and they were absent this time.
Prior to the game an small number of possible UCLA fans believed Canada, using my phraseology, would wipe the court with Danger--didn't happen .
They all seem to have disappeared --hmmm.
Danger and Walker and Precious were amazing. Led UCla by near 30 until the travel legs set in. Any thoughts on how good or bad Danger was against J.Canada??

 

[Vowelguy]

When a team plays team defense & offense as well as UConn does, I think 1-on-1 comparisons are somewhat meaningless.

 

[oldude]

Before the game I suggested that if Danger held her own with Canada, UConn would win by 20+. Danger more than held her own and, if not for a sloppy last 5 minutes, UConn would have won by 20+. I had worried about the game at TX with Danger matched up with Brook McCarty, but after last night, no worries......

 

[BroadwayVa]

When a team plays team defense & offense as well as UConn does, I think 1-on-1 comparisons are somewhat meaningless.

As in most things MEANINGLESS is in the mind of the poster. In this case you were not asked the meaning--just to evaluated the head to head play.

 

[Kaizen]

When a team plays team defense & offense as well as UConn does, I think 1-on-1 comparisons are somewhat meaningless.

True. It is a team effort.
No sense to compare one to one special after UConn won the game.
But I don't see you said the same thing before the game when someone said: she isn't better than Canada at this point. And, she won't be better than Canada even if she has (hopefully) a better game tomorrow night.

 

[Plebe]

It was decidedly a team effort on defense to slow Canada. Dangerfield was the first line of defense and she did a fine job, but she's no Moriah (yet). I can't emphasize enough how the early help from Crystal's teammates was exquisitely planned and executed, after Canada had some early success on her trademark drive-and-dish game.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

As I read all this learned discourse I keep thinking of one of the great bards of my time:

 

[wallman]

I was pretty impressed with Dangerfields composure. Some of the differences are due to the fact that Jordin has to have the ball too much and Dangerfield doesn't. It can sometimes be a catch 22 for Jordin as she tries to do too much.

 

[SVCBeercats]

When a team plays team defense & offense as well as UConn does, I think 1-on-1 comparisons are somewhat meaningless.

Why is there so many awards for individual players at season's end? How are the chosen? By comparing their teams' efforts? Egads! Could they actually do 1-on-1 comparisons?

 

[Vowelguy]

Why is there so many awards for individual players at season's end? How are the chosen? By comparing their teams' efforts? Egads! Could they actually do 1-on-1 comparisons?

Based on an entire season against multiple teams; not one game.

 

[cbraarj]

IMO, all those individual awards water downs the POY award.

 

[nwhoopfan]

I might be one of the posters being referred to in this thread, although I never remotely suggested Canada would wipe the floor w/ Dangerfield. This is what I saw from watching the game. Dangerfield has a better team around her than Canada does, so there is not as much pressure on her to produce. Dangerfield had a more effective game and shot much better from the field. Both had 4 assists. Dangerfield had 3 TO's, Canada had 4. Canada added 6 rebounds and 5 steals, while Dangerfield had 1 reb. and 0 steals. I think Canada was trying too hard to make things happen at times. She took some bad shots. She also took some decent shots that were heavily contested and she missed. At least some of Dangerfield's 3's were wide open. Since neither player exists in a vacuum, you have to give at least some consideration to the team surrounding them and the team they were playing against. Or you could ignore that.

 

[nwhoopfan]

It can sometimes be a catch 22 for Jordin as she tries to do too much.

It definitely looked like she was trying to do too much at times, but very few opponents she faces this year will play team defense like UConn does.

 

[Kaizen]

I might be one of the posters being referred to in this thread, although I never remotely suggested Canada would wipe the floor w/ Dangerfield. This is what I saw from watching the game. Dangerfield has a better team around her than Canada does, so there is not as much pressure on her to produce. Dangerfield had a more effective game and shot much better from the field. Both had 4 assists. Dangerfield had 3 TO's, Canada had 4. Canada added 6 rebounds and 5 steals, while Dangerfield had 1 reb. and 0 steals. I think Canada was trying too hard to make things happen at times. She took some bad shots. She also took some decent shots that were heavily contested and she missed. At least some of Dangerfield's 3's were wide open. Since neither player exists in a vacuum, you have to give at least some consideration to the team surrounding them and the team they were playing against. Or you could ignore that.

You forgot to mention, if you really want to compare the numbers.
Dangerfield was 5-9 and Canada was 5-16 FG, big difference for a good player.
Dangerfield was wide open? and Canada took some bad shots? What a good excuses. Good players always made herself wide open, and of course the other side always made bad shots.

Or you could ignore that.

 

[Plebe]

You forgot to mention, if you really want to compare the numbers.
Dangerfield was 5-9 and Canada was 5-16 FG, big difference for a good player.
Dangerfield was wide open? and Canada took some bad shots? What a good excuses. Good players always made herself wide open, and of course the other side always made bad shots.

Or you could ignore that.

I don't understand the compulsion to take a five-on-five *team* game and turn it into some kind of one-on-one grudge match.

UConn's entire *team* defensive strategy was designed around stopping Canada, and, save for the first five and last five minutes of the game, this *team* strategy was almost perfectly executed, by all five UConn players on the floor. One of the results of this excellent execution was Canada's low shooting percentage. Needless to say, UCLA's entire team defensive strategy was not designed around Dangerfield, and UConn is not as reliant on any single player as UCLA is on Canada.

To insist on "scoring" two individual players as one would score a boxing fight is to (a) fail to give credit to the outstanding team effort that went into stopping Canada, and (b) insist on an apples-to-oranges comparison.

 

[wallman]

It definitely looked like she was trying to do too much at times, but very few opponents she faces this year will play team defense like UConn does.

Yes she was, but it has become symptomatic due to the lack of shooters on the team. I think there will be scouting plans galore in the PAC. We have some coaches who can really game plan.

 

[Kaizen]

I don't understand the compulsion to take a five-on-five *team* game and turn it into some kind of one-on-one grudge match.

Why don't you ask this question to the person created the post which I replied? Or biases are common in here?

 

[Phil]

I don't understand the compulsion to take a five-on-five *team* game and turn it into some kind of one-on-one grudge match.

UConn's entire *team* defensive strategy was designed around stopping Canada, and, save for the first five and last five minutes of the game, this *team* strategy was almost perfectly executed, by all five UConn players on the floor. One of the results of this excellent execution was Canada's low shooting percentage. Needless to say, UCLA's entire team defensive strategy was not designed around Dangerfield, and UConn is not as reliant on any single player as UCLA is on Canada.

To insist on "scoring" two individual players as one would score a boxing fight is to (a) fail to give credit to the outstanding team effort that went into stopping Canada, and (b) insist on an apples-to-oranges comparison.

I do.

Anyone who has followed UConn basketball for any length of time knows that one of the keys to the success of the Geno/CD/Shea/Marisa crew is the ability to understand that it is a team game. Yes, they are excellent at development of individual players – few better, but they didn't get to where they are today by developing five great one-on-one players. They teach help defense, so players can defend aggressively, knowing that there is some help behind them if they get beat. They learn how to double selectively, and for very short periods of time, so the opposition thinks that multiple players are being double-teamed.

On offense, the motion offense is not intended to get any one specific player open, but to run the opposition ragged until one player, it doesn't matter which one, gets an open shot.

These techniques are successful, and help explain why we are always among the leaders in both offense and defense, but as fans, it may be hard to tease out exactly what led to that open shot, or why the opposition settled for a contested shot.

As fans, we want to talk about our team, and there's only so much you can say about team offense and team defense without repeating yourself, so we do want to talk about individual players, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Canada is the face of UCLA, and when you add in her penchant for razzle-dazzle, it is inevitable that we will want to discuss her performance. It is only natural that we would also be interested in how her counterpart on our team does.

Yes, there would be a problem if we talked only about one-on-one matchups, but we don't. I don't see a problems with discussing those matchups, and long as we recognize (and I think we do) that there's more to the game than the sum of 5 one-on-one matchups.

 

[Plebe]

I do.

Anyone who has followed UConn basketball for any length of time knows that one of the keys to the success of the Geno/CD/Shea/Marisa crew is the ability to understand that it is a team game. Yes, they are excellent at development of individual players – few better, but they didn't get to where they are today by developing five great one-on-one players. They teach help defense, so players can defend aggressively, knowing that there is some help behind them if they get beat. They learn how to double selectively, and for very short periods of time, so the opposition thinks that multiple players are being double-teamed.

On offense, the motion offense is not intended to get any one specific player open, but to run the opposition ragged until one player, it doesn't matter which one, gets an open shot.

These techniques are successful, and help explain why we are always among the leaders in both offense and defense, but as fans, it may be hard to tease out exactly what led to that open shot, or why the opposition settled for a contested shot.

As fans, we want to talk about our team, and there's only so much you can say about team offense and team defense without repeating yourself, so we do want to talk about individual players, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Canada is the face of UCLA, and when you add in her penchant for razzle-dazzle, it is inevitable that we will want to discuss her performance. It is only natural that we would also be interested in how her counterpart on our team does.

Yes, there would be a problem if we talked only about one-on-one matchups, but we don't. I don't see a problems with discussing those matchups, and long as we recognize (and I think we do) that there's more to the game than the sum of 5 one-on-one matchups.

Yes, you understand these nuances, clearly. I question whether others do, based on the founding of an entire thread about who "won" a "heat to head" [sic] matchup and about dubious claims that anyone here ever thought Canada would "wipe the floor" with Dangerfield.

 

[Kaizen]

Yes, you understand these nuances, clearly. I question whether others do, based on the founding of an entire thread about who "won" a "heat to head" [sic] matchup and about dubious claims that anyone here ever thought Canada would "wipe the floor" with Dangerfield.

Not sure you understand this: I think 1-on-1 comparisons are somewhat meaningless.
Or you pretend you don't.

 

[BroadwayVa]

As I read all this learned discourse I keep thinking of one of the great bards of my time:

Discourse?? Can't you get sued for that??
Did shakespear

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Discourse?? Can't you get sued for that??
Did shakespear

LOL

 

[BroadwayVa]

When a team plays team defense & offense as well as UConn does, I think 1-on-1 comparisons are somewhat meaningless.

Sorry, missed your meaning completely--while it was as plain as can be. I agree, Uconn's d and O are as well as can be--and the only comparison is the score. Sorry.