Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Redux, post: 4285194, member: 11089"] "Nasty" on defense became, I think, an energy-packed word to describe a practical substitute for not being able to play UConn basketball (mainly smooth, seamless switching & communications) with consistency. I think they did get nasty and it was very effective. These were good individual players and in addition to the staff's ceaseless and somewhat ineffective efforts to instill UConn defense they are [I]also[/I] well-coached on the fundamentals as they apply to individual play. They played aggressive, hard, effective defense once they were reasonably healthy. I think Geno probably loved what they were doing but deep inside wished they would learn and commit to doing it his way instead. But it was pretty damned great. On offense it was a different story. "Nasty" pretty much meant sloppy but intense, highly individualized-skilled schoolyard play. Hard-assed but sometimes half-assed. Passing a lot to little effect until the shot clock ran out or somebody got a halfway decent shot, whichever happened to come first. And, again, because these are such superbly skilled players who played their hearts out, they put up a lot of points by any reasonable standards. Only a priggish, spoiled, semi-knowledgable [I]purist[/I] would have any real trouble with that. I loved the players, all, coachable or not. But I've been following UConn women's basketball for a very long time because I like the type of game they play. And it's not nasty, it's simply beautiful. They're about 75% there on defense and we'll see what happens otherwise. They've got the shooters and the bodies to [I]maybe[/I] win it all, nasty; but I'm hoping they start listening to Geno and the staff and [I]then[/I] there will be no maybes about it. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach