Lessons and Non-Lessons From Arizona Game

[JoePgh]

I recently went where Nika had refused to tread -- I rewatched the entire Arizona game not once but twice. I also studied the box score on the UConn web site, which gives information on shooting percentages by quarter. That leads me to question the conventional wisdom on this board about how/why UConn lost the game.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the UConn defense was torched by Aari McDonald, a quick guard in the mold of Arike or Morgan William (a mold that is said always to give UConn trouble), and that was basically the beginning and the end of the game story. On the surface, that story is plausible -- after all, McDonald did have 26 points to lead all scorers. But this "single diagnosis" story omits any mention of UConn's offensive problems except for an obligatory note about Olivia's ineffectiveness.

After a closer look, I believe that the significance of these two stories should be reversed. UConn's offensive problems (specifically in the first half) were the main cause of the loss, and McDonald's play is a fairly distant second in significance behind that.

Here is the first surprise that I found in the box score: UConn and Arizona were equal in made FG's for the entire game (both teams had 20), and AZ had only 2 more 3-point makes than UConn (7 vs. 5). Together, field goals of both varieties account for only a 2-point difference in scoring between the two teams. The major component of Arizona's 10-point margin of victory was at the free throw line, where AZ made 22 of 31 free throws in comparison with UConn's 14 of 20. That difference accounts for 8 of the 10 points by which AZ won the game.

Moreover, 19 of Arizona's 31 free throw attempts came in the fourth quarter, strongly suggesting that they were the result of deliberate fouling by UConn to stop the clock and regain possession as the time remaining in the game dwindled towards 0:00. If UConn had not been operating at a deficit throughout the game (a deficit accumulated entirely in the first half), that fouling would not have been necessary and that game would have remained extremely close until the final buzzer.

In the first half, Arizona scored 32 points -- which is a respectable total in a Final Four contest but hardly an overwhelming offensive performance. Arizona did this mainly from the 3-point arc, going 6-for-13 from deep. Aari McDonald hit 4-of-7 from 3, which constituted all of her 3-point makes for the entire game. In the second half, she scored a total of 2 points in the third quarter, both from the free throw line. In the fourth quarter, she made two 2-point field goals and 5 free throws. So her total offensive output in the second half was 11 points -- not exactly a supernova of scoring, and several of those were the result of deliberate fouls near the end of the game.

Arizona's game total of 69 points was higher than it should have been, but bear in mind that the score was 60-55 in their favor with 1:23 left in the game, and their last 12 points were scored from the free throw line. Without the deliberate fouling, they probably would have finished the game with 64 or 65 points -- a total that a competent UConn offense should have been able to overcome.

BUT ....

UConn scored only 22 points in the first half, its lowest scoring output of any half in the entire season. Its shooting percentage in the first half was 32%!! From the 3-point line, UConn was 1-of-3. The low number of 3-point attempts was part of the problem with the offense, and I don't really have an explanation for it.

UConn's offense got much better in the second half. UConn shot 39%, including 4-for-9 on 3-point attempts. Open 3-point shots were available and were being taken.

UConn had 10 turnovers in the first half, i.e., they had more turnovers than made FG's in that half. But in the second half, UConn had only 2 turnovers (none in the 3rd quarter).

UConn scored 37 points in the second half, a very respectable offensive output for a Final Four game (equating to 74 points for the game if the first half had been similar). AZ also scored 37 points in the second half, so the 10-point first half lead was maintained. However, as noted above, many of these points were from the free throw line and were the result of deliberate UConn fouling. Without that factor, UConn would have won the second half, although perhaps not by 10 points.

Watching the replays, I did not see anything magical that AZ was doing in the first half to limit UConn's offense, and the improved performance in the second half reinforces the conclusion that it was bad offense by UConn rather than great defense by AZ that caused the 10-point deficit at halftime.

McDonald did get hot from the 3-point line in the first half, and that also contributed to the 10-point margin. But it didn't last for the whole game (such streaks usually don't), and it wasn't a major obstacle. If UConn had been able to match AZ's 32-point first half (even with McDonald hitting those 3's), then I think they would have won the game by about 5 points because they wouldn't have had to foul at the end of the game.

The bottom line is that I don't think the near-panic on this board about not being able to defend players like McDonald is warranted. Unless there is a guard like that on a team that has other potent offensive weapons, UConn should be able to neutralize the threat and overcome it with its own balanced offense. (Do Stanford or South Carolina have any McDonald-like guards? Really?) And of course, scoring from the post (absent in the AZ game) would also make a big difference.

 

[jchusky]

Seems a lot of have penciled South Carolina and Stanford as matchups for Uconn. While they are the favorites I would caution a team like Maryland who had the most points per game is surprisingly being slept on.

 

[Drew8]

Probably should play some of the tougher defenses in the future to be prepared.

 

[Monte]

You make some nice points about the Arizona game.

In the ARKANSAS loss, I do believe the theory of not stopping ONE player is more relevant. Dungee scored 37 points, and after a while it seemed the UCONN defense just stood around and watched her.

 

[UConn82]

I think Nika is making a big, big mistake by not watching the Arizona game. IIRC, Kia Nurse et al. refused to watch the Mississippi State game. That was also a big mistake. IIRC, Lou and Phee did watch the ND game following the next year's FF exit.

One way to improve, as we all know, is to learn from mistakes/poor performance, etc.

When Stewie et al. were seniors, we beat Mississippi by 60 (I was at that game and we could have beat them by 100. We were up 30 after the first quarter.). Vic and his team watched that game many, many times. We saw the result the next year.

Thoughts?

 

[HuskylnSC]

Great job @JoePgh

 

[PacoSwede]

I think Nika is making a big, big mistake by not watching the Arizona game. IIRC, Kia Nurse et al. refused to watch the Mississippi State game. That was also a big mistake. IIRC, Lou and Phee did watch the ND game following the next year's FF exit.

One way to improve, as we all know, is to learn from mistakes/poor performance, etc.

When Stewie et al. were seniors, we beat Mississippi by 60 (I was at that game and we could have beat them by 100. We were up 30 after the first quarter.). Vic and his team watched that game many, many times. We saw the result the next year.

Thoughts?

nika and the rest of the team have watched the game, of course. you take a joking reference by nika as gospel? ... geez!

they ain't idiots!

 

[hjoerring]

I recently went where Nika had refused to tread -- I rewatched the entire Arizona game not once but twice. I also studied the box score on the UConn web site, which gives information on shooting percentages by quarter. That leads me to question the conventional wisdom on this board about how/why UConn lost the game.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the UConn defense was torched by Aari McDonald, a quick guard in the mold of Arike or Morgan William (a mold that is said always to give UConn trouble), and that was basically the beginning and the end of the game story. On the surface, that story is plausible -- after all, McDonald did have 26 points to lead all scorers. But this "single diagnosis" story omits any mention of UConn's offensive problems except for an obligatory note about Olivia's ineffectiveness.

After a closer look, I believe that the significance of these two stories should be reversed. UConn's offensive problems (specifically in the first half) were the main cause of the loss, and McDonald's play is a fairly distant second in significance behind that.

Here is the first surprise that I found in the box score: UConn and Arizona were equal in made FG's for the entire game (both teams had 20), and AZ had only 2 more 3-point makes than UConn (7 vs. 5). Together, field goals of both varieties account for only a 2-point difference in scoring between the two teams. The major component of Arizona's 10-point margin of victory was at the free throw line, where AZ made 22 of 31 free throws in comparison with UConn's 14 of 20. That difference accounts for 8 of the 10 points by which AZ won the game.

Moreover, 19 of Arizona's 31 free throw attempts came in the fourth quarter, strongly suggesting that they were the result of deliberate fouling by UConn to stop the clock and regain possession as the time remaining in the game dwindled towards 0:00. If UConn had not been operating at a deficit throughout the game (a deficit accumulated entirely in the first half), that fouling would not have been necessary and that game would have remained extremely close until the final buzzer.

In the first half, Arizona scored 32 points -- which is a respectable total in a Final Four contest but hardly an overwhelming offensive performance. Arizona did this mainly from the 3-point arc, going 6-for-13 from deep. Aari McDonald hit 4-of-7 from 3, which constituted all of her 3-point makes for the entire game. In the second half, she scored a total of 2 points in the third quarter, both from the free throw line. In the fourth quarter, she made two 2-point field goals and 5 free throws. So her total offensive output in the second half was 11 points -- not exactly a supernova of scoring, and several of those were the result of deliberate fouls near the end of the game.

Arizona's game total of 69 points was higher than it should have been, but bear in mind that the score was 60-55 in their favor with 1:23 left in the game, and their last 12 points were scored from the free throw line. Without the deliberate fouling, they probably would have finished the game with 64 or 65 points -- a total that a competent UConn offense should have been able to overcome.

BUT ....

UConn scored only 22 points in the first half, its lowest scoring output of any half in the entire season. Its shooting percentage in the first half was 32%!! From the 3-point line, UConn was 1-of-3. The low number of 3-point attempts was part of the problem with the offense, and I don't really have an explanation for it.

UConn's offense got much better in the second half. UConn shot 39%, including 4-for-9 on 3-point attempts. Open 3-point shots were available and were being taken.

UConn had 10 turnovers in the first half, i.e., they had more turnovers than made FG's in that half. But in the second half, UConn had only 2 turnovers (none in the 3rd quarter).

UConn scored 37 points in the second half, a very respectable offensive output for a Final Four game (equating to 74 points for the game if the first half had been similar). AZ also scored 37 points in the second half, so the 10-point first half lead was maintained. However, as noted above, many of these points were from the free throw line and were the result of deliberate UConn fouling. Without that factor, UConn would have won the second half, although perhaps not by 10 points.

Watching the replays, I did not see anything magical that AZ was doing in the first half to limit UConn's offense, and the improved performance in the second half reinforces the conclusion that it was bad offense by UConn rather than great defense by AZ that caused the 10-point deficit at halftime.

McDonald did get hot from the 3-point line in the first half, and that also contributed to the 10-point margin. But it didn't last for the whole game (such streaks usually don't), and it wasn't a major obstacle. If UConn had been able to match AZ's 32-point first half (even with McDonald hitting those 3's), then I think they would have won the game by about 5 points because they wouldn't have had to foul at the end of the game.

The bottom line is that I don't think the near-panic on this board about not being able to defend players like McDonald is warranted. Unless there is a guard like that on a team that has other potent offensive weapons, UConn should be able to neutralize the threat and overcome it with its own balanced offense. (Do Stanford or South Carolina have any McDonald-like guards? Really?) And of course, scoring from the post (absent in the AZ game) would also make a big difference.

I see where you are taking us, but there are 2 games here-- the actual game and the one on film. GA has, on multiple ocassions, stated the reasons for the loss. Of course we do not have to accept his spin. One of these handle on maturity. The latter you cannot read-off films. Let me say that I saw a player doing whatever she wanted and whenever she wanted to do a b c, etc. That must have impacted her teammates who stepped up. I believe CW played well and, may have had to sit longer than the team could afforded (I might be confusing this w/ the Baylor game. In any regards, you will have to convince me that reasoning like: "I think they [Uconn?] would have won the game by about 5 points because they wouldn't have had to foul at the end of the game" makes more sense than 'if we had put 102 points on the Board we would have won the game ....' A game is a lot more than the final score. I also would refrain from putting the mentioned guards in the same bowl. McDonald carried out her act within the unfolding of the game and what was needed at any given time. Arike is a one woman show and her final antics usually steal the show. The AK guards slaughtered us the entire game and we were shell shocked.

 

[oldude]

Nice analysis. I would add a couple comments.

- While we tend to focus on McDonald’s 26 pts, the rest of the AZ team stepped up, shooting a comparable % from the field as McDonald ( 11/25 vs 7/17) and also getting to the FT line and making them.

- UConn’s inability to take advantage of their size advantage early on forced the Huskies to play more of a perimeter game where AZ’s strength and athleticism largely contained UConn.

AZ had more experience, strength and toughness than UConn last season. With everyone back, I don’t expect lack of experience to be an issue for UConn this season, and Andrea Hudy has been working intensely to improve overall team strength. As for toughness, the coaches can certainly preach it, but in the end each player has to develop the mindset required to play with an unrelenting toughness every time they step on the court.

 

[CocoHusky]

Excellent analysis @JoePgh but I'd have to disagree with you last conclusion.
You analysis which correctly points out:

"The major component of Arizona's 10-point margin of victory was at the free throw line.

This does not support your conclusion.

"The bottom line is that I don't think the near-panic on this board about not being able to defend players like McDonald is warranted.

It not near panic it is reality. Ari McDonald had 11 FT attempts in this UCONN loss. This was a season high for a UCONN opponent. A big part of playing better defense on these guards is also not sending them to the foul line as much. Not coincidentally these three other UCONN opponents (all Guards) also spent too much time at the FT line. Parker-Lane (Seton Hall) 10 FT attempts, Dungee (Arkansas) 10 FT attempts, Carrington (Baylor) 10 FT attempts. Now lets compare those four players (Dungee McDonald, Parker-Lane, Carrington) and add in Caitlin Clark. All five players had roughly the same number of FG attempts in games against UCONN (21,17, 20, 22, 21). The four players made FGs (13, 7, 9, 7, 7) in those games. With the exception of Dungee the UCONN FG defense was fairly good but sending a single player to the line for double digits FT attempts prove costly against both Arkansas and Arizona, nearly costly against Baylor and Seton Hall was not good enough of a team for it to matter. Caitlin Clark only went to the free throw line 4 times and the entire Iowa team had 9 FT attempts for the game. Sending a single player to the FT line that many times has a compounding demoralizing effect especially when that player is the other teams primary ball handler. The compounding effects are that it allows the other team to set the pace of the game and it allows the other teams best player to rest. When ND "though" they had caught up with UCONN circa 2011-13 this was largely the strategy that ND employed -get Natalie Novosel and Skylar Diggins to the FT line. That was at a time when UCONN had Kelly Faris a world class defender on the squad. Even with Kelly on the Squad the team had to come to the realization that KML, Bria, and MoJeff had to play better defense.

I understand with your point that better offense (shooting) in the first half and not playing from a deficit may have prevented UCONN from having to foul as much but that not the way this game unfolded. You can't always count on on being ahead or close. On the rare occasions were you do find yourself behind the need for better defense becomes greater. Fouling to stop the clock in this game was an act of desperation. Better defense will only result from design, commitment and effort and UCONN needs it.

 

[PvP]

I recently went where Nika had refused to tread -- I rewatched the entire Arizona game not once but twice. I also studied the box score on the UConn web site, which gives information on shooting percentages by quarter. That leads me to question the conventional wisdom on this board about how/why UConn lost the game.

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the UConn defense was torched by Aari McDonald, a quick guard in the mold of Arike or Morgan William (a mold that is said always to give UConn trouble), and that was basically the beginning and the end of the game story. On the surface, that story is plausible -- after all, McDonald did have 26 points to lead all scorers. But this "single diagnosis" story omits any mention of UConn's offensive problems except for an obligatory note about Olivia's ineffectiveness.

After a closer look, I believe that the significance of these two stories should be reversed. UConn's offensive problems (specifically in the first half) were the main cause of the loss, and McDonald's play is a fairly distant second in significance behind that.

Here is the first surprise that I found in the box score: UConn and Arizona were equal in made FG's for the entire game (both teams had 20), and AZ had only 2 more 3-point makes than UConn (7 vs. 5). Together, field goals of both varieties account for only a 2-point difference in scoring between the two teams. The major component of Arizona's 10-point margin of victory was at the free throw line, where AZ made 22 of 31 free throws in comparison with UConn's 14 of 20. That difference accounts for 8 of the 10 points by which AZ won the game.

Moreover, 19 of Arizona's 31 free throw attempts came in the fourth quarter, strongly suggesting that they were the result of deliberate fouling by UConn to stop the clock and regain possession as the time remaining in the game dwindled towards 0:00. If UConn had not been operating at a deficit throughout the game (a deficit accumulated entirely in the first half), that fouling would not have been necessary and that game would have remained extremely close until the final buzzer.

In the first half, Arizona scored 32 points -- which is a respectable total in a Final Four contest but hardly an overwhelming offensive performance. Arizona did this mainly from the 3-point arc, going 6-for-13 from deep. Aari McDonald hit 4-of-7 from 3, which constituted all of her 3-point makes for the entire game. In the second half, she scored a total of 2 points in the third quarter, both from the free throw line. In the fourth quarter, she made two 2-point field goals and 5 free throws. So her total offensive output in the second half was 11 points -- not exactly a supernova of scoring, and several of those were the result of deliberate fouls near the end of the game.

Arizona's game total of 69 points was higher than it should have been, but bear in mind that the score was 60-55 in their favor with 1:23 left in the game, and their last 12 points were scored from the free throw line. Without the deliberate fouling, they probably would have finished the game with 64 or 65 points -- a total that a competent UConn offense should have been able to overcome.

BUT ....

UConn scored only 22 points in the first half, its lowest scoring output of any half in the entire season. Its shooting percentage in the first half was 32%!! From the 3-point line, UConn was 1-of-3. The low number of 3-point attempts was part of the problem with the offense, and I don't really have an explanation for it.

UConn's offense got much better in the second half. UConn shot 39%, including 4-for-9 on 3-point attempts. Open 3-point shots were available and were being taken.

UConn had 10 turnovers in the first half, i.e., they had more turnovers than made FG's in that half. But in the second half, UConn had only 2 turnovers (none in the 3rd quarter).

UConn scored 37 points in the second half, a very respectable offensive output for a Final Four game (equating to 74 points for the game if the first half had been similar). AZ also scored 37 points in the second half, so the 10-point first half lead was maintained. However, as noted above, many of these points were from the free throw line and were the result of deliberate UConn fouling. Without that factor, UConn would have won the second half, although perhaps not by 10 points.

Watching the replays, I did not see anything magical that AZ was doing in the first half to limit UConn's offense, and the improved performance in the second half reinforces the conclusion that it was bad offense by UConn rather than great defense by AZ that caused the 10-point deficit at halftime.

McDonald did get hot from the 3-point line in the first half, and that also contributed to the 10-point margin. But it didn't last for the whole game (such streaks usually don't), and it wasn't a major obstacle. If UConn had been able to match AZ's 32-point first half (even with McDonald hitting those 3's), then I think they would have won the game by about 5 points because they wouldn't have had to foul at the end of the game.

The bottom line is that I don't think the near-panic on this board about not being able to defend players like McDonald is warranted. Unless there is a guard like that on a team that has other potent offensive weapons, UConn should be able to neutralize the threat and overcome it with its own balanced offense. (Do Stanford or South Carolina have any McDonald-like guards? Really?) And of course, scoring from the post (absent in the AZ game) would also make a big difference.

First of all your numbers don't add up. You say that field goals were equal and Arizona had two more 3 pointers than UConn. Then you say that "Together, field goals of both varieties account for only a 2-point difference in scoring between the two teams" But a difference of 2 more 3 pointers accounts for a 6 point difference not 2 points. So somewhere you have your figures wrong.

Second, it is my opinion that the actual reason we lost to Arizona was quite different. With about 4 minutes left in the game, a fifth foul was called on Christyn Williams who was our leading scorer for the game. Repeated TV replays showed that she never touched the Arizona player and she said after the game that she was acutely aware of having 4 fouls so was extremely careful not to foul anyone. it is my contention that Williams being forced without justification from the game not only removed someone who could have and very likely would have made more shots than whomever replaced her, but also removed UConn's only genuine scoring threat aside from Paige, and allowed Arizona to put far more defensive pressure on Paige than if Christyn had remained in the game. I understand that "phantom penalties" are part of the game but that doesn't mean that they cannot, and in this case did not, alter the final outcome. As you point out, UConn got within 5 points with about 2 minutes left. It is my contention that with both Christyn and Paige in the game, that margin was easily within UConn's ability to overcome.

 

[jchusky]

I think Nika is making a big, big mistake by not watching the Arizona game. IIRC, Kia Nurse et al. refused to watch the Mississippi State game. That was also a big mistake. IIRC, Lou and Phee did watch the ND game following the next year's FF exit.

One way to improve, as we all know, is to learn from mistakes/poor performance, etc.

When Stewie et al. were seniors, we beat Mississippi by 60 (I was at that game and we could have beat them by 100. We were up 30 after the first quarter.). Vic and his team watched that game many, many times. We saw the result the next year.

Thoughts?

100% agreed, it's time to stop and move on from that loss. It happened 7 MONTHS AGO.

 

[Oracle9]

100% agreed, it's time to stop and move on from that loss. It happened 7 MONTHS AGO.

Yep that part "it's time to stop and move on from that loss" Let's pull up those big boy/girl pants, take the L and move on and stop the over rationalizing. No matter what scenarios are put forth, doesn't change anything. It's not as if UCONN has never lost (I know, I know it's not the UCONN high bar). These are the takeaway's we should have - never mind how talented they were- they were young and inexperienced, the whippersnappers (dare I say) overachieved and entertained. I enjoyed the run. Because honestly I didn't see them getting past Baylor. Plus they kept the FF streak alive. They did good, now let's look forward to the smashing season this well of 1 yr wiser,experienced,hungry talent is bringing. #bleedblue

 

[Inthepaint]

Yep that part "it's time to stop and move on from that loss" Let's pull up those big boy/girl pants, take the L and move on and stop the over rationalizing. No matter what scenarios are put forth, doesn't change anything. It's not as if UCONN has never lost (I know, I know it's not the UCONN high bar). These are the takeaway's we should have - never mind how talented they were- they were young and inexperienced, the whippersnappers (dare I say) overachieved and entertained. I enjoyed the run. Because honestly I didn't see them getting past Baylor. Plus they kept the FF streak alive. They did good, now let's look forward to the smashing season this well of 1 yr wiser,experienced,hungry talent is bringing. #bleedblue

Since the Ft. Hays State game won't be streamed or televised live, I'm going to bite the bullet this weekend and watch the d___ned Arizona game for the first & only time since it happened. Should rile me up and make me hungry for redemption.
Woulda, Shoulda, Coulda...2020-2021 is in the rear view mirror.
Only thing to take the bad taste out of our mouths will start with a convincing "W" vs the Razorbacks on 11/14.
Liv will do what Liv will do. Nika may light the fuse. AE may write a new page in Storrs lore. Dorka will be a boon or a bust.
Paige and Azzi could channel Sue & Diana or get in each other's way.
If everybody stays healthy and keeps their focus, this incarnation has the talent and chops to bring the trophy back home..where it belongs.
Welcome to another season of Huskies BB!!

 

[Dokey]

Geno blamed the loss on the immaturity of his players but after a nearly full season, it falls upon the coaching staff to prepare the team. What I saw on the sideline was a coach so in shock, a deer with his eyes caught in the headlights, who seemed at a total loss as to what to do. No, don’t say it. I am a Geno fan I think he is the best coach in the country, at least in the top two with Tara, but in this game he lost it. It wasn’t Arizona’s offense that won the game, it wasn’t our defense that lost the game. It was our poor offense and that was clear almost from the beginning. Even before the end of the first quarter, I knew it was over. Geno failed to adjust. Liv was more than useless, the passing subpar, ball movement non-existent. Yet Geno stuck with his game plan. Anna sat on the bench, watching and deciding her future was in Polish professional league. Other changes needed to be made and weren’t until it was too late. Everyone, no matter how great, has a bad day but to blame it on the supposed immaturity of his players and then make them believe that was beneath him. Let the howls of protest begin. You saw your game, I saw mine.

 

[Plebe]

I think Nika is making a big, big mistake by not watching the Arizona game. IIRC, Kia Nurse et al. refused to watch the Mississippi State game. That was also a big mistake. IIRC, Lou and Phee did watch the ND game following the next year's FF exit.

One way to improve, as we all know, is to learn from mistakes/poor performance, etc.

This falls into the broad category of things that I leave to the discretion of the coaching staff.

If Geno and CD think it's a "big, big mistake" for Nika to not watch the replay, I'm sure they're more than capable of prevailing upon Nike to do so. The coaching staff is charged with player and team development.

 

[Monte]

Geno blamed the loss on the immaturity of his players but after a nearly full season, it falls upon the coaching staff to prepare the team. What I saw on the sideline was a coach so in shock, a deer with his eyes caught in the headlights, who seemed at a total loss as to what to do. No, don’t say it. I am a Geno fan I think he is the best coach in the country, at least in the top two with Tara, but in this game he lost it. It wasn’t Arizona’s offense that won the game, it wasn’t our defense that lost the game. It was our poor offense and that was clear almost from the beginning. Even before the end of the first quarter, I knew it was over. Geno failed to adjust. Liv was more than useless, the passing subpar, ball movement non-existent. Yet Geno stuck with his game plan. Anna sat on the bench, watching and deciding her future was in Polish professional league. Other changes needed to be made and weren’t until it was too late. Everyone, no matter how great, has a bad day but to blame it on the supposed immaturity of his players and then make them believe that was beneath him. Let the howls of protest begin. You saw your game, I saw mine.

I, and a few people I have talked to agree with the way Geno acted during this game. It doesn't happen that often, but if a possible loss is on the horizon, he seems to throw his hands up into the air, and let it be.
Your key phrase was: "failed to adjust.".......Sometimes I wonder if he really listens to the assistant coaches.
But. you're right; he is the best, and these happenings are rare.

 

[msf22b]

I recently went where Nika had refused to tread -- I rewatched the entire Arizona game not once but twice. I also studied the box score on the UConn web site, which gives information on shooting percentages by quarter. That leads me to question the conventional wisdom on this board about how/why UConn lost the game.

After a closer look, I believe that the significance of these two stories should be reversed. UConn's offensive problems (specifically in the first half) were the main cause of the loss, and McDonald's play is a fairly distant second in significance behind that.
________________________

Joe

Having provided the general framework for your most likely correct analysis,
I think the next step is to lay out what went wrong offensively in the 1st half.

Without having rewatched as you...on my agenda for sure, I certainly recall Olivia being particularly
ineffective, missing bunnies, losing confidence and becoming passive against much slighter opposition. That and Nika's being far less than 100% certainly hurt.

I certainly do not want to dump the loss on one player...losing is a team effort
but if an interior player is dominating, team offensive effectiveness is usually elevated.

 

[SCyankee]

I, and a few people I have talked to agree with the way Geno acted during this game. It doesn't happen that often, but if a possible loss is on the horizon, he seems to throw his hands up into the air, and let it be.
Your key phrase was: "failed to adjust.".......Sometimes I wonder if he really listens to the assistant coaches.
But. you're right; he is the best, and these happenings are rare.

IMHO The game was lost due to poor offense. Geno had limited offensive options, Anna and Nika were physically limited. This year he has way more options and way more size.

 

[TeamFirst!]

We should be looking at our weaknesses from last year and try to improve them, and I think we did just that. I still think we are exposed to quick, penetrating guard play but not enough where we can't overcome it with overall good play. An area where we are maybe not thinking about enough is turnovers. Fudd doesn't turn the ball over much. She is very efficient with the ball and can clearly shoot well. If we can just protect the ball well it would make a huge difference. I've been watching last year's games on youtube and there are a lot of needless turnovers. Better decision making with the ball will make a crucial difference in big games and we should be able to score better against top defenses this year. I think Geno hit the nail on the head when he said Dorka could be the key difference. The ability to hit an outside jumper and rebound better could have made a difference in that game as well. I think Geno just didn't have the right buttons to push last year. He didn't have a solution. Maybe he does this year.

 

[eebmg]

With Liv not able to exploit our biggest tactical advantage and perhaps not moving off that enough, and Paige not having her usual AA game, the team lost confidence. Coupled with my feeling that they came in a bit overconfident and AZ and McDonald feeling totally disrespected and with UConn being young, it was a multi ingredient flop.

I also seem to recall a pre game interview with Adia Barnes and she was saying that they see alot of the same Pinch-Post actions UConn runs in the PAC-12 so they should be able to deal with it. To be honest, Barnes sounded really sharp on the schematics of the game.

 

[Ozimoto]

I believe Nika said that she had not watched the game when she was interviewed during the summer sessions. I suspect she has watched the game since.

There is no question that Geno is an excellent coach and that he puts together excellent game plans. However, in my opinion, when he gets in a situation where his perception of the opponent and/or his game plan does not pan out, either because of poor execution (rare) or disruption due to the game plan of the opposition (also rare, but an issue in a few of the recent final fours) he is not at his best.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

First of all your numbers don't add up. You say that field goals were equal and Arizona had two more 3 pointers than UConn. Then you say that "Together, field goals of both varieties account for only a 2-point difference in scoring between the two teams" But a difference of 2 more 3 pointers accounts for a 6 point difference not 2 points. So somewhere you have your figures wrong.
...

I think Joe's #'s do add up. Both teams had the same number of FGs. If one team had 2 more 3-pointers, that means they had 2 fewer 2-pointers. So, the 6 points from the extra triples is offset by the loss of 4 points on fewer made 2 point FGs.

 

[eebmg]

I believe Nika said that she had not watched the game when she was interviewed during the summer sessions. I suspect she has watched the game since.

There is no question that Geno is an excellent coach and that he puts together excellent game plans. However, in my opinion, when he gets in a situation where his perception of the opponent and/or his game plan does not pan out, either because of poor execution (rare) or disruption due to the game plan of the opposition (also rare, but an issue in a few of the recent final fours) he is not at his best.

I don't understand this push to rewatch the game. I am sure, the coaches are splicing relevant plays to illustrate lessons from the game to show individually as well as in group. No one needs the game replayed to recall the emotions or increase their desire. They can replay it in their minds for ever

 

[MD#12Fan]

The angle of the cameras when we watch these games (all major sports, I contend) is from too high up. On my bucket list is to see an NBA game from floor level so as to see how truly big these people are. Giannis?
I think, and it was alluded to a few times in this post, that Arizona was stronger than UConn and more physical than UConn and this strength defensively and on the boards took UConn out of its offense. That's what I saw. From ground level, the disparity would have been more obvious.
Geno's offense is based on sharp cutting, screen action, and ball movement. Simply, they negated that and UConn did not have a rebuttal. Finesse. Too much finesse? Like a boxing match between a more skilled pugilist and a stronger, more athletic opponent. The skilled fighter can still prevail.