Lessons and Non-Lessons From Arizona Game

[Vowelguy]

I haven’t thought about the loss since then but thought it was fairly well documented at the time that our failure to have a size advantage was a big problem. They had 2 players over 6 feet who played a total of 29 minutes and scored 12 points. But got just 2 rebounds. And yet AZ had more RBs.
UConns 3 bigs played 60 minutes and had 9 points.

On paper, Ono/AE/AG should've dominated.

 

[phil sampieri]

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.

 

[phil sampieri]

I agree with some of your insightful post but my take is when you are defending a guard who is too quick for anyone to guard one on one, you go 1-2-2 zone . Our offense didn’t take advantage of our size at the center position but if we limit pt guard who killed us to just half her points we win. I too have told anyone who would listen that Geno is far and away the best coach in women’s basketball but we all are prone to a mistake at some point.

 

[Alydar]

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.

A flooor level view is fine when you are at the game. On a 2 dimensional video screen without any sense of depth it is horrible.

 

[MD#12Fan]

I agree with you about Geno, both sides. I listen to every word he says.
Sometimes you can't paint a Mona Lisa. Sometimes you gotta just throw paint on the canvas and know that it's gunna look good.
IMO you can't run a pretty, sophisticated passing game if there's a 6'0" athlete standing in front of you all day. Plan B. Attack the rim off the dribble, hit the open man, crash the glass. Same offense every MS in America is running this afternoon. The reason everyone runs it, is because nobody has figured out how to stop it yet.

 

[MD#12Fan]

A flooor level view is fine when you are at the game. On a 2 dimensional video screen without any sense of depth it is horrible.

Exactly! Our brains fill in a lot of the empty space, making it appear 3D to us, but our brains don't always get it right. Another example- do we really know how hard it is to catch Tyreek Hill? We would see and feel his speed and quickness if we actually saw it. I think we'd say, "how does anyone ever catch him".

 

[HopJim]

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 don't sense any "near-panic," but the point about UConn not having a strong, shut down defensive guard is a good one. Per your message, there are times when competitive guards have burnt UConn over the past few years in critical games. While this wasn't the sole reason the Huskies lost, the extra few points a Mo Jeff style player could have stopped may have been critical to the final outcome. While we have the firepower this year to beat anyone, being able to stop a hot player shouldn't be ignored.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

As someone who attended a lot of Rutgers - UConn games including the few that went against UConn, and watched the Arizona game on TV - I will at least slightly agree with someone's comments earlier about Geno. When things don't go the way he thinks they should in a game, it does affect his coaching. Sometimes it "looks" like he has thrown his hands up and doesn't care (I doubt he really has), sometimes he lets his frustration show (or intentionally show his frustration?) and yes, we as non-UConn folks couldn't quite figure it out. Nice to see UConn folks have noticed it - but gosh, really, how often do things not go the way Geno thinks they should in a game?

 

[JoePgh]

As someone who attended a lot of Rutgers - UConn games including the few that went against UConn, and watched the Arizona game on TV - I will at least slightly agree with someone's comments earlier about Geno. When things don't go the way he thinks they should in a game, it does affect his coaching. Sometimes it "looks" like he has thrown his hands up and doesn't care (I doubt he really has), sometimes he lets his frustration show (or intentionally show his frustration?) and yes, we as non-UConn folks couldn't quite figure it out. Nice to see UConn folks have noticed it - but gosh, really, how often do things not go the way Geno thinks they should in a game?

This is another oft-repeated point about Geno's coaching that (IMHO) is more often false than true -- although it may have true in the first half of the Arizona game. His first comments after the game are revealing (unless you consider them totally self-serving and dismiss them for that reason, which I don't):

• He said that Arizona "blew up" the offensive actions that UConn usually prefers. He added that he felt the players should know how to react to that, but they didn't move to "Plan B" when he expected that they should. This is consistent with Adia Barnes's comments before the game that the pinch-post actions that UConn uses were something that her team had seen in the Pac-12, "so we ought to be ready for them." I have a hunch that UConn's preparation for AZ focused on the Wildcats' NCAA Tournament games rather than their Pac-12 games, so the UConn coaches may not have seen how AZ defended offenses similar to UConn's.
• Geno also said that his team didn't have the maturity to deal with an unexpected defense by AZ. I think he meant that if Paige and Evina had more experience against top-flight defenses (something that they don't get in the Big East), they would have reacted more quickly and more correctly to what AZ was doing. Arizona definitely had the advantage of having played more varieties of high-level competition than UConn did.

However, as I said in the original post above, UConn did get its offense humming in the second half of the game, scoring 37 points. Watching the second half, you could see that they were getting many more open 3-point shots (4-for-9 in 2nd half vs. 1-for-3 in first half). That by itself opened up the paint to more offensive action. I attribute this to the fact that Geno had enough time in the locker room at halftime to communicate how to attack the AZ defense. So his adjustment was late, but it did occur. If UConn had played offense the same way in the first half, it would have been a very close game that UConn probably would have won.

I have watched a great many games over the years when UConn was surprised in the first quarter by an unusual defense or offense. In the Stewie years, this would result in a close game at the end of the first quarter, and then a wipeout after that. Almost always, the third quarter would be big for UConn as a result (I think) of Geno's halftime adjustments -- remember when Marina Mabrey torched UConn in the first half and then was shut down by a MoJeff faceguard in the third quarter?. That is why I think Geno is able to make in-game adjustments that work much more often than not. But of course, there are exceptions.

I can also remember a number of games against good competition when Geno had a game plan that flummoxed the opponent, resulting in a first-quarter wipeout in UConn's favor. That looked like it was going to happen in the Baylor Elite Eight game last season until Baylor found its footing and made the game close. But I can recall a game (years ago) when UConn and Duke were #2 and #3 in the country when they played in January, and the score was 23-2 in favor of UConn in the first quarter. More recently, I remember a game against Louisville which was expected to be close, but was something like 26-7 at the end of one quarter, thanks largely to Gabby Williams.

At the risk of sounding like @Dokey, one mistake that I think Geno made in the AZ game was to keep Anna on the bench until the game was out of reach. I don't really understand why he did that, since she had the experience and passing ability to contend with AZ's defensive scheme. But I think it's a good thing for UConn that she stayed in Europe this year, since it will open up minutes for Caroline that she will need to develop her skills. As I have said before, I think Caroline and Anna are almost exactly the same kind of player, so having two of them would have been superfluous (just as having Aubrey and Mir on the current team makes it difficult to find adequate minutes for either one).

 

[Zinethar]

A couple observations after reading all the responses to this post. First, the point about how the score was impacted by the 3 point advantage Arizona had in the game. Taking it slow. if we both take 1 shot and i hit a 2 and you hit a 3 you would have a 1 point lead, not 3 points. If we each shoot 3 shots - me 3 2a and you 3 3s I have 6 points and you have 9. You going 1 point for each 3 vs a 2 not 3 points. I find it fascinating to think that shooting 50% from the 3 point line is equivalent to shooting 75% from 2 points. That is why 3 point shooting is taking over the game.

The 2nd thing I'd like to offer my opinion on is Geno's demeanor at times when the team is being beaten. His frustration when the team is not doing what he told them to do sometimes gets obvious. I doubt it really has anything to do with the score. It has to do with the team doing what they practiced to do. I think when he displays a real obvious reactioon of frustration it is not for our benefit but a clear message to the team - so you think your way is better prove it.

As for Anna not playing maybe she was still having issues with the stress fracture or maybe Geno knew she planned to leave and was trying to get experience for those who he thought would be back the next year to benefit from it. Just a thought.

 

[CocoHusky]

This is another oft-repeated point about Geno's coaching that (IMHO) is more often false than true -- although it may have true in the first half of the Arizona game. His first comments after the game are revealing (unless you consider them totally self-serving and dismiss them for that reason, which I don't):

• He said that Arizona "blew up" the offensive actions that UConn usually prefers. He added that he felt the players should know how to react to that, but they didn't move to "Plan B" when he expected that they should. This is consistent with Adia Barnes's comments before the game that the pinch-post actions that UConn uses were something that her team had seen in the Pac-12, "so we ought to be ready for them." I have a hunch that UConn's preparation for AZ focused on the Wildcats' NCAA Tournament games rather than their Pac-12 games, so the UConn coaches may not have seen how AZ defended offenses similar to UConn's.
• Geno also said that his team didn't have the maturity to deal with an unexpected defense by AZ. I think he meant that if Paige and Evina had more experience against top-flight defenses (something that they don't get in the Big East), they would have reacted more quickly and more correctly to what AZ was doing. Arizona definitely had the advantage of having played more varieties of high-level competition than UConn did.

However, as I said in the original post above, UConn did get its offense humming in the second half of the game, scoring 37 points. Watching the second half, you could see that they were getting many more open 3-point shots (4-for-9 in 2nd half vs. 1-for-3 in first half). That by itself opened up the paint to more offensive action. I attribute this to the fact that Geno had enough time in the locker room at halftime to communicate how to attack the AZ defense. So his adjustment was late, but it did occur. If UConn had played offense the same way in the first half, it would have been a very close game that UConn probably would have won.

I have watched a great many games over the years when UConn was surprised in the first quarter by an unusual defense or offense. In the Stewie years, this would result in a close game at the end of the first quarter, and then a wipeout after that. Almost always, the third quarter would be big for UConn as a result (I think) of Geno's halftime adjustments -- remember when Marina Mabrey torched UConn in the first half and then was shut down by a MoJeff faceguard in the third quarter?. That is why I think Geno is able to make in-game adjustments that work much more often than not. But of course, there are exceptions.

I can also remember a number of games against good competition when Geno had a game plan that flummoxed the opponent, resulting in a first-quarter wipeout in UConn's favor. That looked like it was going to happen in the Baylor Elite Eight game last season until Baylor found its footing and made the game close. But I can recall a game (years ago) when UConn and Duke were #2 and #3 in the country when they played in January, and the score was 23-2 in favor of UConn in the first quarter. More recently, I remember a game against Louisville which was expected to be close, but was something like 26-7 at the end of one quarter, thanks largely to Gabby Williams.

At the risk of sounding like @Dokey, one mistake that I think Geno made in the AZ game was to keep Anna on the bench until the game was out of reach. I don't really understand why he did that, since she had the experience and passing ability to contend with AZ's defensive scheme. But I think it's a good thing for UConn that she stayed in Europe this year, since it will open up minutes for Caroline that she will need to develop her skills. As I have said before, I think Caroline and Anna are almost exactly the same kind of player, so having two of them would have been superfluous (just as having Aubrey and Mir on the current team makes it difficult to find adequate minutes for either one).

Geno makes phenomenal in game adjustments and the majority of the BY (no disrespect intended) are simply not astute enough to first notice and then ultimately comprehend and appreciate the adjustments and the effect it had on the outcome of a game.
Of course being phenomenal at in game adjustments does not mean that some of his adjustments simply did not work out, or on rare occasion he has failed to adjust to an opponent. Geno has also been at this coaching thing for a very long time and that is significant because there is no substitute for in game experience for a coach and Geno has seen more situations than most coaches. Like any craftsman Geno is only as good as his tools and that is significant because there are times he wants to make adjustments and does not have the tools/players to get it done.

 

[Rb335]

Interesting read. I haven’t rewatched, but I felt as though uconn lost that game in the first 10 minutes. They were in a hole and were never able to overcome it. The rest of the game was pretty even or even favored Uconn, but they dug themselves too big of a preliminary hole. Similar to Arkansas if I recall correctly. It seemed like the inexperience and nerves to begin the final four did them in.

In all honesty, we weren’t that far off of a shot at a NC. The extra year of experience and added players gives us another opportunity this season.

 

[Vowelguy]

In all honesty, we weren’t that far off of a shot at a NC. The extra year of experience and added players gives us another opportunity this season.

Also weren’t that far off from getting bounced in the elite 8. Needed an injury and a fortunate non-call.
I think folks have an inflated sense of how good UConn was at the end of the year — not 3rd best but more like 5th or 6th.

 

[MD#12Fan]

Also weren’t that far off from getting bounced in the elite 8. Needed an injury and a fortunate non-call.
I think folks have an inflated sense of how good UConn was at the end of the year — not 3rd best but more like 5th or 6th.

ok, point well taken.
Baylor was a load and UConn handled them. Good teams clash and play close games. We don't have to make excuses for why UConn won that game. Richards can't score and Paige didn't seem that uncomfortable going against her. BTW what about Paige going off in the 4th, UConn going up by 7. (and whatever happened to even up that game, who knows.) That move at the end of the game was a joke. We've all played ball- would we drive straight into 3 players. I don't care whether the defenders' arms were straight up or not. There is something in officiating that is rarely mentioned- there's "the essence of a rule". Thank goodness the NBA got rid of that nonsense at the 3-point line. Sure is hurting Harden. How about in baseball when the foot comes off the bag on a slide into 2nd. Unless you end up in centerfield, if you beat the throw you're safe. That girl drove into a wall of 3 defenders. I ain't calling a foul on the wall. She made the wrong choice and she needs to pay the consequences, not get bailed out by a zebra. Great no-call!

 

[jchusky]

ok, point well taken.
Baylor was a load and UConn handled them. Good teams clash and play close games. We don't have to make excuses for why UConn won that game. Richards can't score and Paige didn't seem that uncomfortable going against her. BTW what about Paige going off in the 4th, UConn going up by 7. (and whatever happened to even up that game, who knows.) That move at the end of the game was a joke. We've all played ball- would we drive straight into 3 players. I don't care whether the defenders' arms were straight up or not. There is something in officiating that is rarely mentioned- there's "the essence of a rule". Thank goodness the NBA got rid of that nonsense at the 3-point line. Sure is hurting Harden. How about in baseball when the foot comes off the bag on a slide into 2nd. Unless you end up in centerfield, if you beat the throw you're safe. That girl drove into a wall of 3 defenders. I ain't calling a foul on the wall. She made the wrong choice and she needs to pay the consequences, not get bailed out by a zebra. Great no-call!

dude, Uconn was losing by dd and Didi goes out and they go on an 18-0 run, How can you say that didn't change the game? lmao

 

[TeamFirst!]

What they lacked in speed and quickness in shutting down Macdonald they couldn't compensate for by hitting their shots. If we shot better we could have still won and if Macdonald reverted to her mean in 3 point shooting we would have won. We ran into a hot team and we were cold.

 

[willtalk]

Also weren’t that far off from getting bounced in the elite 8. Needed an injury and a fortunate non-call.
I think folks have an inflated sense of how good UConn was at the end of the year — not 3rd best but more like 5th or 6th.

While most of the reasons given in this thread certainly played a part, I think what you mention in your post was a major factor. Not only was the team not as good as their fans, the media and even the team thought, but they underestimated Arizona.

As was mentioned by some posters the UConn offense was a problem that manisfested it self early in the season, but which playing against weak competition appeared to have corrected itself. I also remember the posters on this only considering certain teams as any sort of threat to UConn in their bracket. Once those teams were eliminated and the got by Baylor, they were focusing on the next game against either SC or Stanford. Don't deny it. That was the focus of the fans on this site as well as the team.

When you combine the belief your best game is not required to win that creates a problem if you are playing a team that actually requires your best effort. Fans of most teams generally focus on certain areas to explain losses. They will say if we only did better in this area etc. we would have own. What they never seem to consider is that the other team might have not been playing their best as well. Those that know Arizona knew that they did not play their best game against UConn either. They were actually just a better team at that point in time, who had just begun to play much bettter ball at the end of the year. How well they played against Stanford showed that. When you have to play teams that are closer to you talent level, your wiggle room for not playing your best and still winning disappears.

There are just more teams in WCBB capable of knocking off the top teams than ever before. Even for this coming season the odds are that not all the top three will make it into the final four. There are enough teams that are capable of beating any of them if they should give a less than stallar performance. The days of assuming are over.

It brings back the assumption that many posters on this site made that they were the forth best team in the country the previous year because they were only beaten by only three teams that season. It is a shame they tournament was canceled because it might have served as a necessary eye opener as to how many other really good team existed right behind those top three. Instead it waited for Arizona this last season.

 

[tower1]

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.

Yep, I agree with your analysis !