i reserved judgment early on. she was unknown to us, except for the fact that geno recruited her (so she must have had husky promise) as did some respected programs.
gotta admit, i was a bit skeptical. maybe she had been recruited as an adequate backup for her coveted, 'generational' co-freshman, paige. if we were lucky, perhaps nika could be a modern day molly bent.
but there previously had been a mystery recruit who didn't speak english and was totally new to america and she -- sveta --turned out to be pretty good, so let's give the croatian a chance. at the least, she would give the team exposure to another culture, as anna makurat did. and anna, an unknown, had also proved to be a welcome contributor on the court too. why not nika?
then, after a few months at uconn, it was clear -- at least to me (and to geno too) -- that the team played better when nika was on the floor. the stats weren't there: she was not a scorer and she didn't seem to be much as a defender. she was a solid ballhandler and could be a spectacular passer. in general, nika wasn't notable as a player. she clearly had shortcomings. but for whatever unknown reason, the team was better when nika was out there.
geno, perhaps, could explain this. maybe not. but he admitted he saw it. and yet there were some in the BY who didn't. that's OK. there were not any obvious reasons to believe this kid who didn't score or make a lot of steals or contribute statistically would make the team better.
but, oddly, some responded by tearing nika down rather than simply accepting this good fortune: the team did better, why look a gift horse in the mouth. i don't get it. i wish someone could explain it to me.
at least, since nika has been putting up some impressive stats (which, to some, justify her value, i guess) the nika critics have been largely silenced.