Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="VAMike23, post: 2668062, member: 150"] I agree with your point of view on this . . . . That was the beauty — at least for Bulls fans — of the Jordan-era Chicago Bulls. They really did play a high quality brand of basketball most of the time with the triangle offense, good movement and passing, and of course the peerless talents of one Mr. Jordan. However, there were always times when things bogged down and/or everybody’s biorhythms were off, or what have you. Nothing was clicking etc. In those instances, it became “The Show” as Pippen called it. Jordan would take the game into his hands. Didn’t mean he always took the shot , but he forced the issue one way or another. Obviously this is an extreme example because MJ is probably the greatest ever at being able to do this when needed. But it’s not something that our program really nurtures—not that I would advocate for us to have “the Show” to any extent like that anyway. Yet, when Surreal World struck in the 2010 NC against Stanford, it was Maya that broke the spell. Not by going 1-on-1 to the extent Jordan did but at the same time it cannot be denied that early in the 2nd half Maya took over that game. That lasted a little while until the whole team started clicking. We needed it. Too bad she couldn’t quite do it in 2011, though she sure as hell tried down the stretch in the national semi (that was an awesome display of will that still fell a bit short). Part of it is talent and the right skill set and part of it is mental. In 2012 Tiff was a very talented senior but IMO she had not developed a true alpha mentality necessary to pull it off in crunch situations. Less talented ND players in years past seem to have had it. Other teams rely much more on individual play and only occasionally play good team ball with sharp cuts, crisp passing and all we have become accustomed to as our bread and butter. But much like the Knicks of the early 90s were not as good as Jordan’s Bulls over 7 games , they were expert at hard-nosed physical play that could really throw a monkey wrench into the Bulls’ offense, making them look pedestrian at times. ND has a history of being able to do this with us at critical junctures. When it happens, it depends on greatly on our particular personnel because we so seldom run into situations where the team needs anyone to take over. Yes we have players who step up and ‘make plays’ all the time. But that’s different from someone taking over (doesn’t have to be one player only) by driving or creating, either getting the bucket or getting the foul. If we have a player willing and able to force the issue and either get to the rim or create shots largely on their own, then great. It doesn’t have to be the whole game — it can be 5 minutes of “The Show” in miniature after which things snap back to their usual form. Or it can take longer. Bottom line is, as Jordan said, a “W” is a “W” and it doesn’t matter how it looks. Sometimes you have to win in different ways. I also agree that Lou is the best candidate on our team for this but besides her no one quite has the dynamic set of skills or strength with the ball that is required, usually from the guard spot, to get this done. (Walker may be a sleeper in this regard before too long.) ND has two players— Young and Arike O— who are dynamic, alpha playmakers on their own. And they showed it. But that playmaking is also part of ND’s regular repertoire. They like good offense and are far ahead of Neanderthal approaches like UTenn’s, but their playmakers have a bit more freedom to perform regularly. We don’t focus as much on that aspect partly because we generally don’t need to and partly because the program’s culture isn’t as conducive to it. If it did, we would go to the line with more regularity than we have on average in recent years. At least that would be one indicator. Having said all this, none of it has anything to do with us allowing 91 points at the other end ...! [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach