Please Repeat After Me: UConn’s Problem on Friday was DEFENSE, not OFFENSE!

[JoePgh]

I have been reading this forum since the game ended on Friday night, and have limited my comments. Many of the comments border on the insane in their disregard for basic facts (never mind the loony theories about a conspiracy among referees and the NCAA to make Notre Dame the winner).

So I will confine my reply to one point: UConn’s problem on Friday night was on DEFENSE. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the offense, except that no one other than KLS was hitting 3’s. The fact that they were able to score 89 points (79 in regulation) despite mostly cold 3-point shooting is actually a credit to the efficiency of the offense in difficult circumstances. Mississippi State was able to score only 58 points against the same Notre Dame defense in the same amount of time.

In fact, UConn shot 49% for the game, hardly an indication of ineffective offense. They had 20 assists on 38 field goals. They even finished the game shooting 38% from the 3-point line (better than Notre Dame). So please quit with the jive about how Muffet’s brilliant, well-prepared defense left the UConn offense sputtering. No such thing occurred. Even late in the game, when they really needed to score, both Crystal and Napheesa got open 3-point looks which they made under pressure.

UConn’s big problem, and the reason they lost, was inadequate defense. There is no way that Notre Dame should have scored 91 points, including 79 in regulation. Notre Dame shot 47% from the field, which IS an indication of relatively ineffective defense, compared to UConn’s normal performance even against top teams. Mississippi State held the same offense to 61 points, something that UConn should have been able to do.

I have no answer for why Geno did not continue the zone defense, which had worked so well in the second quarter, into the second half, or why he didn’t give Azura more minutes. I would be interested in his answers if someone asks those questions. But those are the questions that Boneyarders should be asking (and several of you did), rather than making uninformed comments about how the offense needs to be completely overhauled.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Notre Dame total points against both was because MSU had McCowen playing center and UConn had Dangerfield playing center!

 

[bballnut90]

I have been reading this forum since the game ended on Friday night, and have limited my comments. Many of the comments border on the insane in their disregard for basic facts (never mind the loony theories about a conspiracy among referees and the NCAA to make Notre Dame the winner).

So I will confine my reply to one point: UConn’s problem on Friday night was on DEFENSE. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the offense, except that no one other than KLS was hitting 3’s. The fact that they were able to score 89 points (79 in regulation) despite mostly cold 3-point shooting is actually a credit to the efficiency of the offense in difficult circumstances. Mississippi State was able to score only 58 points against the same Notre Dame defense in the same amount of time.

In fact, UConn shot 49% for the game, hardly an indication of ineffective offense. They had 20 assists on 38 field goals. They even finished the game shooting 38% from the 3-point line (better than Notre Dame). So please quit with the jive about how Muffet’s brilliant, well-prepared defense left the UConn offense sputtering. No such thing occurred. Even late in the game, when they really needed to score, both Crystal and Napheesa got open 3-point looks which they made under pressure.

UConn’s big problem, and the reason they lost, was inadequate defense. There is no way that Notre Dame should have scored 91 points, including 79 in regulation. Notre Dame shot 47% from the field, which IS an indication of relatively ineffective defense, compared to UConn’s normal performance even against top teams. Mississippi State held the same offense to 61 points, something that UConn should have been able to do.

I have no answer for why Geno did not continue the zone defense, which had worked so well in the second quarter, into the second half, or why he didn’t give Azura more minutes. I would be interested in his answers if someone asks those questions. But those are the questions that Boneyarders should be asking (and several of you did), rather than making uninformed comments about how the offense needs to be completely overhauled.

Should’ve stuck with the zone, but what made ND so difficult is that all 5 starters are strong passers and unselfish with the ball. The offense was definitely crisper against UCONN, while they struggled today in big stretches.

Aside from the zone switch, my biggest question was why didn’t Geno have Crystal, Kia, or Gabby play full court defense against Mabrey and hound her as she dribbled the ball up the court? She really struggled against Louisville’s pressing quick guards and did poorly today against Mississippi State’s good defensive guards. Have a perimeter player draped all over her as she takes the ball ip the court and Notre Dame would have a much harder time getting into a rhythm offensively, or then Young becomes the Pg and is far less dangerous there than on the wing.

 

[iri10]

Well reasoned and credible post. ND's defense was effective against UConn for bursts (including one long one at the beginning of the game). But there were other periods where our offense abused their defense, such as that run in the 2nd quarter.

Our defense, though...ouch. Even Notre Dame in the Diggins era usually didn't score 79 against UConn in regulation.

 

[BostonCanuck]

It is true that overall the Huskies had a decent game on offense. Only Kia and Crystal were slightly below their usual levels of efficiency last night. That's a big contrast with the offense in last year's semi-final, when the team collectively laid an egg.

However, I do believe that the board's many comments about live-ball turnovers, not understanding how to attack the Notre Dame defense, and tight/tentative play are on point.

The Husky defense is a very interesting question for me, and I may re-watch the game again sooner rather than later to try to ferret out some answers on that front. I'm particularly interested in the balance between how well Notre Dame played offensively versus how poorly we may have played defensively, why we never really got out in transition, the degree to which the bad officiating did or did not affect the outcome, and why we could not stop their guards from driving to the rim for key layups on half-court sets late in the game.

 

[bballnut90]

It is true that overall the Huskies had a decent game on offense. Only Kia and Crystal were slightly below their usual levels of efficiency last night. That's a big contrast with the offense in last year's semi-final, when the team collectively laid an egg.

However, I do believe that the board's many comments about live-ball turnovers, not understanding how to attack the Notre Dame defense, and tight/tentative play are on point.

The Husky defense is a very interesting question for me, and I may try to watch the game again sooner rather than later if only to try to ferret out some answers on that front. I'm particularly interested in the balance between well Notre Dame played offensively versus how bad we played defensively, why we never got out in transition, the degree to which the bad officiating may have affected the outcome, and why we could not stop their guards from driving to the rim for key layups during half-court sets late in the game.

I think the reason why there weren’t transition buckets is Notre Dame didn’t settle for perimeter shots. Perimeter shots lead to long rebounds and easy outlet layups (see St. Francis first half).

In the first meeting, ND settled for deep shots the entire 4th quarter, that’s why they lost momentum. If they didn’t, they were on pace to score 80 in regulation. This time, they didn’t settle and got 79. UCONN’s downfall has usually been against teams with outstanding guards who can shoot from deep and beat you off the dribble. They disrupt the defense and create opportunities for others. Young and Arike were those guards last night.

 

[ASweet3781]

Not to mention in this ever closing gap between the top teams in the sports, UConn better find it's Taurasi/Arike who can make that shot with the game on the line. Is she on the current roster? That person wasn't in Dallas or Columbus.

 

[bballnut90]

Not to mention in this ever closing gap between the top teams in the sports, UConn better find it's Taurasi/Arike who can make that shot with the game on the line. Is she on the current roster? That person wasn't in Dallas or Columbus.

Well, Dangerfield and Collier did both hit massively clutch 3s to keep UCONN in the game. If either of them miss, it’s game over.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Well, Dangerfield and Collier did both hit massively clutch 3s to keep UCONN in the game. If either of them miss, it’s game over.

They sure did, but they were also reliant on being set up by a teammate -- our whole system is.

Sometimes you need someone who can take a defender 1 on 1 and hit a big shot. We have nobody like that. On a team of interchangeable, unselfish parts, when it comes down to winning time and needing someone to step up, we've been lacking.

 

[victor64]

Joe,

I had court side seats for the game Friday. It is amazing how much more you can see live than on TV.

My observations about the defense.

1. Young changed everything. I think they focused on Mabry and Ogowonbale. Young getting hot and staying that wy made them change their focus.
2. The Huskies were a half step slow in things they normally do very well--closeouts (especially on ball reversals), defending the dribbler, help side defending, boxing out and preventing offensive rebounds.
3. Z killed them defensively. She could not handle Shepard when they played man and was often confused where she was supposed to be in the zone.
4. They could not match up defensively especially when Z was in. My guess is that based on the sub pattern, Z was the blame for the unusual number of layups ND got out of their half court offense.
5. Shepard was too quick and strong for Z. Collier and Lou weren't great on the wings. I don't know if you noticed but Lou and Danger both played out top on the zone. ND was able to move the ball easily against their zone.

To summarize, Shepard, Young, second chance points and Z combined for the worst defensive performance I have seen from a Geno team in a long time.

I know it is a team effort to give up 91 points and I may be pointing a finger unfairly at Z. It is what it is.

 

[bballnut90]

They sure did, but they were also reliant on being set up by a teammate -- our whole system is.

Sometimes you need someone who can take a defender 1 on 1 and hit a big shot. We have nobody like that. On a team of interchangeable, unselfish parts, when it comes down to winning time and needing someone to step up, we've been lacking.

Agreed. That’s an area Geno has never emphasized in developing players. You rarely see players make one on one moves...even with Maya, she was usually set up for shots rather than creating her own shot. His system obviously works extremely well, but his record in close games the last 5-10 years has been his downfall. Definitely helps to have a player who can get her own shot at any time.

 

[housekeys]

The OP is correct, it was the defense that lost the game. Talk criticizing UConn players for there offensive performance and opinions screaming for massive team changes in strategy and personal, are nonsense.

So what was the problem with the defense? That is the question. Perhaps, nothing. Perhaps ND was just in a "zone" (hot) on offense. But, sour grapes aside, perhaps some of the defense UConn played was judged to be overly aggressive and called foul by the refs. Ιn that case, good UConn defense turned into ND points at the foul line. Certainly having players in foul trouble will cause them not to play as well on defense. Or, perhaps the obvious, UConn did not play good defense because the players got tired, lost their speed and quickness, missed assignments, and did not communicate; all things that they normally do very well. I find the obvious hard to believe.

The ND-MissState game had a 17-17 foul shot attempt stat line. The ND-UConn game had a 23-6 stat line. ND did not cheat. The game was not rigged. ND deserved the win. ND where not given the game. ND played great. But if we are going to analyze the game and why UConn lost, disregarding the foul shot attempt discrepancy, in favor of the holier than thou, "that just sour grapes", "sore loser" retorts, is just plain ignorant. ΙΜΗΟ.

BTW, the MissState-Louisville game had a 25-7 foul shot disparity.

 

[housekeys]

Joe,

I had court side seats for the game Friday. It is amazing how much more you can see live than on TV.

My observations about the defense.

1. Young changed everything. I think they focused on Mabry and Ogowonbale. Young getting hot and staying that wy made them change their focus.
2. The Huskies were a half step slow in things they normally do very well--closeouts (especially on ball reversals), defending the dribbler, help side defending, boxing out and preventing offensive rebounds.
3. Z killed them defensively. She could not handle Shepard when they played man and was often confused where she was supposed to be in the zone.
4. They could not match up defensively especially when Z was in. My guess is that based on the sub pattern, Z was the blame for the unusual number of layups ND got out of their half court offense.
5. Shepard was too quick and strong for Z. Collier and Lou weren't great on the wings. I don't know if you noticed but Lou and Danger both played out top on the zone. ND was able to move the ball easily against their zone.

To summarize, Shepard, Young, second chance points and Z combined for the worst defensive performance I have seen from a Geno team in a long time.

I know it is a team effort to give up 91 points and I may be pointing a finger unfairly at Z. It is what it is.

Thanks for the insight. Your post has a lot more credence than my previous post. I have a question. I know it must have been loud, but you where court side, where the UConn players communicating well on defense?

 

[VidNick]

I totally agree with the OP on this. As I was watching ND-MSU what struck me was how tenacious and in your face the defense was on both sides. Almost every shot contested. Very ugly at times. Many easy (but contested) shots missed. ND defense was the same against Uconn the other night. Conversely, Uconn's defense appeared to be soft, even on the last shot of the game. Way too many open shots and inability to keep in front of quick players. To me the ND game showed that despite what the stats may say, Uconn's defense is no where on the level of their offense, which given what I saw last night, delivered bigtime against a great ND defense. Added to the lack of quickness was a complete lack of 'heft'. Just look at the size of the ND players. Uconn could have really used Natalie Butler. But after how she was wasted on the bench in her two years, I can see why she moved on when she had the chance.

 

[Ukonnfan]

Well, yes.. the girls did have a great year. We are just used to them winning everything every year now. Unrealistic expectations. My desire is that Samuelson gets something done with her nagging foot injury as Geno has mentioned. Maybe it will help with footspeed. Calling it true, Katie has been the soft defensive player this year. Go back and look at the video(s) and see who gets scored on the most. She once in the ND game completely lost her man, as she was frantically looking around for her, her man was making a layup on the other end. Her defense has improved very much, YES, , but she has been the slow wheel. Please don’t get me wrong, she is a great player; on offense. I say this considering all the defensive standards of UCONN.

 

[Siestakeyfan]

Well, yes.. the girls did have a great year. We are just used to them winning everything every year now. Unrealistic expectations. My desire is that Samuelson gets something done with her nagging foot injury as Geno has mentioned. Maybe it will help with footspeed. Calling it true, Katie has been the soft defensive player this year. Go back and look at the video(s) and see who gets scored on the most. She once in the ND game completely lost her man, as she was frantically looking around for her, her man was making a layup on the other end. Her defense has improved very much, YES, , but she has been the slow wheel. Please don’t get me wrong, she is a great player; on offense. I say this considering all the defensive standards of UCONN.

ALL close games or overtime -men and women !!! Makes for Fan interest ! Well Managed games !
ESPN etal happy - advertisers happy !

 

[Ozimoto]

This group has had problems with defending against quick, penetrating guards for the past two seasons. Usually they have been able to compensate by scoring more than the other team. The past two national semi-final games they have not been able to do so.

 

[BostonCanuck]

Some great points on our defense, especially about Z and how our general guarding of their half-court sets was not up to snuff. My initial take-away about the defense after the game was that, hey, once you take away all the disruptive stuff like turnovers and transition points usually generated from our back-court press and pass-denial pressure, our defense maybe isn't all that great.

But I am not ready to let the offense off the hook entirely. The Huskies could not drop 80 during regulation, and that's with our "starting six" on the floor the entire 40 minutes, in a game where Geno never called off the dogs, nor put bench players in for garbage time. That is shocking to me.

A good team like Notre Dame is going to score points on you, no matter what. Your offense has to respond, and at too many important stages in the game, the Huskies could not. The Notre Dame run in the second half, where they steadily chipped away at the lead, begged for a scoring response from the Husky offense that never came. We did make some big plays late to delay losing the game, but that's about it.

No one on this board is asking for the Husky offense to be "completely overhauled", just for some gaps to be recognized and hopefully addressed.

Also, after watching what Notre Dame did in the final, I'm reminded how Geno said in his post-game presser that talent is not enough to secure a national championship during the Final Four weekend. You also need one or two great players to step up and make big plays and/or dominate the game. Notre Dame clearly had that this weekend in Arike and Jackie.

 

[Longtime fan]

I have been reading this forum since the game ended on Friday night, and have limited my comments. Many of the comments border on the insane in their disregard for basic facts (never mind the loony theories about a conspiracy among referees and the NCAA to make Notre Dame the winner).

So I will confine my reply to one point: UConn’s problem on Friday night was on DEFENSE. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the offense, except that no one other than KLS was hitting 3’s. The fact that they were able to score 89 points (79 in regulation) despite mostly cold 3-point shooting is actually a credit to the efficiency of the offense in difficult circumstances. Mississippi State was able to score only 58 points against the same Notre Dame defense in the same amount of time.

In fact, UConn shot 49% for the game, hardly an indication of ineffective offense. They had 20 assists on 38 field goals. They even finished the game shooting 38% from the 3-point line (better than Notre Dame). So please quit with the jive about how Muffet’s brilliant, well-prepared defense left the UConn offense sputtering. No such thing occurred. Even late in the game, when they really needed to score, both Crystal and Napheesa got open 3-point looks which they made under pressure.

UConn’s big problem, and the reason they lost, was inadequate defense. There is no way that Notre Dame should have scored 91 points, including 79 in regulation. Notre Dame shot 47% from the field, which IS an indication of relatively ineffective defense, compared to UConn’s normal performance even against top teams. Mississippi State held the same offense to 61 points, something that UConn should have been able to do.

I have no answer for why Geno did not continue the zone defense, which had worked so well in the second quarter, into the second half, or why he didn’t give Azura more minutes. I would be interested in his answers if someone asks those questions. But those are the questions that Boneyarders should be asking (and several of you did), rather than making uninformed comments about how the offense needs to be completely overhauled.

You are absolutely correct. 100%

And it is rare that our defense is so easily overwhelmed. Usually, our defense wins the big games.

Usually, UCONN's defense is better, by far, than our opponent.

This time, they did not do the job.

91 points given up is a disgrace and the reason we lost.

 

[asuwish]

I have been reading this forum since the game ended on Friday night, and have limited my comments. Many of the comments border on the insane in their disregard for basic facts (never mind the loony theories about a conspiracy among referees and the NCAA to make Notre Dame the winner).

So I will confine my reply to one point: UConn’s problem on Friday night was on DEFENSE. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the offense, except that no one other than KLS was hitting 3’s. The fact that they were able to score 89 points (79 in regulation) despite mostly cold 3-point shooting is actually a credit to the efficiency of the offense in difficult circumstances. Mississippi State was able to score only 58 points against the same Notre Dame defense in the same amount of time.

In fact, UConn shot 49% for the game, hardly an indication of ineffective offense. They had 20 assists on 38 field goals. They even finished the game shooting 38% from the 3-point line (better than Notre Dame). So please quit with the jive about how Muffet’s brilliant, well-prepared defense left the UConn offense sputtering. No such thing occurred. Even late in the game, when they really needed to score, both Crystal and Napheesa got open 3-point looks which they made under pressure.

UConn’s big problem, and the reason they lost, was inadequate defense. There is no way that Notre Dame should have scored 91 points, including 79 in regulation. Notre Dame shot 47% from the field, which IS an indication of relatively ineffective defense, compared to UConn’s normal performance even against top teams. Mississippi State held the same offense to 61 points, something that UConn should have been able to do.

I have no answer for why Geno did not continue the zone defense, which had worked so well in the second quarter, into the second half, or why he didn’t give Azura more minutes. I would be interested in his answers if someone asks those questions. But those are the questions that Boneyarders should be asking (and several of you did), rather than making uninformed comments about how the offense needs to be completely overhauled.

In today's game with players trying to slash to the hoop and draw contact ND playing zone confused people. Even great coaches have a tough time getting players to understand how to attack it. ND did it out of need because it is less taxing and usually means less fouls. Now that ND will have depth does Muffet go back to man. I know they play both at times. Will Geno do more zone with his lack of depth and losing his 2 truly great on ball defenders?

 

[iri10]

This group has had problems with defending against quick, penetrating guards for the past two seasons. Usually they have been able to compensate by scoring more than the other team. The past two national semi-final games they have not been able to do so.

Though taking the Mississippi State game as a whole things weren't too bad. We kept them under 40% shooting, and none of their main guards shot especially well. MSSt scored well in the 1st quarter thanks to 8 offensive rebounds, but got no more than 12 or 14 points in each of the other quarters. (they did intentionally slow things down as I recall)

Meanwhile on the other end of the floor we (like they) finished with 60 points in regulation. If you can only score 60 against a top 5 team, you are asking for trouble that day.