"Style of Play": WNBA vs. UConn

[Icebear]

Just as easy for the Jordan Bulls to run their offense in the 90s. They ran Jackson's triangle offense which is what UConn's has been based on. All on a 24 second clock. Running a team offense is not running running plays in the sense of 3 decades ago or even my high school years of 40 years ago where we ran Bobby Knight's offense at Army. Running UConn's offense is not based on plays but it is still a team offense and functions as such for Team USA. It more sets of principles and reacting through those to what is in front of you. A single possession based on one set of offensive goals, (note: I say goals not plays to minimize confusion when speaking of offense using plays is too constricting a concept for both the triangle and motion offenses) may have three different outcomes in three trips down the court because of how the defense sets up and reacts each time. It is principles and reactionary rather than simple go here do this then this then this. Reset and do the same again. Running a proper offense helps free players much more than one on one clinics. I do agree the import of the zone D has had a significant impact along with the excessive physical play that is tolerated.

Late in a shot clock it is essential to have the ball in the hands of a creator no matter the principles or plan you are playing under. Against good defense, however, it is even more important to have players executing quality screens or picks for the creator to play off of.

I will try and make time to watch some of the finals to see if the team play has improved but Geno's comments tend to make me think they haven't

 

[DaddyChoc]

Ice your mind is made up, dont waste your time watching...

 

[Icebear]

Ice your mind is made up, dont waste your time watching...

When both CatCamille and Scotter tell me there is good team play I am willing to give it another shot. It has been a good 3 or 4 years maybe 5 since I watched any significant amount of the WNBA. I am always open to the possibility of things changing. If they have I will be honest. I did see the World Cup last year and felt the play was significantly better and more team oriented than what I remember from the WNBA. I will gladly admit that it is hard to make much appraisal from the highlights on ESPN which is most of what I see.

BTW, what is your response to Geno's comments which echo my own over the last two years. Tell me what evidence you see that he is wrong. I gave a lot of detail and explanation of what I see and why I agree with Geno and I disagree with how some have narrowly defined the beautiful UConn basketball.

Scotter and Cat have given me detailed reasons to reopen the door. Something you rarely do. Often you simply say something is wrong or complain folks don't respect players from other schools. How does that help anyone's understanding? Take some time and describe what you are seeing.

 

[EricSD]

the more over matched the opponent, the better the brand of basketball looks for the winning team.

 

[Icebear]

the more over matched the opponent, the better the brand of basketball looks for the winning team.

That is true but it doesn't mean it disappears when there is a tough and challenging game. It just means the eye must be more discerning and the mind more focused to see and understand the differences.

 

[jsloanjr]

Joe's first in the OP is something I have never suggested so I can't address it.

As to the second I agree with the 24 second clock possibly being part of the problem but the 10 second line at mid court somewhat offsets that. More important to compare would be the effective time on the clock when an offensive set is started since many college teams take a lot of time to bring the ball into the forecourt. Personally, I would prefer a 28 second clock if the 24 second clock is the problem. Either way IF the short clock leads to increased one on one play then it is part of the problem and not an asset. The counter point I would suggest is that the short clock did not lead to one on one play in the NBA when introduced in the 1950s. The Celtics played great team basketball under the leadership of Cousy. Having a strong point guard is essential to great team basketball. Numerous teams have played great passing based and tactician basketball over the years. They often succeed despite a talent deficit like Pete Carroll's best teams at Princeton. Remember there is no magic in the 24 second clock it was simply the result of 48 minutes of game time divided by 120 possessions which the NBA Syracuse coach though was the number of possessions per game as a goal then divided out to come to 24 seconds.

Geno's coaching of the Team USA has already brought out a more interesting style of play among the very same players playing in the WNBA. It is somewhere between college ball and the WNBA in terms of physical play and certainly has all the talent one could want. I would suggest the parallel is the NHL vs Olympic hockey. It is the rules and application of the rules that makes a huge difference to me. I love Olympic hockey and find NHL games and the constant interruptions for fights which could be stopped overnight completely uncompelling.

All the talent in the world doesn't make up for something if it is something you don't enjoy watching what is being done. Freestyle rock climbers are some of the most amazing athletes in the world but I have little interest a weekly competition among climbers even if they are on a razor's edge between life and death.

The WNBA game is very poor managed and coached IMHO. For most of the reasons above and my own opinion, its very tough to watch. Give Geno the same CT Sun team and they would be playing for the Title and winning it.......Watch what Geno does with the Olympic team in Italy next week and next summer.

 

[DaddyChoc]

BTW, what is your response to Geno's comments which echo my own over the last two years. Tell me what evidence you see that he is wrong..

I believe Geno has WATCHED more WNBA games than you so I can take his word. I dont understand how you can form an opinion of "today's game" when you havent watched it in years.

Actually I dont understand why you even comment in a thread that appears to be of NO INTEREST to you. So thats why I dont care to reply, your mind is made up IMO. Not gonna waste time when its going in one ear and out the other.

The other posters may not mind the back & forth dialouge!

BTW watching a few of the finals games may do very little to change your opinion without seeing the whole body of work (the entire season and other teams).

This is how I determine how good HS recruits may be... watch a lot of HS basketball not just the class finals. When you see Branford HS best girls BBall best player that everyone talks about (in the area) then you see BStew it gives you a better gauge on forming an opinion of players/teams.

This is my last comment on this topic to you so you have the last word (besides I know I cant & wont go word for word with you cause I'd LOSE by a lot)

 

[Icebear]

I never said it was based on current play. I readily admit I haven't watched it much since 4-5 years ago. Most of what I see today is highlights. I openly said that. I will watch the finals since some have made observations in detail about what they are seeing. I will share my thoughts about what I see. As I said what Geno said confirmed those earlier observations.

I appreciate your final comments because it let's me understand much more where you are coming from. Your shorts quips make that very hard. Much of what you say here I agree with regarding the evaluation of talent. The more you watch of young players across a spectrum of players the better you are able to understand the talent of any individual within that spectrum.

The thread is very much of interest to me, it has been WNBA ball that has not been of interest. The quality of women's basketball overall, however, is of great interest to me. Mostly I posted clarifications BECAUSE JoePgh directly addressed the OP in part to opinions I had expressed.

As to the going back and forth I participate in that for one reason only. It is as I write and read what others write that I can deeper insight into the workings of the game, the natures of the posters, and myself. I consider the exchanges to be of great value and see them as acts of conflict but rather as a process of clarification and refining what I see, what I know and what I can express.

 

[rington]

OK, for the first time in months, finally there was a discussion on another thread that really motivated me to comment. It wasn't exactly the topic of the other thread, so I decided to start this one.

It's confounding to me (but not surprising, based on reactions I've heard from other UConn WBB fans) that someone who is as interested in top-caliber women's basketball as Icebear could say that he "simply does not enjoy" the WNBA game. Ice, can you be a little more specific about why it leaves you cold? (No pun intended.)

I think I can guess, to some degree. Most people who like WCBB but not the WNBA (in my experience) say either or both of the following things:

1. "The pro players don't play with the urgency or selfless commitment of the college kids. For them it's just a job, and it shows on the court."

2. "The pro game is all about 1-on-1 play. It doesn't have the teamwork or the passing intricacy of the college game, especially at UConn. It's built around individual stars showing off."

I don't think either of these points is valid, and I base that statement on my direct observation as a multi-year Connecticut Sun season ticket holder. Regarding #1, I see pro players playing with as much urgency, and much greater skill, than top-level college players. Did you see Taj, 6-2 and 41 years old, score in the low post on Sunday? Did you ever see Tina take and hit a quarter as many jump shots in college as she does for the Sun? And speaking of commitment, before her senior year, did you ever see her play at UConn with the consistency and commitment that she has given to the Sun?

I will acknowledge that most WNBA players play nearly 12 months a year and have to take care of their bodies, so they have to be judicious about playing all-out when it isn't necessary or likely to be productive. Did you work as many hours at your job in your 30's as you did in your mid-20's? (Probably not, but because of your experience, you probably did your job better in your 30's.) Good coaches prevent excessive wear on starters by limiting their minutes to 25-30 per game, so that they don't completely wear themselves out before the playoffs. And WNBA benches are good enough to make that possible (unlike in college, typically).

Regarding #2, it's true that there is more 1-on-1 play in the WNBA than (say) at UConn. Some of that is a necessary consequence of the 24-second shot clock. The extra 6 seconds in college definitely allows for a lot of passing and probing of the defense that isn't possible in the WNBA. And pro defenses are less likely to break down under pressure as many college defenses do, even in top programs. Having said that, if you look at Sun box scores, you will see that about 2/3 of field goals are assisted, which is about the same as UConn's average. The night that Tina had 7 assists (originally thought to be 10), some of them were amazing. The interior passing by most teams in the paint is something that any UConn team would be proud of, on most nights.

Even if there is some validity in either or both of these arguments, they are offset in my mind by undeniable arguments in favor of WNBA basketball: (a) the talent level is sooooo much better; and (b) the vast majority of games are extremely competitive and not decided until the final minutes.

UConn is fun to watch because they play an entertaining style and almost always win. But over half the games are not even remotely competitive, which offsets the enjoyment significantly (at least for me). The Sun are frustrating because they never win quite enough, but the quality of the athletes and the closeness of the games makes up for it (again, obviously, speaking personally).

Are there other reasons why some UConn fans don't get interested in the Sun or the WNBA?

 

[rington]

OK, for the first time in months, finally there was a discussion on another thread that really motivated me to comment. It wasn't exactly the topic of the other thread, so I decided to start this one.

It's confounding to me (but not surprising, based on reactions I've heard from other UConn WBB fans) that someone who is as interested in top-caliber women's basketball as Icebear could say that he "simply does not enjoy" the WNBA game. Ice, can you be a little more specific about why it leaves you cold? (No pun intended.)

I think I can guess, to some degree. Most people who like WCBB but not the WNBA (in my experience) say either or both of the following things:

1. "The pro players don't play with the urgency or selfless commitment of the college kids. For them it's just a job, and it shows on the court."

2. "The pro game is all about 1-on-1 play. It doesn't have the teamwork or the passing intricacy of the college game, especially at UConn. It's built around individual stars showing off."

I don't think either of these points is valid, and I base that statement on my direct observation as a multi-year Connecticut Sun season ticket holder. Regarding #1, I see pro players playing with as much urgency, and much greater skill, than top-level college players. Did you see Taj, 6-2 and 41 years old, score in the low post on Sunday? Did you ever see Tina take and hit a quarter as many jump shots in college as she does for the Sun? And speaking of commitment, before her senior year, did you ever see her play at UConn with the consistency and commitment that she has given to the Sun?

I will acknowledge that most WNBA players play nearly 12 months a year and have to take care of their bodies, so they have to be judicious about playing all-out when it isn't necessary or likely to be productive. Did you work as many hours at your job in your 30's as you did in your mid-20's? (Probably not, but because of your experience, you probably did your job better in your 30's.) Good coaches prevent excessive wear on starters by limiting their minutes to 25-30 per game, so that they don't completely wear themselves out before the playoffs. And WNBA benches are good enough to make that possible (unlike in college, typically).

Regarding #2, it's true that there is more 1-on-1 play in the WNBA than (say) at UConn. Some of that is a necessary consequence of the 24-second shot clock. The extra 6 seconds in college definitely allows for a lot of passing and probing of the defense that isn't possible in the WNBA. And pro defenses are less likely to break down under pressure as many college defenses do, even in top programs. Having said that, if you look at Sun box scores, you will see that about 2/3 of field goals are assisted, which is about the same as UConn's average. The night that Tina had 7 assists (originally thought to be 10), some of them were amazing. The interior passing by most teams in the paint is something that any UConn team would be proud of, on most nights.

Even if there is some validity in either or both of these arguments, they are offset in my mind by undeniable arguments in favor of WNBA basketball: (a) the talent level is sooooo much better; and (b) the vast majority of games are extremely competitive and not decided until the final minutes.

UConn is fun to watch because they play an entertaining style and almost always win. But over half the games are not even remotely competitive, which offsets the enjoyment significantly (at least for me). The Sun are frustrating because they never win quite enough, but the quality of the athletes and the closeness of the games makes up for it (again, obviously, speaking personally).

Are there other reasons why some UConn fans don't get interested in the Sun or the WNBA?

 

[EricSD]

That is true but it doesn't mean it disappears when there is a tough and challenging game. It just means the eye must be more discerning and the mind more focused to see and understand the differences.

i'd argue that it pretty much completely disappears. it's one reason why the over-matched opponent looks so bad and the UCONN team looks so good - the over matched team can't stop anything UCONN does which allows for back door cuts, crisp perimeter passing, dribble penetration, filling the lanes on fast breaks, pick and rolls, screens, etc etc. go back and watch the first half of the UCONN STanford NC game from a few years back. watch any low scoring UCON-RU game. tell me if you saw any of what apparently makes the UCONN brand of hoops so eye-pleasing...

if they try all of that stuff but fail, how is that any more pleasing to watch than a team that doesn't play as much team style basketball (the NY Liberty for example - or any team with Cappie Pondexter on it! )...

i will be totally honest - i've not watched nearly enough BASKETBALL - either professional or college - to tell you one way or the other what teams play really pleasing basketball and what teams do not. obviously i've seen some - i'm not blind. RU is painful to watch. UNC and Stanford are fun to watch. UCONN is incredibly fortunate enough to have team talented enough for Geno to play the kind of free flowing, crisp intelligent basketball that we get to see. if his team consisted solely of players like Fernandez, Gardler, Kerns, Williams (Tahirah), Ash Valley, etc etc. i doubt he'd be able to get the kids to play the way he wanted, or the way you like to see...

i am not trying to take away Geno's brilliance. Clearly he's the best coach in the women's game. some tennessee fans might disagree, but most everyone else would probably acknowledge Geno is the best at what he does. i guess i just have a hard time seeing the minutia of differences that exist in how the Lynx or Dream play the game vs. how UCONN plays the game...

 

[rington]

Some other poster said it in one word, "loyalty." I think you find that much more prevalent in college ball than in the WNBA. In fact, you often see the players themselves carry this factor from the college game to the pros.
Lindsay Whelan, on the day she was drafted by the Sun, asked if it was possible to be traded to Minnesota.

And, you just knew that Katie Douglas was going to end up in Indiana.

We also have the recent influx of former Uconn players to the Sun. We know that this is money talking, and the league supports this in order to survive, and you can't blame them. However, the whole process looks artificial.

Oh, I'll watch a pro game now and then, and I salute the fans who who can fully dedicate themselves to both the Uconn women and the Sun.

 

[Scotter]

Some other poster said it in one word, "loyalty." I think you find that much more prevalent in college ball than in the WNBA. In fact, you often see the players themselves carry this factor from the college game to the pros.
Lindsay Whelan, on the day she was drafted by the Sun, asked if it was possible to be traded to Minnesota.

And, you just knew that Katie Douglas was going to end up in Indiana.

We also have the recent influx of former Uconn players to the Sun. We know that this is money talking, and the league supports this in order to survive, and you can't blame them. However, the whole process looks artificial.

Oh, I'll watch a pro game now and then, and I salute the fans who who can fully dedicate themselves to both the Uconn women and the Sun.

These situations you are comparing aren't analogous. Players have the ability to choose where they go to college, and even after they have the choice to transfer to any number of schools. Comparing WNBA players who have no control over where they begin their professional careers to college students doesn't make much sense when the college players do have that choice and they exercise that choice even after committing to a program and/or playing for a program. How is that greater loyalty?

Lindsay Whalen and Katie Douglas both chose to attend college close to home. They didn't choose to play for the Connecticut Sun. They were drafted. And whether or not she wanted to be there Douglas played 7 seasons for the Sun before asking to be traded to Indiana. Whalen played 6 seasons for the Sun and was traded back to Minnesota so that the Sun could get Tina Charles, not because Whalen said she wanted to go home. The Sun lucked out because Minnesota was the only team in the league that would have been willing to make that trade. And the Sun are not bringing in UConn players to sell tickets. As I said every team besides Minnesota would have traded Lindsay Whalen to get Tina Charles. And I'm positive the Sun didn't expect Kalana Greene and Jessica Moore to bring in more UConn fans.

 

[rington]

These situations you are comparing aren't analogous. Players have the ability to choose where they go to college, and even after they have the choice to transfer to any number of schools. Comparing WNBA players who have no control over where they begin their professional careers to college students doesn't make much sense when the college players do have that choice and they exercise that choice even after committing to a program and/or playing for a program. How is that greater loyalty?

Lindsay Whalen and Katie Douglas both chose to attend college close to home. They didn't choose to play for the Connecticut Sun. They were drafted. And whether or not she wanted to be there Douglas played 7 seasons for the Sun before asking to be traded to Indiana. Whalen played 6 seasons for the Sun and was traded back to Minnesota so that the Sun could get Tina Charles, not because Whalen said she wanted to go home. The Sun lucked out because Minnesota was the only team in the league that would have been willing to make that trade. And the Sun are not bringing in UConn players to sell tickets. As I said every team besides Minnesota would have traded Lindsay Whalen to get Tina Charles. And I'm positive the Sun didn't expect Kalana Greene and Jessica Moore to bring in more UConn fans.

 

[rington]

Come on! 45% of former Uconn players on the Sun is a co-incidence?

 

[JoePgh]

This has been a really interesting thread! I would offer the following replies to various points made by all the contributors:

1. Ice, I do NOT believe that your mind is made up; I think you are ready and willing to change your mind based on sufficient evidence. So I will be very interested to hear whether you have revised your opinion after you watch a few of the WNBA Finals games. Geno said during last week's broadcast that he "liked everything [he] saw" about Minnesota's play in the first game when they were blowing out Phoenix. It has even occurred to me that if Geno should decide to step down in the next few years, Cheryl Reeve might be a very plausible candidate to replace him, particularly if she can win a WNBA championship or two. She will have coached at the highest level, successfully unifying very talented individual players into an effective team, and will have seen every strategem that any opposing coach might employ.

2. Rington, I don't see anything sinister in the fact that WNBA players often end up playing close to either their home or their former college's campus. You can see it in the Rutgers players on the Liberty, the numerous former ACC (especially Maryland) players on the Washington Mystic's roster, and obviously on the Sun. Katie Douglas did ask to be traded so she could play close to home, and Lindsey Whalen urged Mike Thibault to make the trade for Tina Charles because she wanted to play in Minnesota. While marketing may have something to do with this, I think the basic fact is that WNBA players (even the stars) don't make so much money that it is worthwhile for them to live a long way from friends and family during the short summers that they even live in the USA. If you or I were out of the country 9 months a year, we would want to be close to hearth and home for the other 3 months.

3. A number of posters have strongly implied that there is something inherently evil (in a basketball sense) about 1-on-1 play. I think this is (at best) greatly overstated. I can't imagine that Phil Jackson ever coached Michael Jordan not to take on an overmatched defender 1-on-1 when the opportunity arose. Likewise, it would be silly for any WNBA coach to tell Diana or Cappie or Angel not to take advantage of an individually outgunned defender. Geno has never stopped Tiffany from driving to the basket when she is quick enough to beat her defender. At the very least, this forces the defense to rotate and leave someone else open. And then Diana (but maybe not so much the others mentioned) can find the teammate with a great pass.

In fact, I can remember a few years ago when Geno was complaining that players like Mel Thomas and Ann Strother, while they were great jumpshooters, could never "get their own shot". I think "getting your own shot" is a synonym for not needing an intricate offensive pattern to get open. Having players who can get their own shots makes an offense more efficient because they occupy more defensive resources and stretch the defense more. Diana and Svet (and Nykesha Sales, even when she played for the Sun) were classic examples of this, and so was Tina because she typically necessitated double-teams in the post. If Maya was not quite as good as Diana in college, it was because her ball-handling was not proficient enough to force double-teams on the perimeter, and her best scoring chances (other than fast-break steals) were off screens, i.e., she usually did not get her own shot. (But her quick rise-and-fire release meant that she didn't need much of a screen, or need it to be held for very long, to get an excellent look.)

At the WNBA level, a fair amount of 1-on-1 play represents an efficient and sensible use of the awesome offensive talents of many of the players. It shouldn't be the basis for the entire offense, but it certainly shouldn't be banished from the offensive repertoire.

Even so, I come back to the fact (which no one has commented on) that on most nights, about two thirds of the Sun's field goals are assisted. I suspect that Minnesota's box scores would reveal the same pattern. Team offense has by no means disappeared from the WNBA game -- not even close.

 

[Cafe Poliziano]

ok I disagree with your points 1 and 2 and strongly. How many Lynx games have you watched this year?

It is absolutely cool that you disagree strongly and your thoughts are worthy of your voice, the world would be so ho hum if we all agreed all the time, As I said "by and large", I did not say all or always, So you agree with 3), 4) and 5 ? witch are far more important than 1) and 2) again jmo. I like Icebear am willing to be wrong, My ego is not so out of control as to not want to learn or change an opinion about a game.

GO Uconn !!!!!!!

 

[Scotter]

Come on! 45% of former Uconn players on the Sun is a co-incidence?

Just because it is not a coincidence doesn't mean it is about selling tickets.

The Tina Charles and Renee Montgomery trade was a no-brainer from a basketball stand point. If the Orlando Miracle had ended up as the Knoxville Smokies instead of the Sun, the management still would have made that trade and then ran outside and sang Rocky Top a few hundred times in celebration.

The Sun needed an athletic wing that could fit in as a role player. They got Kalana for a lower draft pick than the one the Liberty picked Kalana with the year before. Who should they gotten instead that would make more on the court sense? The Sun needed a defensive orientated backup center to play less than ten minutes per game, learn the system mid-season, play a role, and not complain. Who should they signed instead of Jessica Moore? When you are looking for players to come in and play a role and sacrifice for the team, shouldn't any smart team and have UConn grads at the top of the list? Who do you want instead? And don't think for a minute that the Sun woulnd't cut Greene or especially Moore, or trade Montgomery if a team really wanted her.

 

[Icebear]

i'd argue that it pretty much completely disappears. it's one reason why the over-matched opponent looks so bad and the UCONN team looks so good - the over matched team can't stop anything UCONN does which allows for back door cuts, crisp perimeter passing, dribble penetration, filling the lanes on fast breaks, pick and rolls, screens, etc etc. go back and watch the first half of the UCONN STanford NC game from a few years back. watch any low scoring UCON-RU game. tell me if you saw any of what apparently makes the UCONN brand of hoops so eye-pleasing...

I would agree IF that same UConn ball didn't manifest itself regularly against the best in the nation on a regular basis. One has to be careful not to confuse overwhelming an opponent with over matched opponents. We have seen ample evidence of UConn ball in national championship games, see TN in the 2000 NC game. We have seen it more recently against Duke, OK, UNC and ND. Quality teams completely blown out because the execution of the totality of UConn ball was simply overwhelming. We have seen it break out in games after seeming to be oppressed for 5, 10, and even 30 minutes. To me beautiful UConn ball is more than offense. It begins with great defensive rotation. It is found in the lightening strike of the fastbreak and two passes to the score on the reversal. Sure there are ugly games but there is always that thing of beauty lurking under the surface that could break loose at any moment. The only time I really see UConn ball disappear is when the Huskies end up standing around.

if they try all of that stuff but fail, how is that any more pleasing to watch than a team that doesn't play as much team style basketball (the NY Liberty for example - or any team with Cappie Pondexter on it! )...

I understand what you mean IF one associates pretty ball with the Husky way and back door cuts and run outs but there is so much more to it for me. Part of it is how long will it fail and be contained and how quickly it can break out because it is ever ready. How often last year did we see the team go on a typical Husky run in the last 5 minutes of the half. At the same time many teams win blowouts but few are as pretty doing it as UConn.

I love seeing players committed to playing offense with great discipline even when it is unsuccessful. Of course, then again I still by books on basketball strategy, offenses and defenses. I can be loud in the stands but I am even more likely to sit there silently watching what is happening. Being down of the floor or the first few rows is a unique and incredible experience but I can be quite enthralled sitting up high where I can watch the motion, match ups and flow of the game.

Playing hard and playing physical is one thing. Cutting off passing lanes and getting in the path of cutters and pick and rollers is good defense and good hoops. Grabbing, holding, and mucking it up is for me not good basketball nor an example of exceptional athleticism but it is a way to compete when officials don't control it. These are things that can be seen on the court and in the game. Yes, it is often a fineline between the two. To me one is disciplined and about basketball IQ, skill and effort and the other is corruption of the game.

This aspect of the beautiful game can be present whether a game is a blowout or not because it is about discipline and effort, not just run outs or backdoor cuts. Every game needs great individual play but for me it becomes boring and uninteresting when all that occurs is one on one play and there is none of the dance on both ends of the court as players shift from being individuals to becoming a unit of a single mind.

i will be totally honest - i've not watched nearly enough BASKETBALL - either professional or college - to tell you one way or the other what teams play really pleasing basketball and what teams do not. obviously i've seen some - i'm not blind. RU is painful to watch. UNC and Stanford are fun to watch. UCONN is incredibly fortunate enough to have team talented enough for Geno to play the kind of free flowing, crisp intelligent basketball that we get to see. if his team consisted solely of players like Fernandez, Gardler, Kerns, Williams (Tahirah), Ash Valley, etc etc. i doubt he'd be able to get the kids to play the way he wanted, or the way you like to see...

Your observations are fair and honest and I am only trying to explain what I see and watch for and where the beauty of Husky ball begins in game play to my eye. Run outs and back door cuts are only the flower but the plant and the roots go much deeper. Sometimes like an orchid it can even emerge suddenly from a rotten log.

i am not trying to take away Geno's brilliance. Clearly he's the best coach in the women's game. some tennessee fans might disagree, but most everyone else would probably acknowledge Geno is the best at what he does. i guess i just have a hard time seeing the minutia of differences that exist in how the Lynx or Dream play the game vs. how UCONN plays the game...