The hip check

[Dynastic]

Also can we pleas look at that clip honestly and admit while it was a dirty play, Clark exaggerated the contact a bit to make sure the refs called it.

Just a little late for foreplay… less subtle ways to meet people by Carter.

 

[cancontent]

Just because it has been going on forever does it make it right? Bringing new eyes to the game can also point out things that make the product less enjoyable. Older fans have just accepted that the WNBA has to be extremely physical, and not pushing for change in what should be a more free flowing game. Why is it necessary to have players like A'ja Wilson get absolutely batter last night and not getting calls on what are obvious fouls? The Foul where Angel could have been seriously injured and AT was ejected, should be considered a rookies welcome to the league. I know Angle brushed it off but why has that become a norm? Why has the WNBA just accepted that this is the style that they want to promote? I get physicality of the game. There are many times it egregious and should be held in check? People complain about all of the injuries in the WNBA and blame the year long schedule most of them have to play but I guarantee that some of that also due to the extreme physicality of the game.

There are sports where brutality is expected but at least they are in gear that is supposed to help them lessen the effects.

At this point I don't think the WNBA puts out a good product, because of the extreme physicality. This doesn't discount the amazing talent that is and has been in the league. I just feel that the league is doing the players and the fans a complete disservice by allowing this.

Define good product. How much physicality needs to be removed for what we see to be considered good from your perspective? Does the WNBA go to the levels the NBA did because there are complaints that their basketball isn't good product either to some on this board.

It's a no win situation frankly until things settle down in my opinion. When that is though, who knows?

 

[Alydar]

I'm probably not making myself clear enough. I've been around basketball for 65 years. My dad coached HS BB.
I'm reacting to the two subjects being brought together at all: 1) dirty play, and oh by the way... 2) the game is rough... so...?
Why are the two things being brought together? How does a rough game explain a dirty play. It was a premeditated dirty play. Rebecca said "not a basketball play." I guess what I'm trying to say is that dirty plays are bad. Why mix in any sociology of the game. It's wrong or it isn't? I've not said one thing about consequences. I'm commenting that fuzzy standards can't work. That's the beauty of an "inside the lines" activity.

The difference between physicality and "dirty play" is often a matter of whether it's your team doing it or not.

The NBA worshipped physicality in the 80's and into the 90's. Fans loved seeing Bird and Lambeer go at it and it was a lot rougher than a hip check. There are videos showing actual fights where no players were even called for a foul. Now the NBA has replaced that with skill and talent. Maybe some day the talent level in the W will increase and they won't need the drama of dirty play to substitute for limited skill and artistry.

 

[nwhoopfan]

The difference between physicality and "dirty play" is often a matter of whether it's you team doing it or not.

The NBA worshipped physicality in the 80's and into the 90's. Fans loved seeing Bird and Lambeer go at it and it was a lot rougher than a hip check. There are videos showing actual fights where no players were even called for a foul. Now the NBA has replaced that with skill and talent. Maybe some day the talent level in the W will increase and they won't need the drama of dirty play to substitute for limited skill and artistry.

The 80s (and into the early 90s) was a classic period of NBA history. Yes it was rough, yes there were fights on the court. But many of the all time best played during this period and it was something to behold. Somewhere along the line the game got unwatchable. When the Riley led Heat and the Knicks were battling it out with scores like 72-67, nobody wanted to see that. The skill was gone, and it was more like wrestling or boxing than basketball. The league definitely needed to be saved from itself. As an aside, it was really strange that the coach who brought us the Showtime Lakers also brought us some of the worst ball in NBA history.

Is the WNBA as bad as that shameful era of NBA? Probably not. But it is way too physical, and has been for a while. The league needs to decide if they want to try to clean up the game or not.


edit--this also makes me think of the 30 for 30 episode about the origins of the Big East in men's hoops. It's shocking to me how physical the game was, and how often fights erupted on the court.

 

[Pharos]

Just because it has been going on forever does it make it right? Bringing new eyes to the game can also point out things that make the product less enjoyable. Older fans have just accepted that the WNBA has to be extremely physical, and not pushing for change in what should be a more free flowing game. Why is it necessary to have players like A'ja Wilson get absolutely batter last night and not getting calls on what are obvious fouls? The Foul where Angel could have been seriously injured and AT was ejected, should be considered a rookies welcome to the league. I know Angle brushed it off but why has that become a norm? Why has the WNBA just accepted that this is the style that they want to promote? I get physicality of the game. There are many times it egregious and should be held in check? People complain about all of the injuries in the WNBA and blame the year long schedule most of them have to play but I guarantee that some of that also due to the extreme physicality of the game.

There are sports where brutality is expected but at least they are in gear that is supposed to help them lessen the effects.

At this point I don't think the WNBA puts out a good product, because of the extreme physicality. This doesn't discount the amazing talent that is and has been in the league. I just feel that the league is doing the players and the fans a complete disservice by allowing this.

I agree with the "don't think... good product." I watched part of a game between Liberty and Dream. At about halftime the shooting percentages were about 38% and 43%... lot of hoisting and chasing. I enjoy Big East games better... Creighton... Marquette... even Georgetown...

 

[The deacon]

Just because it has been going on forever does it make it right? Bringing new eyes to the game can also point out things that make the product less enjoyable. Older fans have just accepted that the WNBA has to be extremely physical, and not pushing for change in what should be a more free flowing game. Why is it necessary to have players like A'ja Wilson get absolutely batter last night and not getting calls on what are obvious fouls? The Foul where Angel could have been seriously injured and AT was ejected, should be considered a rookies welcome to the league. I know Angle brushed it off but why has that become a norm? Why has the WNBA just accepted that this is the style that they want to promote? I get physicality of the game. There are many times it egregious and should be held in check? People complain about all of the injuries in the WNBA and blame the year long schedule most of them have to play but I guarantee that some of that also due to the extreme physicality of the game.

There are sports where brutality is expected but at least they are in gear that is supposed to help them lessen the effects.

At this point I don't think the WNBA puts out a good product, because of the extreme physicality. This doesn't discount the amazing talent that is and has been in the league. I just feel that the league is doing the players and the fans a complete disservice by allowing this.

In spite of counter-points that ensued here, IArick, I believe you're right on the money.

 

[WLT1717]

It's so overwhelming. If it was anyone but Clark, no one would talk about it. And you can tell who's never watched the W. This has been going on forever.

No. It hasn’t. We’ve been watching for years. And this was a total cheap shot that has no place in the sport.

 

[Geew1992]

No. It hasn’t. We’ve been watching for years. And this was a total cheap shot that has no place in the sport.

I never said it wasn’t a cheap shot. But yes… it has been happening

 

[GCKSFN4L]

Cheap shots have absolutely happened in the WNBA for years. Just last year DT slapped Marina in the face and no foul was ever called and it was nowhere close to being a basketball play. The selective outrage is based on who it is because the WNBA has always been this way. It's mellowed out some but still ongoing.

 

[typhaon]

It's so overwhelming. If it was anyone but Clark, no one would talk about it. And you can tell who's never watched the W. This has been going on forever.

If it happened during a pickup game at the park, nobody would talk about it. But, it didn't. It happened in the WNBA to a player who has probably generated more $$$ and more interest in the league than all the other WNBA players combined... ever.

It wasn't physical D. It wasn't a tough foul. It wasn't part of the game. It was a premeditated cheap shot to the most important player in the league.

 

[Geew1992]

If it happened during a pickup game at the park, nobody would talk about it. But, it didn't. It happened in the WNBA to a player who has probably generated more $$$ and more interest in the league than all the other WNBA players combined... ever.

It wasn't physical D. It wasn't a tough foul. It wasn't part of the game. It was a premeditated cheap shot to the most important player in the league.

No where did I say it wasn't. I've seen plenty of cheap shots in games. Worse than that. And nope.... it wasn't analyze. No one claimed to be targeted or the players were jealous. Like I said, if it was anyone else, it wouldn't have been talked about.

 

[visitingcock]

If it happened during a pickup game at the park, nobody would talk about it. But, it didn't. It happened in the WNBA to a player who has probably generated more $$$ and more interest in the league than all the other WNBA players combined... ever.

It wasn't physical D. It wasn't a tough foul. It wasn't part of the game. It was a premeditated cheap shot to the most important player in the league.

"and then you go and spoil it all by saying some thing stupid like . . .."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_t2gNCXYbY

Sorry, she does not compare to A'ja, Stewie and dozens of other players who have their teams chasing a championship. Maybe some day she will, but she has not established her importance yet

 

[JoePgh]

"and then you go and spoil it all by saying some thing stupid like . . .."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_t2gNCXYbY

Sorry, she does not compare to A'ja, Stewie and dozens of other players who have their teams chasing a championship. Maybe some day she will, but she has not established her importance yet

I think the poster was referring to her popularity. Instead of "most important player in the league", would you disagree if he said, "most important marketing asset for the league"?

 

[visitingcock]

I think the poster was referring to her popularity. Instead of "most important player in the league", would you disagree if he said, "most important marketing asset for the league"?

I would not have disagreed with that. Now, if the poster had said "potentially the most important marketing asset for the league," I would have agreed,

 

[typhaon]

"and then you go and spoil it all by saying some thing stupid like . . .."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_t2gNCXYbY

Sorry, she does not compare to A'ja, Stewie and dozens of other players who have their teams chasing a championship. Maybe some day she will, but she has not established her importance yet

I did not mean she's the league MVP. I meant that she was the most important player to the league.

 

[cancontent]

I did not mean she's the league MVP. I meant that she was the most important player to the league.

This statement is what gets people into arguments. Is she the "most important" or "an important" player to the league? As a friend of mine likes to remind me, words matter.

Using "most" makes it sound like nothing has happened prior to Clark's arrival. Athletes Unlimited and the Unrivaled 3x3 were concepts that were coming to fruition well before Clark's plans on entering the draft were official. The inroads and progress the WNBA and female professional basketball players have made would still be happening, regardless if she had played in the NCAA or been drafted this season. To me, that rules out the word "most".

The fact that some items are happening sooner than expected (e.g. charters, ratings increase rate, arena sell outs) because of Clark's arrival speaks to the impact she has makes her "an" important player to the league to me. It can't be ignored or denied, but it could be framed in a way that doesn't take away from the impact that was made before Clark's arrival while acknowledging her impact at the same time.

 

[DRR25]

I did not mean she's the league MVP. I meant that she was the most important player to the league.

What's the difference between most important player "in" the league versus "to" the league?