Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="diggerfoot, post: 2557669, member: 1673"] I've been seeing a lot of references to Williams ALWAYS playing big in big games. Yet, due to circumstances beyond her control, she had her worst game in what I would call our biggest game, the close call against our biggest rival, Notre Dame. In contrast, Stevens takes a back seat to the core four in the South Carolina game, but was the savior in the Notre Dame game. Does that mean she is really the one that always plays big in the big games? I bring up Stevens because I don't want to make this a battle between everyone's favorite out of the core four. Rather, I just want to question what we are considering big games. When you go in and dominate a team as early as we did SC, to me that's not a big game in the least. I agree with the anticipation of it being a big game, but when it becomes clear early on they can't compete I don't see how you can consider it a big game in retrospect. Yes, Wilson is a superstar, but so was Griner and the Ogwumikes, who played in more games against us that actually were close. So were Diggins and McBride, who actually played on teams that consistently beat us. For that matter, Maryland typically has proved to be a bigger game than match-ups against South Carolina. From what I've seen, everyone of the core four (plus three) has had their moments when they played big in big games, close games that require players to rise above. Everyone of the core four has faltered at times; that's basketball. However, the litmus test is never a game like the one against South Carolina. My apologies to our SC visitors, who have shown a lot of class on an opponent's board. Obviously, SC provides big games against some good teams, just not us. Some match-ups are just ill-fated. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach