When Sally jumped overboard

[huskyd]

When I first read Sally Jenkins' encomium in the Washington Post after the Huskies' 100th win, I appreciated her acknowledgment of the feat and of her general raising of the profile of WCBB. This morning I re-read it and had some other thoughts.

Her essential point is TRUE: UConn's game is all “about method, approach, and above all playing the game as a kind of ethic.” [ital. mine]. The adjectives she uses are also mostly true: there is a “flow” to the [UConn] game that is “eye-pleasing,” buffed and polished. She notes that there is “something in the teaching method” of Coach, which emphasizes “the importance of each little detail.” All true.

But Sally occasionally drifts into misstatements and overstatements. For one, the Husky win streak is not the longest in the history of the game. She describes the UConn game as never having “a drifting move, never a sluggish foot or hand.” Is that even possible? She quotes Kia's question “How many people can get something consistently, exactly right for 30 straight minutes without making a mistake?” Sally answers, “only one.” Really? (And what about the other 10 minutes?)

The problem here is that the Huskies, while a great team and an even greater program with aspirations for perfection, have not yet reached perfection. No one has, and, according to Geno, no one ever will. At the end, Sally gets it right: the Huskies' game is an intrinsically beautiful thing to behold, and all true sports fans should avail themselves of the chance to watch it. It is not, however, perfect. That's on the agenda.

And thanks for the swell piece, Sally.

 

[Hongster]

It doesn't matter. As long as you're undefeated you're perfect. That is just the way you measure a team.

 

[UcMiami]

True, but we allow pundits a certain amount of hyperbole like we allow poets their license. And on the thirty minutes item, that was referring to practice and working on the same thing over and over until you do it exactly the same for 30 minutes straight.

 

[Husky pride]

When I first read Sally Jenkins' encomium in the Washington Post after the Huskies' 100th win, I appreciated her acknowledgment of the feat and of her general raising of the profile of WCBB. This morning I re-read it and had some other thoughts.

Her essential point is TRUE: UConn's game is all “about method, approach, and above all playing the game as a kind of ethic.” [ital. mine]. The adjectives she uses are also mostly true: there is a “flow” to the [UConn] game that is “eye-pleasing,” buffed and polished. She notes that there is “something in the teaching method” of Coach, which emphasizes “the importance of each little detail.” All true.

But Sally occasionally drifts into misstatements and overstatements. For one, the Husky win streak is not the longest in the history of the game. She describes the UConn game as never having “a drifting move, never a sluggish foot or hand.” Is that even possible? She quotes Kia's question “How many people can get something consistently, exactly right for 30 straight minutes without making a mistake?” Sally answers, “only one.” Really? (And what about the other 10 minutes?)

The problem here is that the Huskies, while a great team and an even greater program with aspirations for perfection, have not yet reached perfection. No one has, and, according to Geno, no one ever will. At the end, Sally gets it right: the Huskies' game is an intrinsically beautiful thing to behold, and all true sports fans should avail themselves of the chance to watch it. It is not, however, perfect. That's on the agenda.

And thanks for the swell piece, Sally.

Not sure why you would want to dissect, and find some fault with, what amounts to an overall very positive message about UConn women and what they've been able to achieve....but everyone to their own!

 

[Husky pride]

When I first read Sally Jenkins' encomium in the Washington Post after the Huskies' 100th win, I appreciated her acknowledgment of the feat and of her general raising of the profile of WCBB. This morning I re-read it and had some other thoughts.

Her essential point is TRUE: UConn's game is all “about method, approach, and above all playing the game as a kind of ethic.” [ital. mine]. The adjectives she uses are also mostly true: there is a “flow” to the [UConn] game that is “eye-pleasing,” buffed and polished. She notes that there is “something in the teaching method” of Coach, which emphasizes “the importance of each little detail.” All true.

But Sally occasionally drifts into misstatements and overstatements. For one, the Husky win streak is not the longest in the history of the game. She describes the UConn game as never having “a drifting move, never a sluggish foot or hand.” Is that even possible? She quotes Kia's question “How many people can get something consistently, exactly right for 30 straight minutes without making a mistake?” Sally answers, “only one.” Really? (And what about the other 10 minutes?)

The problem here is that the Huskies, while a great team and an even greater program with aspirations for perfection, have not yet reached perfection. No one has, and, according to Geno, no one ever will. At the end, Sally gets it right: the Huskies' game is an intrinsically beautiful thing to behold, and all true sports fans should avail themselves of the chance to watch it. It is not, however, perfect. That's on the agenda.

And thanks for the swell piece, Sally.

Not sure why you would want to dissect, and find some fault with, what amounts to an overall very positive message about UConn women and what they've been able to achieve....but everyone to their own!

 

[huskyd]

Not sure why you would want to dissect, and find some fault with, what amounts to an overall very positive message about UConn women and what they've been able to achieve...but everyone to their own!

Just blowing smoke, HP, filling in time until the next W. Thought Sally went a bit far (if that's possible). I'm as happy as anyone with positive coverage of our Huskies and/or of WCBB.