Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="diggerfoot, post: 2252734, member: 1673"] It has been mentioned, but there's no guarantee of your conclusions. There were chemistry problems on that team, evident at the time but also reported by Ralph years later I believe, which no doubt stemmed from trying to mesh too much all star talent. While you can point to Auriemma teams with good chemistry as gelling and doing their best in March, you can also point to Auriemma teams that lacked chemistry during the season and that continued to plague them into March. The 2001 team, until weaned by injuries, fit the latter. Comparing apples to apples, other Auriemma teams that lacked chemistry during the season, rather than apples to oranges, teams with chemistry, would suggest the 2001 team would not even do as well as they did towards the end, would in fact play more like the discombobulated (don't you just love that word) team that did poorly against Notre Dame the entire game the first time they played. That should not be a reflection or demerit on Taurasi's responsibility or leadership, the team was not hers to lead at that time. Yet the evidence of apples to apples, rather than assuming a team that lacked chemistry would acquire it by tournament time, despite past evidence to the contrary, suggests that Taurasi would not be in possession of 4 NCs regardless, nor would she have been the focal point of success if they did. After all, she did not even get Big East FOY because of her lesser role on an all star laden team, it was after the injuries that she was really called upon to shine. But yes, leading inexperienced players to the NCs was primarily on her, and I'm not sure any of the other GOAT candidates could do that. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach