Gold medal game

2,370 Views | 16 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by BearFan33
fredbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know anything about international wbb. But, by ncaa or wnba rules, every player on France's team would have fouled out. The game resembled rugby or a street fight more than bball. Geno would have had a coronary!
Chibears2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
International play does allow much more physical play, but France's defense looked like a Vic Schaefer defense on steroids during A&M's heyday! Especially bumping offensive players off their path on way to basket.

Have to give USA team credit. With all the pressure they must have felt to NOT let the streak come to an end with them, it would have been very easy to lose one's cool with such French aggression and retaliate or engage in a negative way. A technical foul could (would?) have been enough to elicit a different outcome.
IowaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
USA shot like 30 some FTs… wasn't like they were getting away with it.
The US team also missed a **** load of bunnies that would have drastically changed the score. But that's woman's basketball for ya.
Chibears2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IowaBear said:

USA shot like 30 some FTs… wasn't like they were getting away with it.
The US team also missed a **** load of bunnies that would have drastically changed the score. But that's woman's basketball for ya.
They did miss a lot of bunnies and I think they should have made some of those trips to the line "and ones."

But the fact we shot free throws doesn't change the fact that the game became too physical for a game of basketball. And that comes from someone who prefers a more physical style of play. The referees wouldn't have had to call so many fouls if they would have established early in each half, no grabbing arms, no excessive hockey style hip checking and no shoves in the back of the bigs. And I do think France DID get away with it for a large chunk of the middle of the game.

Anyway, that's my opinion as an observer. It's certainly okay that you don't agree.
BU82EX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fouls 25-13 (France)
Free Throws 34-13 (USA)
Turnovers 19-14 (USA)

But I would say France played 11+ fouls more aggressively on defense than the US team. Off the ball treatment reminded me more of wrestling than basketball (holding and more holding). The one USA player who seemed to dish-it-out as well as the French players actually fouled out (Jackie Young) and she fouled out with over 8 minutes to go in the game. I certainly don't think the US Team got any kind of preferential treatment from the international refs even though the free throw disparity might suggest differently.
IowaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not that I disagree.
France plays physical. They played that way the entire tournament. The US played an incredibly sloppy game of basketball as a whole. The missed bunnies and TO's are why it was close imo. International ball as a whole is more physical. Shouldn't be hard for a team with about 5x the talent of everyone they play to adjust. Just one's opinion.
fredbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
France fouled 5 fold the number of fouls called. They got away with it 80 percent of the time; a clear incentive to keep playing dirty.
BUVA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fredbear said:

France fouled 5 fold the number of fouls called. They got away with it 80 percent of the time; a clear incentive to keep playing dirty.


The Gary Blair School of Thought
IowaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Since when is playing physical defense considered being dirty? Watched that entire game and not once did I think France was being dirty. Maybe I need my eyes checked
Chibears2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would agree not dirty, but their stated goal was to muck it up and I thought they were allowed to do that way too much and I thought that contributed to some of our sloppiness…not all, but a lot.

If I want muck, I'll go look at the drainage ditch behind my house. I want to see basketball; not shoving, grabbing and bumping to the point it gets hard to even run an offense. I don't blame France. They were probably the only other team in the tournament who could feel as much pressure as the USA, playing in front of their home crowd, and because of our talented depth, teams have to try and be physical. And as I said, I like a physical game much more than a game over-regulated and stymied by excessive touch fouls. But I thought the referees let too much go on early in both halves and that set the stage for a really rough game.

But dirty? Definitely not. I think there was actually a lot of respect from both sides for their opponents.

Regardless, France showed that we can be vulnerable and we better learn how to match that physicality on defense and to score in spite of it on offense, or we better pray the refs call a different, tighter game, because the rest of the world was watching and they know how to be physical, as well.
ctxbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would add that the game against France proved that not selecting Caitlin Clark was a good choice by USA Basketball. She'll likely get to a point where she can compete with that level of physicality, but she's not there now.

Angel Reese, on the other hand, might could have hung in there.
setshot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have watched enough of Clark over the years, and particularly in this, her first WNBA year, to respect just how she has responded to the deliberate physicality designed to throw her off of her game. I would argue that she has experienced more physical play this year than most of the WNBA players. In fact, many of the players she has faced have openly celebrated their physical assaults on Clark, and officials have been slow to respond to it. This has been much commented on by observers of the WNBA to this point, and I do not expect it to change when the WNBA resumes play this week.

The lack of productivity of Chelsea Gray and Diana Taurasi, the latter starting in the early games and not even seeing the court in the final game and very little in the semi-final, calls into question the decision to bypass a player whose skill set and physical attributes mark her out as one of those who constitute the future of women's basketball.

As Dawn Staley, no great fan of the player who was largely responsible for sending her team home from the NCAA playoffs two years ago, admitted a couple of weeks ago, if they were choosing the team at that point, Clark would have been included. What changed her opinion? Presumably Clark's productivity in the face of the constant attempts to rough her up by constant full court pressure and double teams.

She sent LSU home this year by scoring over forty points as part of a triple double, leading Kim Mulkey to call her the best player she had ever seen. How could a player who had led the NCAA both in scoring and in assists for two straight years be a surprise when she moved up to the WNBA? Was it assumed that skills at that level were not transferable to professional basketball?

She had some of her best games against the strongest teams that her teams, Iowa and the Indiana Fever, played. Even against the WNBA Olympic team, playing for the All Stars, she scored in single digits but had assists in the double digits, while leading the upset of the team that would go on to extend the gold medal play in the Olympics. Like all great players, Clark finds a way to contribute even when her scoring is below her usual standard.

I have seen some great women players over the years, but none have so often made me sit up in my chair and say, "How did she do that?," as Caitlin Clark, and her passing is as often in that category as is her shooting.
She is a special player, one of the few non-Baylor players I would pay good money to watch.


IowaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Excellent post! Clark has dealt with physical play all season and responded as well as anyone could have imagined.
Like her or not when she hangs em up in 12-15 years she'll likely go down as the greatest ever. She's just scratching the surface of what's to come.
BearTiger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As of now, I wouldn't put title on Clark as the best to ever played the game. It's a little too early. She has only played in WNBA for couple months. I will wait 4-5 years before I start calling her the GOAT. She will need to be MVP multiple years and win couple championships first. That's my opinion.
I really like watching Clark and Reese play together against the olympic stars. They are fun to watch and have been instrumental for increased interest in WBB.
IowaBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Read my post again…. I said WHEN she hangs it up. She'll go down as the best ever all imo. No where did I say she is right now. That said, she's already a top 15 player in the WNBA and will past most in front her rather quickly. Barring injuries of course. There hasn't been a player imo with a ceiling as high as hers to ever play the woman's game.
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I finally got to watch the game and agree it was very physical. I was surprised how many lay-ups were missed by both sides. The wrestling match must have tired out both sides. If they would have called a little more fouls off the ball then maybe it would have been a cleaner game.

The personnel choices were interesting by the US coach but it worked well enough to get the W.

BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Congrats to BG and the whole USA team
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.