PDA

View Full Version : WBB: Duke 73, Miami 58



CameronBornAndBred
01-09-2009, 06:47 PM
2:07 to go in the half, and it's tied. Duke was up 23-11, and have let Miami get back in it. The defense is not what it has been, but our shooting is getting better. KC just hit a 3, good to see us improving from outside.

CameronBornAndBred
01-09-2009, 06:57 PM
Abby only played 8 minutes in the half due to fouls, and it sounds like both our defense and our offense sat down with her. Even if she's not scoring, she is so important to have on the floor.

CameronBornAndBred
01-09-2009, 07:22 PM
Uggh, Abby just got her 4th foul, getting a 3 point shooter in the process. Still 14 minutes to go and very close game.

CameronBornAndBred
01-09-2009, 07:50 PM
After Abby had to sit, the team poured it on, and with Waner back in now with few minutes left to play, the ladies are heading for a blowout victory. Nice way to regather themselves without a prime player on the court. Every game they play like more of a team than individuals, very nice to see, Maryland is next!

P.S. Abby just fouled out without scoring a single point. Another tip to a great team effort, Waner is a lot of slack to take up, they did it well.

godukecom
01-09-2009, 10:12 PM
It is my observation that DWB seems to be decreasing in popularity...

godukerocks
01-10-2009, 12:51 AM
It is my observation that DWB seems to be decreasing in popularity...

Which is unfortunate. I really miss the days of being a powerhouse every year, and hope they come back soon. All the real sellouts for games like Tennessee, UNC, Uconn, and more; they were great.

jimsumner
01-10-2009, 08:36 AM
Paid attendance was night was in the 7,300 neighborhood. For a second-division ACC team.

McCallie and her team do lots of public appearances, are accessible to the media, sign autographs after games, et cetera and so forth. I'm not sure when and if the economic doldrums start having an impact but I don't see any evidence of popularity loss. Sure, there are still some Gail-or-bust-diehards out there but I'm pretty sure Gail ain't coming back.

This team has its flaws but they work very hard, seem to like each other, and are beating some pretty good teams. McCallie is remaking the team in her image and I think most Duke fans are giving her the chance to see what happens.

fadero
01-10-2009, 09:34 AM
I go to everygame and have since around 1992,93 but McCallies offensive schemes are horrible. They virtually give away the first five minutes of the first half when it comes to scoring. There are no screens, little movement without the ball and a very predictable pound it inside offense. The defense has looked good against the lesser teams we have played. The rubber will hit the road Monday. I truly hope I am pleasently surprised.

Ders24
01-10-2009, 09:55 AM
I go to everygame and have since around 1992,93 but McCallies offensive schemes are horrible. They virtually give away the first five minutes of the first half when it comes to scoring. There are no screens, little movement without the ball and a very predictable pound it inside offense. The defense has looked good against the lesser teams we have played. The rubber will hit the road Monday. I truly hope I am pleasently surprised.

I think to be fair you have to include that our defense has looked good (very good?) against some of the better teams we have played, Stanford for example.

fadero
01-10-2009, 11:00 AM
Our free throw defense against Stanford was outstanding.

Ders24
01-10-2009, 11:07 AM
"Stanford has six players who are at least 6-foot-3 or taller, but Duke outrebounded the Cardinal 40-39 and held them to 38.5 percent shooting, snapping a three-game streak in which they made at least half their shots."

That says nothing of the turnovers forced.

fadero
01-10-2009, 11:28 AM
Defense was ok against Stanford, we were fortunate they missed alot of open threes. Stanford was 12-27 from the foul line. They shoot well from the foul line and we have no signature win this year. Our offense, was once again, very stagnant in the Stanford game. One thing about our defense is we do leave alot of open three point shooters. The Md. game will be telling because the press will probably not be effective against them. We will probably see alot of Zone, so our offense will have to rise to the occasion. We can't turn the ball over like we have all year and expect to win.

JG Nothing
01-10-2009, 12:00 PM
Sure, there are still some Gail-or-bust-diehards out there but I'm pretty sure Gail ain't coming back.

If you think interest has fallen off for some fans simply because Gail is gone, you are wrong. How Gail was treated by the Athletic Department and administration certainly did not help. There were misgivings, however, about McCallie from the beginning by some very knowledgeable women's basketball fans. Also, McCallie's rocky transition with her players was another factor. I am confident that a different hire (Joanne Boyle for example) would have received much broader support.

jimsumner
01-10-2009, 12:16 PM
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that interest has fallen off for some fans because Gail is gone. I know the principals and know the politics pretty well. I like Gail personally and professionally and wish she were still here.

FWIW, I remember folks back in 1980 who swore they would never go to another Duke basketball games after the way Tom Butters treated Bill Foster.

But attendance figures don't suggest a significant fall-off in interest among the general fan base.

Goestenkors isn't at Duke, Alleva isn't at Duke, Boyle isn't at Duke. And most Duke fans are willing to give the new coach a chance to establish her program.

buddy
01-10-2009, 02:55 PM
The team seems to have made a successful commitment to defense this season. They shut down Oklahoma State in the second half, and played Stanford tough. They have shown courage in various comebacks--not only the phenomenal one against USC. The offense remains a work in progress. Last night they stopped going to Chante (and she stopped posting up) and they stopped scoring the first half. Fortunately Karima stepped up.

They seem to be having more fun on the court this year. Monday will be a big test. I don't think the crowds are noticeably different than when Gail was here. Everyone remembers sell outs with Tennessee and UNC--but those were the ONLY sell outs. It's very hard for a women's team with a NC banner to compete in the same venue with the men and their history and tradition.

Ders24
01-10-2009, 03:46 PM
Defense was ok against Stanford, we were fortunate they missed alot of open threes. Stanford was 12-27 from the foul line. They shoot well from the foul line and we have no signature win this year. Our offense, was once again, very stagnant in the Stanford game. One thing about our defense is we do leave alot of open three point shooters. The Md. game will be telling because the press will probably not be effective against them. We will probably see alot of Zone, so our offense will have to rise to the occasion. We can't turn the ball over like we have all year and expect to win.

You are giving our team no credit at all. Sure, Stanford missed shots, but we did what we had to do to win the game. Also, give the coaching staff some credit. If we need to change our defensive schemes for a different team, I'm sure they've seen enough tape to do so. It's not as though there is only one press this team runs.

miramar
01-10-2009, 04:06 PM
I thought that former Dukie Katie Meyer would have a bigger impact at UM, but progress has been somewhat slow in Coral Gables.

You can't argue with Duke's record so far, but we need to see how well this brand of grind-it-out basketball will do against the better, more athletic teams. We'll find out in the coming weeks in games against teams like Maryland, UNC, and Tennessee, all of which will be on ESPN2.

In general you resort to the lunch-bucket style when you don't have the best players, which obviously hasn't been the case at Duke, but there's no doubt that things seem to be moving in the right direction (at least on defense). There's also the question of whether top recruits will be interested in this style of play, so all of this is going to take a while to play out.

In the end, we all know that Coach P was given a marquee team, so she will be judged by that standard.

hughgs
01-10-2009, 05:43 PM
Which is unfortunate. I really miss the days of being a powerhouse every year, and hope they come back soon. All the real sellouts for games like Tennessee, UNC, Uconn, and more; they were great.

You mean you miss the year before last? That seems incredibly short-sighted.

CameronBornAndBred
01-10-2009, 05:48 PM
You mean you miss the year before last? That seems incredibly short-sighted.
No kidding. Last year was a let down, but not surprising given the situation. I'm on board with this team, and this coach (after Stanford, that game cinched it) and expect them to keep up our high level of play every year just like Gail and her squads did. Coach P has led a team to the final game also. We are currently ranked 5th, and continue to hold our own in the upper eschelon of women's basketball. If you asked most fans if Duke was a powerhouse, they would say yes, unless they only reserve that title for UCONN.

JG Nothing
01-11-2009, 01:26 AM
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that interest has fallen off for some fans because Gail is gone. I know the principals and know the politics pretty well. I like Gail personally and professionally and wish she were still here.

FWIW, I remember folks back in 1980 who swore they would never go to another Duke basketball games after the way Tom Butters treated Bill Foster.

But attendance figures don't suggest a significant fall-off in interest among the general fan base.

Goestenkors isn't at Duke, Alleva isn't at Duke, Boyle isn't at Duke. And most Duke fans are willing to give the new coach a chance to establish her program.
I am sure you are correct about some fans lossing interest in the team because Gail left. However, that is not the only reason as you seem to suggest in your gratuitous remark about "Gail-or-bust-diehards" and the sarcastic "Gail ain't coming back." You even continue with that theme at the end of your response as if all dissatisfaction is due to what happened in the past.
I don't know any "Gail-or-bust-diehard" fans, but I do know some diehard and knowledgeable Duke basketball fans that have had their enthusiasm dampened for all the reasons I mentioned. Nonetheless, they still support the players, keep up with the team, and want Duke to win. Since you know the principals and the politics of the situation pretty well, you can easily guess what issues I'm talking about in terms of Gail's treatment, the initial misgivings about McCallie, and the turmoil of last year.
Finally, McCallie is getting her chance. No one I know is publicly or privately calling for her to be fired.

jimsumner
01-11-2009, 11:43 AM
There are plenty of Gail-or-bust-diehards who do want Gail to come back. And many of them have publicly called for McCallie's dismissal on another Duke board. Much more last year then this year. I suppose that's progress.

What relevance do the circumstances of Gail's departure from Duke have to the current Duke team? Why bring it up? I'm pretty sure McCallie wasn't involved in any of these discussions, discussions that ended with Goestenkors being offered a pretty generous salary to remain at Duke, btw.
(Oh, no, he's being sarcastic again!!!)

There are folks out there who are convinced that Goestenkors was run out of town for reasons that have nothing to do with the team's on-court performance or her competence as a coach. Maybe she was. This wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with Joe Alleva. Some--not all-of these people simply were not going to give anyone from outside the Duke family a fair shake.

Coaching transitions involve change, by definition. And change can be unsettling, stressful, unpleasant. But I think most Duke fans are willing to give McCallie time to institute her system and see where it goes. It it works, great. If it doesn't, move on. But let's leave the Alleva-Goestenkors squabbles in the past. Neither is at Duke and nothing that happened then can be undone. The moving finger has writ. Next play.

Gargoyle
01-11-2009, 01:50 PM
I thought that former Dukie Katie Meyer would have a bigger impact at UM, but progress has been somewhat slow in Coral Gables.

You can't argue with Duke's record so far, but we need to see how well this brand of grind-it-out basketball will do against the better, more athletic teams. We'll find out in the coming weeks in games against teams like Maryland, UNC, and Tennessee, all of which will be on ESPN2.

In general you resort to the lunch-bucket style when you don't have the best players, which obviously hasn't been the case at Duke, but there's no doubt that things seem to be moving in the right direction (at least on defense). There's also the question of whether top recruits will be interested in this style of play, so all of this is going to take a while to play out.

In the end, we all know that Coach P was given a marquee team, so she will be judged by that standard.

This is an interesting post, but I wonder exactly what you mean by the terms "grind-it-out" , "lunch-bucket" and "marquee". Perhaps you could elaborate on those terms for me.

Thanks

DU82
01-11-2009, 03:19 PM
This is an interesting post, but I wonder exactly what you mean by the terms "grind-it-out" , "lunch-bucket" and "marquee". Perhaps you could elaborate on those terms for me.

Thanks

Grind-it-out and lunch-bucket in that the team concentrates on a pressing defense. Gee, where have we heard about a team like that? Oh yeah, the locker room down the hall. Of course, the superior athletes (Henderson and Singler in particular) help on offense as well.

I was not convinced last season about this approach, but I am this year. OF course, other than Stanford, we haven't seen it against a top team. Tomorrow night will tell.

REgarding "Marquee" I think the phrase is being used in that McCallie took over a team that was number one most of the previous year. What her detractors don't mention is that team lost the national player of the year, and a 6'7" center who, when she wanted to, was dominate. Watching the team the past few years, I question whether or not the rest of the team is really "marquee" in the way the original poster intended it. Black and Gay, while good athletes, appear to have come to basketball late, probably because of their height. Their "basketball sense" compared to Waner, Smith, and others is lower, and they appear to have to "think" more on the court.

DU82
01-11-2009, 03:56 PM
This is an interesting post, but I wonder exactly what you mean by the terms "grind-it-out" , "lunch-bucket" and "marquee". Perhaps you could elaborate on those terms for me.

Thanks

Grind-it-out and lunch-bucket in that the team concentrates on playing a pressing, cut-off-the-pass defense, and the offense can sometimes be very disjointed and "ugly". Similar to the team in the locker room down the hall.

I am more convinced that this approach is working, something I certainly didn't agree with last year (a Gail-hangover, maybe?) On the flip side, other than Stanford, we haven't seen this against a top team this year, especially one with top guards. Tomorrow will tell us a lot.

Marquee in that McCallie inherited a team that was number one and undefeated the previous regular season. However, I believe most of her detractors minimize the effect of losing the national player of the year and a 6'7" center who could be dominating on the talent level. I'm not sure I'd call the talent level remaining as "marquee" (at least in terms of top five talent.) Based on her recruitment, Abby Waner is in that group. Who else on the team was considered at that level (I'm asking because I don't keep up on recruiting that much.)

Black and Gay, while good athletes, appear (based on their play) to have come to basketball relatively late, probably due to their height. (How many 7'+ male players do we see like this that are labled "projects"?) Many times last year, they made plays that didn't make sense, as if they had to "think" about what they had to do step-by-step and not play instinctively. Players like Waner and Smith, for instance, are clearly "gym rats" and appear to have a better understanding of the flow of the game. Chante clearly is better this year regarding this, Carrem is still a "work in progress" at times.

Regarding a couple of other things of note (not necessarily on the court):

The crowd numbers obviously include all season ticket sales, since there was no way there were 7000+ people there on Friday. Let's really fill up the place tomorrow against the turtles.

The Devil needs to keep his cape on, otherwise the name "McRoberts" will be visable on the back of his jersey to everybody. (It was visible to us towards the top of section 15, perhaps those down low have noticed this previously.) The previous devil I believe was using one of Eric Meek's number 50 jerseys. Size matters, I guess! Couldn't they at least remove the name?

A little thing, but on Monday against Temple, the national anthem was sung by a lady (whose singing would fit in the "national anthem" thread regarding unnecessary embellishment of the song) and was accompanied on the keyboard by a special olympics participant (I believe that's how he was introduced.) He was very good. Immediately after, when each team went to the bench for pre-game instructions, Abby took the time to go over to him to congratulate and thank him for his performance. A very nice gesture.

miramar
01-11-2009, 10:00 PM
This is an interesting post, but I wonder exactly what you mean by the terms "grind-it-out" , "lunch-bucket" and "marquee". Perhaps you could elaborate on those terms for me.

Thanks

With the grind-it-out and lunch-bucket comment I meant that Coach P prefers a physical style of play (on offense as well as defense) rather than rely more on quickness and athleticism as Coach G did. It does not mean that you simply play tough defense, since can also be done very effectively by small, quick teams.

As a Towerview article put it last year, "McCallie's coaching philosophy stated that teams who relied heavily on a fast pace throughout the year set themselves up for failure in March, when referees swallowed their whistles and possessions became more valued as the weight of a season hung on every one. Anyone could get up and down the court in the regular season, but teams that could control the ball and establish an inside game had a better chance of advancing in the Tournament-the only time that having a better chance actually mattered, at least by Duke's expectations."

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/04/23/Features/A.Season.Of.Change-3343683.shtml

Since Coach G preferred a more fluid and athletic game, this means that she recruited accordingly, and as a result the players have to adjust to a whole new style of play rather than just to a new coach.

On the plus side, we can assume that Coach P will recruit players who can play this style of basketball, so the team should improve over time. On the negative side, if you truly love basketball then this style of play can make you want to rip your eyeballs out.

Personally, I am not sure that athletic teams necessarily set themselves up for failure in the post season. In fact, I would not define UConn and Tennessee, the two traditional powerhouses in WBB, as typical grind-it-out teams. And Duke's men's basketball would definitely not qualify as a physical, lunch-bucket team either (they don't have the tattoos for it).

With the marquee comment I meant that Duke was probably among the top five programs in the country most seasons, although that can obviously change from year to year. WBB certainly lost two top players the year Coach G left, but with proper player development you get back to where you were before. Coincidentally, WBB is ranked #5 right now.

Gargoyle
01-12-2009, 09:46 AM
With the grind-it-out and lunch-bucket comment I meant that Coach P prefers a physical style of play (on offense as well as defense) rather than rely more on quickness and athleticism as Coach G did. It does not mean that you simply play tough defense, since can also be done very effectively by small, quick teams.

As a Towerview article put it last year, "McCallie's coaching philosophy stated that teams who relied heavily on a fast pace throughout the year set themselves up for failure in March, when referees swallowed their whistles and possessions became more valued as the weight of a season hung on every one. Anyone could get up and down the court in the regular season, but teams that could control the ball and establish an inside game had a better chance of advancing in the Tournament-the only time that having a better chance actually mattered, at least by Duke's expectations."

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/04/23/Features/A.Season.Of.Change-3343683.shtml

Since Coach G preferred a more fluid and athletic game, this means that she recruited accordingly, and as a result the players have to adjust to a whole new style of play rather than just to a new coach.

On the plus side, we can assume that Coach P will recruit players who can play this style of basketball, so the team should improve over time. On the negative side, if you truly love basketball then this style of play can make you want to rip your eyeballs out.

Personally, I am not sure that athletic teams necessarily set themselves up for failure in the post season. In fact, I would not define UConn and Tennessee, the two traditional powerhouses in WBB, as typical grind-it-out teams. And Duke's men's basketball would definitely not qualify as a physical, lunch-bucket team either (they don't have the tattoos for it).

With the marquee comment I meant that Duke was probably among the top five programs in the country most seasons, although that can obviously change from year to year. WBB certainly lost two top players the year Coach G left, but with proper player development you get back to where you were before. Coincidentally, WBB is ranked #5 right now.

Thank you for your explanation. When I first read your comment, I thought those terms were a bit pejorative and were meant to reflect negatively on the Duke coaching staff. I am glad to see that I was mistaken in that thought.

Nonetheless, I have to disagree strongly with your view that "Coach P prefers a physical style of play (on offense as well as defense) rather than rely more on quickness and athleticism". It appears to me that this Duke team relies almost entirely on quickness and athleticism, to win games. Also to apply the term "grind-it-out" to a team that takes over 68 shots per game seems a bit off to me. The men's team, for example, averages less than 60 shots per game.

Also, I am personally very pleased that our team seems much stronger physically and in better condition. It's very good to see that we are no longer being pushed off the blocks and that we are out rebounding most opponents. Finally, I also think we have a new found mental toughness that allows us to stay in games even when the shots are not falling.

miramar
01-12-2009, 10:25 AM
I'm surprised that the women are taking 68 shots per game. I would have figured it to be less, although some of it may be because they are creating a lot of turnovers (27 per game).

I'm not too surprised that the men are shooting sixty per game since the motion offense tries to create high-percentage shots, so although it's a fluid style it doesn't lead to as much shooting as some run and gun teams. They also drive more and pick up more fouls (although I'm glad that now people don't whine as much about the fact that Duke makes more free throws than their opponents take). Plus Coach K likes to let the air out of the ball and play foul line extended the last eight minutes or so.

Duvall
01-12-2009, 10:53 AM
On the plus side, we can assume that Coach P will recruit players who can play this style of basketball, so the team should improve over time.

We can hope.

GrayHare
01-12-2009, 12:20 PM
It is my observation that DWB seems to be decreasing in popularity...

Even though I'm a season ticket holder, I've only seen the team play 3 times this season. For me, the problem isn't the team or the coach -- it's the schedule.

WBB used to play one game during the week and one game on the weekend pretty reliably, and I could usually make the weekend games. For the past two seasons -- coincidentally during the McCallie era -- a pattern of two games during the week has become more common, and I just can't afford to take that much time off.

It's tough on an aging, long-distance fan...

CameronBornAndBred
01-12-2009, 01:15 PM
Even though I'm a season ticket holder, I've only seen the team play 3 times this season. For me, the problem isn't the team or the coach -- it's the schedule.

WBB used to play one game during the week and one game on the weekend pretty reliably, and I could usually make the weekend games. For the past two seasons -- coincidentally during the McCallie era -- a pattern of two games during the week has become more common, and I just can't afford to take that much time off.

It's tough on an aging, long-distance fan...
That's why I'm only able to make it to the UNC game this year. I wish we had more Saturday or Friday games.

RepoMan
01-12-2009, 01:41 PM
where does recruiting stand for next season?