PDA

View Full Version : WBB: (10) Duke 62, (18) Tennessee 54



wandalee
02-16-2009, 01:56 PM
The women have a big game tonight against UT in Knoxville tonight. Game time is 7:30 on ESPN2. Karima is questionable due to a concussion she suffered in a hard fall in the UNC game. UT's good freshman Stricklin is also questionable.
This is a big test for our team.

Go Duke!!!

CameronBornAndBred
02-16-2009, 03:32 PM
Tennessee is having a rough year, but still it's a big game for them to get up for. You know the Summit will be loud. It will be a good test for Duke. Clemson was a good team to vent the UNC frustrations on, but we can't play like we did vs. UNC tonight and expect different results. Should be a really good game.

DukieInKansas
02-16-2009, 09:42 PM
Congratulations on the victory!

I like the pink shoes and the pink accents on the uniforms.

CameronBornAndBred
02-16-2009, 09:44 PM
Overall good game, still TO happy. Our free throw shooting was fugly too, and helped Tenn. mount a comeback. Great rebounding. Chante fouled out, she has been picking up lots of fouls early in games. We'll need her in close games. She is so valuable in the post, 18 points tonight. Always good to come out of Knoxville with another win! GO DUKE!!

merry
02-16-2009, 09:45 PM
I would have been more comfortable had we hit our free throws down the stretch and not let them get/stay so close, but defense and rebounding won it for us in the end. Go Devils!

sue71, esq
02-16-2009, 10:10 PM
I agree w/ CB&B and Merry re: free throws. Just not pretty missing so many and letting TN back in. Also, just a sloppy, sloppy game. 22 turnovers is NOT going to cut it going forward. Abby alone had 7; Chante had 6; Jasmine had 5. Let's clean it up.

On the positive, great defense overall. Really took TN out of any sort of rhythm they may have been trying start. Rebounding was also outstanding (49 Duke, 36 TN).

Nice boost for the ladies. Keep it up in conference now!

Edit: Duke is 3-0 @ TN now!

dukelifer
02-16-2009, 10:26 PM
I would have been more comfortable had we hit our free throws down the stretch and not let them get/stay so close, but defense and rebounding won it for us in the end. Go Devils!

I am convinced that this team cannot win pretty- but it can win.

godukecom
02-16-2009, 11:05 PM
This team seems to be coming together. I dont think they can win it all but a run is possible

DukieInKansas
02-16-2009, 11:05 PM
I am convinced that this team cannot win pretty- but it can win.

They all count the same in the win column. Let's keep increasing the W column.

Let's go Duke!

TwoDukeTattoos
02-17-2009, 02:13 AM
...made ESPN's top 10 for yesterday.

allenmurray
02-17-2009, 07:43 AM
Al Brown should have been given a technical and then ejected for his sweater.

CameronBornAndBred
02-17-2009, 08:17 AM
Al Brown should have been given a technical and then ejected for his sweater.
We commented in Snrub that HAS to have a pink sweater somewhere in his closet.

miramar
02-17-2009, 09:30 AM
That was a very big win for the women, especially sandwiched between Carolina and Maryland.

Duke outrebounded (49-36) and outshot (41.8% to 32.1%) the Vols, which is particularly impressive on their court. Assists to turnovers were really bad all around (Duke 12-22, Vols 9-17).

As noted, the last two minutes were somewhat ragged. Other than the missed free throws, Duke made some silly fouls to stop the clock, and also didn't work the clock before taking their shots. They certainly had some really big offensive rebounds late, but after one of them Duke took and missed a really wild putback when they should have kicked the ball outside to run some clock. The Vols got within 4 with less than a minute, and the game should have been out of reach by then.

I liked the uniforms, but I'm not so sure about the shoes.

Indoor66
02-17-2009, 09:40 AM
I liked the uniforms, but I'm not so sure about the shoes.

I have a point of inquiry: Why do the women omit the name on the back of the uniform?

I really miss that. Not seeing the women as often, I don't always recognize the players. I don't understand the thinking of not putting the names on the uni's. I know, it is about the name on the front, not the back, and all, but it is inconvenient for me to not have the names. You know, is is all about my convenience! :p

Ders24
02-17-2009, 09:48 AM
I have a point of inquiry: Why do the women omit the name on the back of the uniform?

I really miss that. Not seeing the women as often, I don't always recognize the players. I don't understand the thinking of not putting the names on the uni's. I know, it is about the name on the front, not the back, and all, but it is inconvenient for me to not have the names. You know, is is all about my convenience! :p

Been wondering the same thing. I also don't get why they alternate starting line ups in Cameron (one player from each team is announced).

CameronBornAndBred
02-17-2009, 10:52 AM
I have a point of inquiry: Why do the women omit the name on the back of the uniform?

I really miss that. Not seeing the women as often, I don't always recognize the players. I don't understand the thinking of not putting the names on the uni's. I know, it is about the name on the front, not the back, and all, but it is inconvenient for me to not have the names. You know, is is all about my convenience! :p
I miss that too. I would assume it is a unity statement, in that they are on the court as a team, not inviduals. Duke football has done it in the past, although I would think some of the past football players might have wanted to remain nameless.

burnspbesq
02-17-2009, 11:11 AM
I think I'm rapidly approaching the point where I will just be accepting of Duke's profligacy with the basketball. As long as we continue to have a positive turnover margin (last night was an anomaly in that respect, as Duke is +94 for the season), and as long as we continue to have an advantage in points off turnovers (which was +2 last night, even with turnovers being -5), I guess I can live with it.

Rebound margin is another stat that has allowed Duke to win ugly. There have been games this year in which our best offensive option was "throw it up on the glass and go get it." If the inside players are consistently converting Abby's rushed three-pointers into extra possessions, then as far as I'm concerned she can continue to have the green light.

The play may not be pretty, but a 21-3 record certainly is. Pre-season, I figured we would have a seven- or eight-loss regular season. Now it looks like the worst-case scenario is five, and there is reason to hope for four.

CameronBornAndBred
02-17-2009, 11:39 AM
The play may not be pretty, but a 21-3 record certainly is. Pre-season, I figured we would have a seven- or eight-loss regular season. Now it looks like the worst-case scenario is five, and there is reason to hope for four.
I totally agree with that assessment. After seing them play ugly, and lose to Hartford:mad:, I would not have guessed we would have only lost 2 more games by now. This is really amazing if you look how tough our schedule is. It doesn't get any easier, either. The announcer last night said she thought we should be a number #1 seed, ahead of FSU. Her reasoning was that even though FSU beat both us and unc, they did it on their home court, and we have more valuable victories away from home. I don't know if we actually will get a #1, there is too much basketball left to play. But I'm sure if we DO get it, it's a spot we are deserving of.

zingit
02-17-2009, 04:20 PM
Speaking of rankings we deserve, why the heck are Stanford and Maryland ranked ahead of us in the polls (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncw/rankings?pollId=2&seasonYear=2009&weekNumber=15&seasonType=2)? I know we didn't beat either of them by a large margin, but what gives? Our records aren't that different, except I guess you could say Maryland beat UNC.

I know there was a lot to critique in last night's win, but I was still very happy with it. We were in control for most of the game, and I'm glad we can win even when we're not shooting well and we're still turning the ball over. And there was a stretch in the second half where our offense was really clicking and feeding off our defense. I'll take an "ugly" win on defense over the truly ugly losses the men have had recently any day!

throatybeard
02-17-2009, 04:30 PM
All I care about seeding-wise is not being in UConn's region. This is largely for selfish reasons, since the WFF is like 4 miles from my place.

Some days I think the UConn women could beat the UConn men.

Wander
02-17-2009, 04:47 PM
Some days I think the UConn women could beat the UConn men.

Not to start a gigantic argument, but I'm pretty sure a well-coached men's D3 team would easily go undefeated in women's basketball.

I went to the UT game last night and enjoyed the crowd's groaning after each of our trillion offensive rebounds. Looks like Coach P has successfully created a good team in the ACC with her preferred style. I think it might be more suitable for NCAA success than Coach G's style - IF she can keep recruiting at an elite level.

bird
02-17-2009, 04:55 PM
I like Abby. Abby is a tremendous representative of Duke. It is fun to watch her play. She's like Shane - the team mysteriously plays better when she is on the court. All that being said, I get the feeling that Abby is playing for Abby this year, going for style points sometimes where the smart basketball play would be more conservative. Now, if that lousy-goosey mentality means that the Coach G brain freeze does not reappear when the pressure is on, that Abby is channeling Taurasi out there, I'm all for it. A defensive minded, hard-playing team with a talented loose cannon out there could make for a dangerous tourney team.

Wander
02-17-2009, 05:17 PM
She's like Shane

I see some Jon Scheyer in her.

CameronBornAndBred
02-17-2009, 05:45 PM
Not to start a gigantic argument, but I'm pretty sure a well-coached men's D3 team would easily go undefeated in women's basketball.
I was just thinkng when I read the UCONN statement that of course they wouldn't beat the UCONN men, but I bet they could be a Div II team. All of the elite women's teams (and I'm assuming most everyone else) practice against men. They are used to battling the speed and strength, and from what I've heard, usually win vs. their counterparts. I don't know the practice squad's skills, but I bet they could all play Div II ball.

blueprofessor
02-17-2009, 05:57 PM
I like Abby. Abby is a tremendous representative of Duke. It is fun to watch her play. She's like Shane - the team mysteriously plays better when she is on the court. All that being said, I get the feeling that Abby is playing for Abby this year, going for style points sometimes where the smart basketball play would be more conservative. Now, if that lousy-goosey mentality means that the Coach G brain freeze does not reappear when the pressure is on, that Abby is channeling Taurasi out there, I'm all for it. A defensive minded, hard-playing team with a talented loose cannon out there could make for a dangerous tourney team.

on offense. Her offensive techniques are bad: one handed passes(often wild or difficult for teammates to anticipate); her "no-look" passes and other showtime passes which lead to turnovers, when a good,fundamental pass would be successful; her hurried,nervous, frenetic manner with the ball on offense, leading to bad shots, travel violations, or ill-advised passes; and, her erratic shooting , attempts to make high-light shots on drives, and lack of discipline in shooting 3 feet behind the 3-point line.I hold my breath when she has the ball on O.

That said, on defense her nervous energy which generates a fast pace is a huge asset.She is a very good defender.:)

I appreciate her hustle, but she needs to play much,much more carefully on O.

Best regards--Blueprofessor:)

Wander
02-17-2009, 06:02 PM
I was just thinkng when I read the UCONN statement that of course they wouldn't beat the UCONN men, but I bet they could be a Div II team. All of the elite women's teams (and I'm assuming most everyone else) practice against men. They are used to battling the speed and strength, and from what I've heard, usually win vs. their counterparts. I don't know the practice squad's skills, but I bet they could all play Div II ball.

My understanding was that practice squads beat their corresponding teams fairly regularly. Perhaps I'm wrong. Either way, it doesn't matter - you know I'm a fan of the girls and I'm not interested in putting them down. I just hate hearing people legitimately debate things the "Would this USC team beat the Arizona Cardinals?" nonsense back in 2005 (oops, they're not even good enough to beat Texas!).

blueprofessor
02-17-2009, 06:38 PM
Not to start a gigantic argument, but I'm pretty sure a well-coached men's D3 team would easily go undefeated in women's basketball.

I went to the UT game last night and enjoyed the crowd's groaning after each of our trillion offensive rebounds. Looks like Coach P has successfully created a good team in the ACC with her preferred style. I think it might be more suitable for NCAA success than Coach G's style - IF she can keep recruiting at an elite level.

Superior size, quickness,speed,strength, wingspan,height, stamina, ball pressure and denying the pass, and leaping ability would lead to insurmountable problems in even inbounding or advancing the ball.FSU scored 15 points in a half against Duke with athletic bigs and an all-ACC guard.How would an excellent women's team even score on Duke?
An MIT buddy worked on the question and had a good men's team up 68-0 in 10 minutes. He figured the men would score 3 baskets a minute and that the women would have an impossible task of inbounding the ball , advancing against a trapping defense,rebounding defensively, and, if the ball were somehow moved to the frontcourt , actually seeing the basket over the hands of the defender and other defensive pressure.If the ball were shot , there would be many, many rejections.He figured the ball would be lost on steals and violations on 9 of 10 possessions before there would even be a possibility of a shot attempt(and then it would likely be rejected or a wild shot with no vision of the basket).All this without a severe loss of confidence,yielding more nervous turnovers, being factored.
This is a sport,unlike golf, where the man's advantage is mind-boggling.


I appreciate excellent women athletes and there is a ton of them.



In some sports,like tennis and golf, I prefer watching the women.
I do enjoy rooting for Duke and watching UConn.

Best regards--Blueprofessor:)

CameronBornAndBred
02-17-2009, 06:55 PM
My understanding was that practice squads beat their corresponding teams fairly regularly. Perhaps I'm wrong.
I'm totally curious now as to who is right. Anyone have the knowledge? (First hand please)

godukecom
02-17-2009, 07:08 PM
I had the luxury of attending one of Duke's practices when the first round of the tourney was hosted in Chapel Hill (I have a family member who works at Mississippi and their practice location was also CIS, so we got to go in and watch both teams practice). The men practice players had a definite advantage...

burnspbesq
02-17-2009, 07:50 PM
The gap between the UConn women and everyone else is much bigger than the "gap" between the UConn men and everyone else. The only way anyone beats the UConn women this year is if the opponent plays way above itself on a night that UConn chooses to phone it in.

I also think that if you gave Luigi and Calhoun equally talented teams, men or women, and had them play each other on a neutral floor, Luigi's team would win by 20 every night.

Ders24
02-17-2009, 08:06 PM
I'm totally curious now as to who is right. Anyone have the knowledge? (First hand please)

There usually aren't actual games being played, just drills.

blueprofessor
02-17-2009, 09:31 PM
There usually aren't actual games being played, just drills.

The reports I have are that there are scrimmages and the former high schoolers are totally dominant. But my point is what happens when a top D1 men's team plays a top women's team.Consider the athleticism of Duke men vs. any top women's team.I believe FSU is 15 points better than any women's team in a half.
Best--Blueprofessor:)

Ders24
02-17-2009, 09:52 PM
The reports I have are that there are scrimmages and the former high schoolers are totally dominant. But my point is what happens when a top D1 men's team plays a top women's team.Consider the athleticism of Duke men vs. any top women's team.I believe FSU is 15 points better than any women's team in a half.
Best--Blueprofessor:)

Scrimmages are rare, as in about once a year. Maybe twice.

heyman25
02-17-2009, 10:02 PM
on offense. Her offensive techniques are bad: one handed passes(often wild or difficult for teammates to anticipate); her "no-look" passes and other showtime passes which lead to turnovers, when a good,fundamental pass would be successful; her hurried,nervous, frenetic manner with the ball on offense, leading to bad shots, travel violations, or ill-advised passes; and, her erratic shooting , attempts to make high-light shots on drives, and lack of discipline in shooting 3 feet behind the 3-point line.I hold my breath when she has the ball on O.

That said, on defense her nervous energy which generates a fast pace is a huge asset.She is a very good defender.:)

I appreciate her hustle, but she needs to play much,much more carefully on O.

Best regards--Blueprofessor:)

Great post. I like Abby,but her eye to hand coordination is severely deficient. Why make a dangerous pass? Most of those result in steals or turnovers or jump balls. Her court vision is this side of awful. She takes threes from 35 to 40 feet. If they need her on the court to win great, but as a Senior isn't it time to show leadership. Abby is a nice person off the court, but its high time she reins in her wild passes and poor shot selection.

Ders24
02-17-2009, 10:33 PM
Great post. I like Abby,but her eye to hand coordination is severely deficient. Why make a dangerous pass? Most of those result in steals or turnovers or jump balls. Her court vision is this side of awful. She takes threes from 35 to 40 feet. If they need her on the court to win great, but as a Senior isn't it time to show leadership. Abby is a nice person off the court, but its high time she reins in her wild passes and poor shot selection.

I think the beginning of this post isn't quite fair. eye to hand coordination is deficient? She definitely makes some poor decisions, but she is leading the team in assists.

MulletMan
02-17-2009, 10:52 PM
I think the beginning of this post isn't quite fair. eye to hand coordination is deficient? She definitely makes some poor decisions, but she is leading the team in assists.

Agreed. I wonder if those criticizing watched this game? there was a stretch where Abby had an assist on three consecutive posessions. Her shot has been a bit off, but I sincerely think that if she wasn't supposed to be shooting, she wouldn't be taking those shots. Coach P would see to that.

CameronBornAndBred
02-17-2009, 11:21 PM
Her shot has been a bit off, but I sincerely think that if she wasn't supposed to be shooting, she wouldn't be taking those shots. Coach P would see to that.
I can't see how she is supposed to be shooting from 5' past the arc, which she does with regularity. She hardly ever hits one of those. I think she is great on the drive and better on both the mid-range jumpers and set threes. It's those ones she takes from the next county is what drives me nuts. As for her passing, I think if she were playing on a WNBA team, her teammates would have very little problem with them. (The speed that is)

Ders24
02-17-2009, 11:27 PM
I can't see how she is supposed to be shooting from 5' past the arc, which she does with regularity. She hardly ever hits one of those. I think she is great on the drive and better on both the mid-range jumpers and set threes. It's those ones she takes from the next county is what drives me nuts. As for her passing, I think if she were playing on a WNBA team, her teammates would have very little problem with them. (The speed that is)

Not to disagree with you entirely, but with Abby I think that distance is less of an issue for her than how set she is. She can still be set farther beyond the arc. I've seen her make a lot of them.

miramar
02-18-2009, 09:24 AM
My understanding is that Coach P decided to eliminate the names on the back of the uniform, which I don't think anyone likes.

While a coach may believe that removing the name from the back of the uniform emphasizes the team over the individual, the only reason the names were put on the back of the uniforms was for the benefit of the fans. The first team to do so was the NY Yankees, and the first numbers simply reflected the batting order (Ruth 3, Gehrig 4, etc.).

I have no doubt that putting the women's names on the back of the uniforms would help the fans, exactly as it was intended to do.

CameronBornAndBred
02-18-2009, 09:50 AM
I have no doubt that putting the women's names on the back of the uniforms would help the fans, exactly as it was intended to do.
I really agree with that, especially with less televised sports. If Singler and Paulus had their names removed, we would still know who they were because the names are repeated night after night on tv. I'm pretty good with the womens' names, but I've luckily been able to watch them a lot. The freshmen are tough for me, and one or two of the other bench players.

jjasper0729
02-18-2009, 10:44 AM
Been wondering the same thing. I also don't get why they alternate starting line ups in Cameron (one player from each team is announced).

I can tell you that the alternating starting lineup was in place at LEAST since the '92-'93 season. That was coach G's first year (and the first of my four years doing women's PA) and that's how she wanted it to be done.

I've always thought it kills the build up of the introduction for the home team. However, it's how it's done in the tournament. Maybe that was the reasoning behind it.