Man of the Match vs. Cornell

[Jumbo]

Who was the Man of the Match vs. Cornell?

[mgtr]

Obviously many players contributed to the (ugly) win, but I would be somewhat surprised if anybody votes for anybody but Markie. He stole what show there was.

[Bob Green]

I wasn't able to watch the game, but DeMarcus definitely dominated the box score and that is good enough for my vote!

[hc5duke]

Obviously many players contributed to the (ugly) win, but I would be somewhat surprised if anybody votes for anybody but Markie. He stole what show there was.

18 for 18 so far

[greybeard]

Whoever guarded Gore. If Gore had gotten off, you'd be talking about an ugly loss.

[Indoor66]

Whoever guarded Gore. If Gore had gotten off, you'd be talking about an ugly loss.

If, if, if. If a hop toad had longer legs it wouldn't bump it's but. It don't so it do!

[captmojo]

Gerald. The only time good things happened was when Henderson was on the floor. His defense was superb.

[KandG]

Gerald. The only time good things happened was when Henderson was on the floor. His defense was superb.

I'll be curious to see if the stats bear that out. He got beaten by Dale off the dribble several times in the second half, from what I could see, though he also made some good plays.

[Abraxas]

Gerald. The only time good things happened was when Henderson was on the floor. His defense was superb.

He was the most exciting player in the game. However, he missed a couple rotations letting Cornell hit a three twice. Great game for him.

[Jumbo]

Gerald. The only time good things happened was when Henderson was on the floor. His defense was superb.

How is it possible that Scheyer had a higher plus/minus than Gerald, then?

[greybeard]

If, if, if. If a hop toad had longer legs it wouldn't bump it's but. It don't so it do!

You miss my point, Indoor, if only because you are so quick to criticize. My point was that no one for Duke had an exceptional offensive game, nor did they need to. They beat Cornell with defense and rebounding. The guy who shut down Gore did a great job, imo. He is the player of the match.

Now, aside from the limerick, you got anything of substance to say, I am sure everybody's all ears.

Personally, I thought Cornell had the more imaginative and impressive plays offensively, but was beat by a superior basketball team which took the game away defensively and on the offensive glass. I happen to think that that is a pretty accurate depiction of what most people call an ugly game because Cornell was able to keep Duke from doing what they wanted on offense.

Duke scored by turning Cornell over and by offensive rebounding. Those were the best parts of Duke's game, and, shutting down Gore completely was not only the best part of it all; it also in my view kept the game from being a last second pick em.

Only a blind man would fail to recognize the tremendous parity there is in college ball, and that this was a real good Cornell team Duke beat, imo.

Without limericks or wise cracks, you got an opinion, Indoor, about the game that is. We all know what you think of me. "Okay I've had enough what else can you show me." BZ

[Jumbo]

Greybeard,
I actually thought Duke's defense was poor against Cornell. Also, did you notice all those Cornell players diving for loose balls? Seemed to win them extra possessions -- and they didn't get hurt! ;)

[greybeard]

Greybeard,
I actually thought Duke's defense was poor against Cornell. Also, did you notice all those Cornell players diving for loose balls? Seemed to win them extra possessions -- and they didn't get hurt! ;)

Did I tell you I don't see too good anymore, Jumbo. ;) I'm thinking mostly when Duke amped it up during the second part of the first half, and went on a run than was defense-dominated. After that, aside from Foote, Cornell's offense seemed to consist mostly of Dell (I think that's his name) trying to beat somebody like DeMarcus off the dribble, which he was able to do sometimes but got turned over a lot.

Didn't see Whitman, didn't see Gore; and saw very, very few, maybe one or two of those extra pass layups that we saw a number of in the first 15 minutes.

Nelson was the player of the game, but he was so much the superior athlete out there that I din't want to give it to him.

For real, I don't know why Gore didn't show up offensively but he didn't. I don't know that he played poorly; he just didn't get looks. I thought most all the other Cornell guys, especially Foote and the other Cornell bigs, for as long as they could, played and competed well. You might recall what, sight unseen, I said would have to happen for Cornell to have a real chance. It didn't and they didn't. They did, however, comport themselves well, and were no cream puff. That was a good team, and if Gore had been able to score the ball, they would have been there at the end, in which case it would have been anybody's game.

K said that Cornell got too many loose balls the first half. Those weren't just loose balls, they were balls that Duke got a hand on but shouldn't have, excellent defensive reaches, and Cornell bigs managed to poke to one of their players. INo hand on the ball, layup. In the second half, those lanes were closed, or the Cornell guys got tired, which is what I think.

It is the case that, over 40 minutes, world class athletes will wear down and prevail over non world class athletes. That does not mean that they are superior ball players. I played in too many games in too many venues with guys apologizing to teammates, "my fault" they would say, after I out maneuvered them, to let the quality of Cornell's play last night get brushed aside with a "that was ugly" swipe.

Cornell stopped Duke enough, kept the score low enough, for Cornell to be able to win. Cornell stopped Duke from doing that. Duke did not have an off night. Cornell, until Duke got real, real serious as a group on defense and on the offensive board's in particular, was able to score the ball well enough to hang with them. Once Duke got a comfortable lead and took away the legs of Cornell's bigs, it was up to Gore and Whitman to score the ball, and they couldn't. Duke coasted in.

[Jeffrey]

Hi,

I thought this year's team was too deep for a runaway MOTM like this one. IMO, it helps to show why we played relatively poorly last night.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[greybeard]

Hi,

I thought this year's team was too deep for a runaway MOTM like this one. IMO, it helps to show why we played relatively poorly last night.

Best regards,
Jeffrey

How? All it shows to me is that Duke, being a big time program, has superior athletes, not superior players. The most superior athlete was able to dominate. Period.

Cornell is a much better team than you think. They have a very inventive and effective coach, talented players who get the game, and will not let you do what you do best because they will be where you don't want them to be.

Ratings are for talking heads and people who listen to them. The game is played on the court and Cornell played it well. DeMarcus played on top, over and through them.

Take him out of it, chose up sides, play five on five to 15, and which school a player goes to wouldn't make a wit of difference. Or, we were watching different games.

[Jumbo]

How? All it shows to me is that Duke, being a big time program, has superior athletes, not superior players. The most superior athlete was able to dominate. Period.

Cornell is a much better team than you think. They have a very inventive and effective coach, talented players who get the game, and will not let you do what you do best because they will be where you don't want them to be.

Ratings are for talking heads and people who listen to them. The game is played on the court and Cornell played it well. DeMarcus played on top, over and through them.

Take him out of it, chose up sides, play five on five to 15, and which school a player goes to wouldn't make a wit of difference. Or, we were watching different games.

I've gotta disagree, Greybeard. Donahue doesn't exactly have a rep for being innovative. In fact, his first move at Cornell was to install the Princeton offense which (in addition to the system's namesake), Columbia and Dartmouth were already running.

Secondly, I know how good Cornell is this year. There's a good chance they could finally break the Penn/Princeton stranglehold on the Ivy League (that's mostly a function of both teams being down -- and watch out for Columbia). But Cornell is not a bunch of outstanding players. Duke didn't just win because of "better athletes." Duke has plenty of guys who are better "ballplayers" too.

You're simply not watching enough ball if you don't think Cornell played better than usual and Duke played worse than usual.

[CDu]

I've gotta disagree, Greybeard. Donahue doesn't exactly have a rep for being innovative. In fact, his first move at Cornell was to install the Princeton offense which (in addition to the system's namesake), Columbia and Dartmouth were already running.

Secondly, I know how good Cornell is this year. There's a good chance they could finally break the Penn/Princeton stranglehold on the Ivy League (that's mostly a function of both teams being down -- and watch out for Columbia). But Cornell is not a bunch of outstanding players. Duke didn't just win because of "better athletes." Duke has plenty of guys who are better "ballplayers" too.

You're simply not watching enough ball if you don't think Cornell played better than usual and Duke played worse than usual.

Agreed completely. As an additional point, being a better athlete is part of being a better player. Athleticism is one of the skills of basketball. Duke happens to have both better athletes AND better players.

[greybeard]

I've gotta disagree, Greybeard. Donahue doesn't exactly have a rep for being innovative. In fact, his first move at Cornell was to install the Princeton offense which (in addition to the system's namesake), Columbia and Dartmouth were already running.

Secondly, I know how good Cornell is this year. There's a good chance they could finally break the Penn/Princeton stranglehold on the Ivy League (that's mostly a function of both teams being down -- and watch out for Columbia). But Cornell is not a bunch of outstanding players. Duke didn't just win because of "better athletes." Duke has plenty of guys who are better "ballplayers" too.

You're simply not watching enough ball if you don't think Cornell played better than usual and Duke played worse than usual.

We have gone around about the Princeton, but the "Princeton" is played through a high post pivot. This might have been a derivative of the Princeton, at least in the first half, but the Princeton, as Pete Carrill conceived it, and as is classically played it wasn't. There was no high post.

So, my man from Cornell showed some innovation, by your account as well as mine.

Cornell's two best shooters are as good as any Duke has, perhaps better. Neither had a good game. Their two bigs (the starters) are as clever inside as Singlar and can finish as well, if not as "high." They get terrific position, make terrific decisions. Not good, but terrific! They have good hands, and good density (they're thick in their bodies). They can play with anyone. How long is another matter, which is what makes big time basketball big time basketball.

You will note that I said play to 15. No one is disputing that, over the course of a game, the superior athletes would not have prevailed. And, just so I'm not going over the top for the sake of argument, I do not think that Cornell has anyone to compare with Henderson, or Scheyer, although Duke does not have anyone to compare to with Randy either. Scheyer is not anywhere near the shooter that kid is. Randy played decent not great, and Gore was shut down. I bet that neither felt that he displayed anywhere near his best.

Singlar in two years will possibly be of NBA star quality. Nobody on Cornell is going to be there. Singlar can play with anybody near his size in the country, and probably contribute more than his opponent. He could not outplay the two Cornell starters appreciably; he is clearly better, but they could hurt him with the ball and there was not a darn thing he could do about it. They defended him well.

Foote was a complete surprise, but you have to admit that the kid rocked. I mean, 7' 1", behind the back passes, terrific finishes, No easy give aways, decent rebounding. Sounds like Aoubek, only Zoubek is recovering from a broken foot. Put the two on the court for 30 minutes, Zoubek will burry Foote, burry him. Let them play to 15, it might well be the other way round, at least for now.

Nope, maybe it's because I'm in the can for Cornell, but I saw a lot of very savy ballplayers on that squad who, with their two best shooters going south, did pretty well. I think those kids can really play.

As for Princeton and Penn, both have historically had better coaching than Cornell in sports, with the exception of Ned Harkness in Hockey and LAX and Richie Moran in LAX. This new guy seems to know what he's doing, and they seem to be able to recruit again. I understand that, as an institution, Cornell's stock is on the ascendency; it's becoming a real hot Ivy from what I hear. Who knows, my kid has chosen to go to Tuffs.

Fun debating with you Jumbo.

[Jumbo]

We have gone around about the Princeton, but the "Princeton" is played through a high post pivot. This might have been a derivative of the Princeton, at least in the first half, but the Princeton, as Pete Carrill conceived it, and as is classically played it wasn't. There was no high post.

This was my fault. I forgot to mention that Cornell initially ran the Princeton set, but that Donahue abandonned it a few seasons ago. They weren't running it last night, obviously. My bad for leaving that part out.


Cornell's two best shooters are as good as any Duke has, perhaps better.

At what? Shooting wide-open jumpers? Threes? Contested shots? I beg to differ, but please clarify.


Their two bigs (the starters) are as clever inside as Singlar and can finish as well, if not as "high."

Not even close. They benefited from good ball movement and lousy defensive rotations. They merely had to keep the ball high, turn, and finish over Paulus half the time. Also, I'm begging you, it's Singl-E-r. With an E. No A.


As for Princeton and Penn, both have historically had better coaching than Cornell in sports, with the exception of Ned Harkness in Hockey and LAX and Richie Moran in LAX.

They (especially Penn) have also historically made bigger academic exceptions for athletes than the rest of the Ivy League. It's been hard for Cornell and the other five schools to catch up in basketball.


I understand that, as an institution, Cornell's stock is on the ascendency; it's becoming a real hot Ivy from what I hear.

I don't recall it ever not being a hot school.


Fun debating with you Jumbo.

Always fun debating with you, too, Greybeard.

[Jeffrey]

How? All it shows to me is that Duke, being a big time program, has superior athletes, not superior players. The most superior athlete was able to dominate. Period.

In your opinion, definitely not mine!


Cornell is a much better team than you think.

How do you know what I think about Cornell? Where did I express an opinion on how good Cornell is?


They have a very inventive and effective coach...

In your opinion, not mine!


Ratings are for talking heads and people who listen to them.

Who mentioned ratings? So, why are you?


The game is played on the court and Cornell played it well. DeMarcus played on top, over and through them.


This is your only statement that I agree with.



Take him out of it, chose up sides, play five on five to 15, and which school a player goes to wouldn't make a wit of difference. Or, we were watching different games.

I do not know what game you were watching. IMO, Duke has a much better team that was just having an off night. Play the game again & again to 15, 50, 80, or whatever other strange twist you feel compelled to add AND Duke will beat them almost every time.

-Jeffrey

[greybeard]

This was my fault. I forgot to mention that Cornell initially ran the Princeton set, but that Donahue abandonned it a few seasons ago. They weren't running it last night, obviously. My bad for leaving that part out.



At what? Shooting wide-open jumpers? Threes? Contested shots? I beg to differ, but please clarify.



Not even close. They benefited from good ball movement and lousy defensive rotations. They merely had to keep the ball high, turn, and finish over Paulus half the time. Also, I'm begging you, it's Singl-E-r. With an E. No A.



They (especially Penn) have also historically made bigger academic exceptions for athletes than the rest of the Ivy League. It's been hard for Cornell and the other five schools to catch up in basketball.



I don't recall it ever not being a hot school.



Always fun debating with you, too, Greybeard.

As my son was applying this year, and he and his friends were all players, if you get my meaning, the word on the street among the parents was that Cornell had become "hot" among the Ivies and a more difficult get then some of its higher tiered breathen. Who knows, my kid wanted to go to Tuffs, which scares me considering that that is where Matt and his brother Mitch went and look what happened to them (only teasing boys).

Penn and Princeton have always had better basketball coaches. When I was in school, Penn hired Chuck, who quickly brought Penn to the final four and fielded awesome teams. Princeton had Butch, who brought then Bradley and then Petrie. Then Pete took over.

When I was at Cornell, Columbia had two future pros (Shorty and McMillan), ditto for Penn and Princeton. Cornell, however, also had terrific, terrific talent. All four years I was there, Cornell beat Penn, Princeton, and Columbia the first time through; adjustments were made by the others but not by Sam McNeal, who would routinely come in third after losing to Princeton and Penn on the last weekend of each season. We also beat Syracuse several years running when they had Bing and his running mate, not to mention the 66 Kentucky team and a good Ohio State team.

Cornell fell off the basketball map for decades as a consequence of growing pains that resulted in an armed takeover of the student union in 1969 which I believe made it impossible to recruit high end basketball talent.

Princeton I think is in for rough times. It lost three top coaches in succession due to the popularity of the Princeton. Also, since many teams play derivatives of the Princeton, the offense itself is not as effective as it once was, unless played with a really, really talented high post pivot. My guess is that it will take an entirely new system with a coach that has a VanBred. kind of swagger to bring that program back up.

Wow, ever since I got my ears cleaned or something, DBR gets funner all the time. Jman, thanks for the Q-tips. ;)

[greybeard]

Gore and Whittman are reputed to be extra ordinary shooters. Whittman showed that during the Duke game. Gore didn't.

Whittman shot the three well, spotting up and coming off picks. Towards the end, he showed he could penetrate off the dribble, pull up and shoot.

Beyond that, I do not know. Compare Whittman to Scheyer as a shooter, from what I've heard, and what little I've seen of Whittman (this one game), I think Whittman is the better shooter. He also is stronger. However, I have not seen enough of him to say definitively that he is a better shooter than Scheyer. You got me on that. In this game, he was, however.

Gore's reputation is that he has a killer 3 ball. We didn't see it. Got me here again.

I'll have you know that I am the ONLY regular poster on the AJC hawk board that spells SheldEn's name correctly. So shall it be with SinglEr from here on forthwith.

[Jumbo]

As my son was applying this year, and he and his friends were all players, if you get my meaning, the word on the street among the parents was that Cornell had become "hot" among the Ivies and a more difficult get then some of its higher tiered breathen. Who knows, my kid wanted to go to Tuffs, which scares me considering that that is where Matt and his brother Mitch went and look what happened to them (only teasing boys).

I don't know if Cornell is "hotter" now than in the past. I know it had the reputation of being the "easist" admission of any of the Ivies (not that that's an insult -- it's like having the worst legs at the Victoria's Secret fashion show). Who are Matt and Mitch? And isn't it Tufts?


Princeton I think is in for rough times. It lost three top coaches in succession due to the popularity of the Princeton. Also, since many teams play derivatives of the Princeton, the offense itself is not as effective as it once was, unless played with a really, really talented high post pivot. My guess is that it will take an entirely new system with a coach that has a VanBred. kind of swagger to bring that program back up.

I think Princeton will be fine with Johnson. It'll just take a little time, because Scott rant he program into the ground. But JT III had the program in good shape.

[4decadedukie]

I love this year's team, but for our Cornell performance I vote "none." I watched the entire game and felt we were lackluster -- with limited exceptions -- especially on offense. Our fine Captain would have my vote, except for his abysmal foul shooting; Duke once prided itself -- and this resulted in MANY victories, especially in games' closing minutes -- on stellar free throw shooting. Unfortunately, those days seem to be (temporarily) over; this is a significant team deficiency that requires immediate correction, since 5+ points is likely to be decisive throughout most of our remaining schedule.