WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 (/thread-6589.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 (/thread-6589.html)
WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - 81alum - 01-12-2014
Overview:
This was a tale of two halves. The first half our offense had its best performance of the season and scored 55 points. The second half Colorado changed to a much more frenetic player defense and threatened to close the lead, but we did just enough to come out with a ten point win. Chiney continued her pace with a 34 point game, and Karlie had the best offensive game of her young career with 19 points, including a trey as time ran out in the first half.
Flow of the game
The usual starters began. In the first five minutes of the game both sides shot reasonably well, but we shot better, and we held a 3 point lead. Then Karlie entered the game and made back to back treys, and we began to build the lead. By halftime we had a 17 point lead, helped by Karlie's dagger with time expiring. But Colorado's offense was doing reasonably well at 38 points--it was just a shockingly effective offensive performance by our team that put us up 55-38.
The second half was a different kind of game altogether. Colorado played a much more aggressive defense to stop the perimeter shooting, and there was lots of physical contact. The fouls began to pile up on both sides. Fortunately, we shot free throws much better than previously in the season and were at 100% until relatively late in the game. Some calls seemed quite questionable, but there were also many calls that should have been made that were not. There were a few nasty shoves to the floor, for example. But the pace of the game slowed and Stanford's offensive rhythm was clearly thrown off. Chiney began to slow down some, mishandled a couple of passes and uncharacteristically missed a few from under the basket--she was 12/22. Colorado pulled back to within 12, then down to 10, then down to 7 at 82-75. Amber fouled out and Chiney and Ruef played with 4 fouls, but we limped across the finish line for a ten point win over a very talented but dinged-up Colorado team.
Performances
Chiney did her usual superwoman impersonation, but the story of the day was Karlie's three point shooting, who wound up 5/8 for 19 points. However, there really was not that much diversity in our scoring--no one other than those two were in double digits. In contrast, Colorado had 4 double digit players.Â
Lili Thompson had 9, but Ruef's shot was not "on" tonight as it was against Utah, although she vacuumed up 10 rebounds to go with Chiney's 16. This was not one of Amber's best games, with 5 points and 3 assists to go with 3 turnovers and 5 fouls--a couple of the questionable calls, though.Â
Six different players made three point baskets, and we were 10/21 from three point range--again an excellent performance, but the number of open shots and attempts declined precipitously in the second half, and we never did get a really good answer to match our first half offensive performance.
Parting thoughts
This was a good test. The first half can serve as a "what to do" example, and the second half as a cautionary tale. I am not sure if the altitude got to us, but it did seem as if we ran out of gas in the second half. We had 18 turnovers in the game, which is a complete reversal from the Utah game. Colorado came out after the break and played with very high intensity, and we did not really match it. Consequently, they played better than we did in the second half, but it was not enough to dig out of the very deep hole they were in.Â
Fortunately, another complete reversal from the Utah game was that we shot 21/24 free throws. If we had not, the game could have gone in a different direction.
WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - 81alum - 01-12-2014
Overview:
This was a tale of two halves. The first half our offense had its best performance of the season and scored 55 points. The second half Colorado changed to a much more frenetic player defense and threatened to close the lead, but we did just enough to come out with a ten point win. Chiney continued her pace with a 34 point game, and Karlie had the best offensive game of her young career with 19 points, including a trey as time ran out in the first half.
Flow of the game
The usual starters began. In the first five minutes of the game both sides shot reasonably well, but we shot better, and we held a 3 point lead. Then Karlie entered the game and made back to back treys, and we began to build the lead. By halftime we had a 17 point lead, helped by Karlie's dagger with time expiring. But Colorado's offense was doing reasonably well at 38 points--it was just a shockingly effective offensive performance by our team that put us up 55-38.
The second half was a different kind of game altogether. Colorado played a much more aggressive defense to stop the perimeter shooting, and there was lots of physical contact. The fouls began to pile up on both sides. Fortunately, we shot free throws much better than previously in the season and were at 100% until relatively late in the game. Some calls seemed quite questionable, but there were also many calls that should have been made that were not. There were a few nasty shoves to the floor, for example. But the pace of the game slowed and Stanford's offensive rhythm was clearly thrown off. Chiney began to slow down some, mishandled a couple of passes and uncharacteristically missed a few from under the basket--she was 12/22. Colorado pulled back to within 12, then down to 10, then down to 7 at 82-75. Amber fouled out and Chiney and Ruef played with 4 fouls, but we limped across the finish line for a ten point win over a very talented but dinged-up Colorado team.
Performances
Chiney did her usual superwoman impersonation, but the story of the day was Karlie's three point shooting, who wound up 5/8 for 19 points. However, there really was not that much diversity in our scoring--no one other than those two were in double digits. In contrast, Colorado had 4 double digit players.Â
Lili Thompson had 9, but Ruef's shot was not "on" tonight as it was against Utah, although she vacuumed up 10 rebounds to go with Chiney's 16. This was not one of Amber's best games, with 5 points and 3 assists to go with 3 turnovers and 5 fouls--a couple of the questionable calls, though.Â
Six different players made three point baskets, and we were 10/21 from three point range--again an excellent performance, but the number of open shots and attempts declined precipitously in the second half, and we never did get a really good answer to match our first half offensive performance.
Parting thoughts
This was a good test. The first half can serve as a "what to do" example, and the second half as a cautionary tale. I am not sure if the altitude got to us, but it did seem as if we ran out of gas in the second half. We had 18 turnovers in the game, which is a complete reversal from the Utah game. Colorado came out after the break and played with very high intensity, and we did not really match it. Consequently, they played better than we did in the second half, but it was not enough to dig out of the very deep hole they were in.Â
Fortunately, another complete reversal from the Utah game was that we shot 21/24 free throws. If we had not, the game could have gone in a different direction.
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - Jskass - 01-12-2014
even Chiney looked exhausted -- those missed shots and miscues later in the game appeared to be the altitude finally catching up to her. Bet they're all glad to be returning home.
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - Jskass - 01-12-2014
even Chiney looked exhausted -- those missed shots and miscues later in the game appeared to be the altitude finally catching up to her. Bet they're all glad to be returning home.
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - Spiny_Norman - 01-12-2014
(01-12-2014, 08:57 PM)Jskass link Wrote:even Chiney looked exhausted -- those missed shots and miscues later in the game appeared to be the altitude finally catching up to her. Bet they're all glad to be returning home.
Returning back to campus only to pack for another road trip next weekend. WBB plays at AZ on Friday and at ASU a week from Monday.
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - Spiny_Norman - 01-12-2014
(01-12-2014, 08:57 PM)Jskass link Wrote:even Chiney looked exhausted -- those missed shots and miscues later in the game appeared to be the altitude finally catching up to her. Bet they're all glad to be returning home.
Returning back to campus only to pack for another road trip next weekend. WBB plays at AZ on Friday and at ASU a week from Monday.
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - M T - 01-13-2014
I found this web page with the NCAA's "Officiating Instructional Video" for men & women BB. The women's video is 51+ minutes long.Â
http://www.wmubroncos.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4600&ATCLID=209296334
Unfortunately, I couldn't find the PDF for the 2013-14 Women's Basketball Points of Emphasis that used to be a link on the page. It probably was the "Areas of Concern" pages from the current rule book at
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/WBR15.pdf
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - M T - 01-13-2014
I found this web page with the NCAA's "Officiating Instructional Video" for men & women BB. The women's video is 51+ minutes long.Â
http://www.wmubroncos.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4600&ATCLID=209296334
Unfortunately, I couldn't find the PDF for the 2013-14 Women's Basketball Points of Emphasis that used to be a link on the page. It probably was the "Areas of Concern" pages from the current rule book at
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/WBR15.pdf
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - 81alum - 01-13-2014
It was an interesting "offsetting technical" called on Arielle Roberson and Karlie Samuelson for mouthing off at each other. Karlie seems a little more demonstrative than her sister. I thought that Jamee Swan played very rough, in particular, and had one foul against Lili that caused a review. In the end, she collected just three fouls. Their Haley Smith and Brittany Wilson fouled out.
If someone who watched the game and understands defenses well could chime in, I am curious as to what precisely Colorado changed about the second half. They did seem far more energetic, but I sense it was a different defensive scheme and I can't quite put my finger on it.
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - 81alum - 01-13-2014
It was an interesting "offsetting technical" called on Arielle Roberson and Karlie Samuelson for mouthing off at each other. Karlie seems a little more demonstrative than her sister. I thought that Jamee Swan played very rough, in particular, and had one foul against Lili that caused a review. In the end, she collected just three fouls. Their Haley Smith and Brittany Wilson fouled out.
If someone who watched the game and understands defenses well could chime in, I am curious as to what precisely Colorado changed about the second half. They did seem far more energetic, but I sense it was a different defensive scheme and I can't quite put my finger on it.
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - 81alum - 01-14-2014
Select quotes:
Quote:Veteran Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said she wasnt impressed by her teams overall effort: I just think we looked a little tired. We werent as sharp as we needed to be. We have a great player in Chiney, and she really battled in there tonight.http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=209369895
Quote:"The difference in the game was threes," Lappe said. "Giving up 10 threes was significant and in the first half many of those came in transition. We just weren't getting back fast enough. We were hanging a little bit too long on the rebound."
Quote:CU forward Arielle Roberson contended some of Samuelsons long-range accuracy came from the Buffs mental lapses and wasnt that surprising. We knew she was a shooter, but we continued to let her get her shots off, so nothing is shocking about that because Stanford has great shooters, Roberson said. We werent in the correct matchup or helping off too much or not finding her in transitions. Miscommunications.
On why Colorado did so much better in the second half:
Quote:"I think our defensive intensity increased a lot," sophomore forward Jamee Swan said. "We knew that we needed stops, we needed to play and we had a shot at winning it. I feel like that was the change."http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-college-sports/ci_24897354/colorado-womens-basketball-no-4-stanford-rolls-by
Quote:We turned the ball over 18 times. We didnt handle [the full-court] pressure very well, VanDerveer said. It hurts us a lot when Chiney and Amber get into foul trouble, but its good to have those kinds of games to see how people play.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/01/12/card-secures-road-victories-over-pac-12-foes-utah-and-no-17-colorado/
Re: WBB: Stanford 87 Colorado 77 - 81alum - 01-14-2014
Select quotes:
Quote:Veteran Stanford coach Tara VanDerveer said she wasnt impressed by her teams overall effort: I just think we looked a little tired. We werent as sharp as we needed to be. We have a great player in Chiney, and she really battled in there tonight.http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=600&ATCLID=209369895
Quote:"The difference in the game was threes," Lappe said. "Giving up 10 threes was significant and in the first half many of those came in transition. We just weren't getting back fast enough. We were hanging a little bit too long on the rebound."
Quote:CU forward Arielle Roberson contended some of Samuelsons long-range accuracy came from the Buffs mental lapses and wasnt that surprising. We knew she was a shooter, but we continued to let her get her shots off, so nothing is shocking about that because Stanford has great shooters, Roberson said. We werent in the correct matchup or helping off too much or not finding her in transitions. Miscommunications.
On why Colorado did so much better in the second half:
Quote:"I think our defensive intensity increased a lot," sophomore forward Jamee Swan said. "We knew that we needed stops, we needed to play and we had a shot at winning it. I feel like that was the change."http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-college-sports/ci_24897354/colorado-womens-basketball-no-4-stanford-rolls-by
Quote:We turned the ball over 18 times. We didnt handle [the full-court] pressure very well, VanDerveer said. It hurts us a lot when Chiney and Amber get into foul trouble, but its good to have those kinds of games to see how people play.
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/01/12/card-secures-road-victories-over-pac-12-foes-utah-and-no-17-colorado/