| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who will win this game? |
| Sun |
|
62% |
[ 10 ] |
| Liberty |
|
37% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
NYL_WNBA_FAN
Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 14097
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/09/18 9:00 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Michelle89 wrote: |
| Yes Katie is a rookie coach but lib fans probably need to get used to losing more games this season. Other teams are just more talented and Lib really only have 1 big star player while other teams have 2 or more better role players. |
Or we can play two posts late in games with leads like every normal team does and win close games at a higher rate like we did under Bill. At least if you go with conventional, sensible lineups you can say it’s the talent. We should have beaten a really good team without Piph and Stokes and with Rodgers barely playing and Boyd still getting acclimated. If anything that should demonstrate how good the team can be if they ever get everyone on the floor.
_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11132
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/18 10:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
There's a great movie about backup singers called "20 Feet from Stardom," and in it, clearly very talented singers can't make the jump from supporting the lead singer (usually with a lesser voice) to being the lead.
Bruce Springsteen says about the move: "It's only 20 feet, but it's a long walk."
Some coaches are better as assistants (I'm one) than as head coaches, just as some great singers can never command center stage.
I've always had good feelings about Katie Smith, and I hope she succeeds, but like Jenny Boucek, she might be much better off as the lead assistant.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
toad455
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 22472
Location: NJ
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/18 10:30 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| when Stokes come back there should never be a need to play Coleman at PF.
_________________
LET'S GO LIBERTY!!!!!!
Twitter: @TBRBWAY
|
|
root_thing
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 7365
Location: Underground
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/09/18 11:35 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| NYL_WNBA_FAN wrote: |
| I can’t remember honestly seeing a head coach use small lineups, rookie or otherwise, unless the lineup dictated something. Either tempo or a clear matchup advantage. This did neither. |
This is the key point. What is your reason for using the small line-up? Usually, it's to get an advantage in speed, quickness, and skill that more than offsets the disadvantage in height. If that's not the case, then don't use the small line-up. I think one can argue that there have been times when the small line-up has worked for New York. In the second half of the Dallas game, it helped spread the floor so that Tina could use her mobility against Cambage. It also opened driving lines for the other players. Against Connecticut, it worked in the first half because NY played aggressively (pushing tempo on offense, forcing loose balls on defense) and because they made their 3Pt shots. In the second half, they played passively with the small line-up. They stopped running. They missed a few early 3Pt shots and that seemed to quickly discourage people for the rest of the game (except for Tina who shoots them too much). Whether NY was fatigued, playing conservatively because they had a lead or because Connecticut made great adjustments, the small line-up was no longer working. At that point, Smith needed to either have players reassert their aggressiveness or remove the small line-up. The game turned during a five-minute stretch when Connecticut killed NY off the offensive boards. They were scoring on virtually every possession, and it was usually off 2nd or 3rd shots. Putting some bigger bodies out there would have helped. This is where not having Stokes made a big difference because she is a much better rebounder than Vaughn or Zahui. Kiah is also quicker which helps with all the switching you have to do on defense to keep up with Connecticut's movement and screening.
So my problem isn't with using the small line-up as much as it is the indiscriminate use of the small line-up. You can't just roll it out there like it's something normal. Like junk defenses or any gimmick, it has to have a purpose. And then you have to watch to see if it's working. If not, then go back to being conventional.
As far as NY not having enough talent, people have been saying that since 2015. Maybe this is the season you'll be right. But I think it's too early to tell for all teams, not only New York. You have a short training camp where a lot of players are missing, and then you just jump into the season... and even then some players are still missing. Throw in injuries, new coaches, new systems and what you see now is unlikely to be what you see by the end of the year. NY has played six close games while missing key players. Their new coach, who had input as an assistant last year, has decided to reinvent the wheel even though NY successfully made major changes to their systems last season. You would think that the main purpose of bringing back a similar roster is so you can play the same way and take advantage of continuity. I guess not. So, like last season, NY will have to undergo an experimental period searching for an identity. As long as they can stay close to .500 for the first twenty games or so, I think they'll be fine. If not, well everyone has been saying that New York needs another good player. The way to get those players is by sucking and then going to the lottery in a good draft year. This should be a good draft year even if you're selecting at #4. Either way, I'm OK with it. 
_________________
You can always do something else.
|
|
|
|
