The Title Game: The game itself

748 Views | 1 Replies | Last: 11 yr ago by bluesaxe
SFCityBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd be interested in everyone's opinions of the game itself. For me, this had to be one of the worst exhibitions of basketball I've seen from two supposed top teams, with so many athletic players.

Connecticut was quicker. Shabazz is a clone of Kemba Walker. Are Shabazz and Boatwright a married couple? They sure were arguing with each other a lot. Maybe they haven't played together too much. Connecticut had the better defense. If they hadn't missed so many threes, or turned the ball over so much with unforced errors, they would have won by 15 or 20. Their bigs went three plus quarters without trying a pump fake. I was beginning to think they did not know how to do that, because they kept shooting with no fake first, and getting their shots stuffed time after time by Kentucky. Finally in the 4th quarter, they figured it out and tried a fake or two.

50% of Kentucky's offense was passing the ball around the perimeter deciding which one on one player was going to shoot a three or drive to the basket. How boring is that? At least they shared the ball. The other 50% of Kentucky's offense was crashing the boards to get offensive rebound putbacks. Or at least that was how it appeared.

In the end, the quicker team with the better defense, and an offense with a little complexity, won out over the one on one, one and done players. Still, those kids kept it close. All in all, not very good basketball.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear;842302537 said:

I'd be interested in everyone's opinions of the game itself. For me, this had to be one of the worst exhibitions of basketball I've seen from two supposed top teams, with so many athletic players.

Connecticut was quicker. Shabazz is a clone of Kemba Walker. Are Shabazz and Boatwright a married couple? They sure were arguing with each other a lot. Maybe they haven't played together too much. Connecticut had the better defense. If they hadn't missed so many threes, or turned the ball over so much with unforced errors, they would have won by 15 or 20. Their bigs went three plus quarters without trying a pump fake. I was beginning to think they did not know how to do that, because they kept shooting with no fake first, and getting their shots stuffed time after time by Kentucky. Finally in the 4th quarter, they figured it out and tried a fake or two.

50% of Kentucky's offense was passing the ball around the perimeter deciding which one on one player was going to shoot a three or drive to the basket. How boring is that? At least they shared the ball. The other 50% of Kentucky's offense was crashing the boards to get offensive rebound putbacks. Or at least that was how it appeared.

In the end, the quicker team with the better defense, and an offense with a little complexity, won out over the one on one, one and done players. Still, those kids kept it close. All in all, not very good basketball.



Agreed. I hated it. Nice drama cause it was close. But it was actually, a points, simply PAINFUL to watch - for the same reasons I hate watching most NBA games. The Posternizing dunk was pretty nice. But not enough to compensate for how BORING it was to watch when Kentucky had the rock.
bluesaxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SFCityBear;842302537 said:

I'd be interested in everyone's opinions of the game itself. For me, this had to be one of the worst exhibitions of basketball I've seen from two supposed top teams, with so many athletic players.

Connecticut was quicker. Shabazz is a clone of Kemba Walker. Are Shabazz and Boatwright a married couple? They sure were arguing with each other a lot. Maybe they haven't played together too much. Connecticut had the better defense. If they hadn't missed so many threes, or turned the ball over so much with unforced errors, they would have won by 15 or 20. Their bigs went three plus quarters without trying a pump fake. I was beginning to think they did not know how to do that, because they kept shooting with no fake first, and getting their shots stuffed time after time by Kentucky. Finally in the 4th quarter, they figured it out and tried a fake or two.

50% of Kentucky's offense was passing the ball around the perimeter deciding which one on one player was going to shoot a three or drive to the basket. How boring is that? At least they shared the ball. The other 50% of Kentucky's offense was crashing the boards to get offensive rebound putbacks. Or at least that was how it appeared.

In the end, the quicker team with the better defense, and an offense with a little complexity, won out over the one on one, one and done players. Still, those kids kept it close. All in all, not very good basketball.

It was a poorly played game. I suppose nerves are an issue and they are playing in a football stadium, which is ridiculous to begin with, but UConn made way too many horribly dumb lazy unforced errors and couldn't get their offense straight, while Kentucky had great athletes and not much of a clue what to do other than one on one. It was boring.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.