I watched IU WBB vs Iowa. Iowa was down 2 with 1-2 seconds left. Ball was to be thrown in from the near side. Iowa's all-everything SG Caitlin Clark was positioned in the far corner.
That she was going to come across the top of the circle through as many screens as Iowa could set was obvious to me and everybody else in the building. The second screen knocked IU's Moore-McNeil down and Clark hit a semi-contested jumper to win the game. After the game she described her confidence in the the shot as "money".
Another exampe is Harper from Rutgers beating IU a year ago. A third example is MSU's guard transfer from Northeastern destroying IU at East Lansing.
My quesition is this. Why do coaches allow the other team's best player to beat them? The IU women should have had the situational awareness to switch off onto Clark and possibly let another Iowa player take the last shot.
I offer that there are 2 approaches. The IU approach, practiced by both Woodson and Moren, is to play their base man to man defense. In critical moments a better man to man effort is expected. The Purdue approach is to take away the opponent's strength and make another player beat you. For example, Purdue took away TJD and make JHS, Kopp and Galloway beat them, which they did.
When Mike Woodson coached the Hawks, he had Joe Johnson and the iso-Joe offense. In the playoffs against the Celtics, the Celtics ran Kevin Garnett at Johnson every time he got the ball.
If I were coaching against the IU men in a game winning shot situation, I would run a second man at TJD or JHS the minute they touched the ball. I would play Kopp tight with a good defender. The last defender would split Galloway and Race. If Race would win the game with a 3-pointer, I would just say that I made a good bet and suffered a bad outcome. And yes, I do realize that Galloway's shooting percent this year qualifies him as a good shooter.
As much as it pains me to say so, I like Purdue's defensive approach over IU's straight man to man approach. Put the burden on a lesser scorer to beat you.
That she was going to come across the top of the circle through as many screens as Iowa could set was obvious to me and everybody else in the building. The second screen knocked IU's Moore-McNeil down and Clark hit a semi-contested jumper to win the game. After the game she described her confidence in the the shot as "money".
Another exampe is Harper from Rutgers beating IU a year ago. A third example is MSU's guard transfer from Northeastern destroying IU at East Lansing.
My quesition is this. Why do coaches allow the other team's best player to beat them? The IU women should have had the situational awareness to switch off onto Clark and possibly let another Iowa player take the last shot.
I offer that there are 2 approaches. The IU approach, practiced by both Woodson and Moren, is to play their base man to man defense. In critical moments a better man to man effort is expected. The Purdue approach is to take away the opponent's strength and make another player beat you. For example, Purdue took away TJD and make JHS, Kopp and Galloway beat them, which they did.
When Mike Woodson coached the Hawks, he had Joe Johnson and the iso-Joe offense. In the playoffs against the Celtics, the Celtics ran Kevin Garnett at Johnson every time he got the ball.
If I were coaching against the IU men in a game winning shot situation, I would run a second man at TJD or JHS the minute they touched the ball. I would play Kopp tight with a good defender. The last defender would split Galloway and Race. If Race would win the game with a 3-pointer, I would just say that I made a good bet and suffered a bad outcome. And yes, I do realize that Galloway's shooting percent this year qualifies him as a good shooter.
As much as it pains me to say so, I like Purdue's defensive approach over IU's straight man to man approach. Put the burden on a lesser scorer to beat you.
Last edited:
