Villanova completes Syracuse sweep
posted by Pete @ LetsGoNova.com2/24/2009 12:24:00 AM
Syracuse 86
(box score)
#12 Villanova: 22-5 (10-4 BE)
#24 Syracuse: 19-8 (7-7 BE)
Well, it came down to the wire, but Villanova earned its best road victory of the season with a three-point win at Syracuse.
The Orange, aided by a mini-collapse by Villanova, came back from down seven with half a minute remaining to hoist an open look at what would have been the game-tying three in the closing seconds.
Johnny Flynn's shot, however, found the rim, and Villanova finally came away with a solid victory on the road.
I still don't like Wright's decision to play the Coreys so lightly (24 for Fisher, 13 for Stokes), and his weird offense-defense substitution at the end of the game. Does Wright realize that if he yanks both point guards for a crucial defensive possession, and Syracuse scores anyway, he has to face a press without any ballhandlers? Was his plan to burn timeouts every time? I don't get it.
Wright's offense-defense substituting nearly cost Villanova the game. The Wildcats were up a nearly insurmountable seven points with 36 seconds left. Wright's lack of preparation for the Syracuse press, and his inexplicable reliance on poor ballhandlers and free throw shooters could have been disastrous.
Syracuse pulled to within two points on defense, and ended the game down three on offense, with three looks at the tie. If the game had gone to overtime, the momentum was with the Orange.
Despite the troubling last-minute lapse by the 'Cats, the game was the latest victory in Villanova's hot streak. The Wildcats have won eight of their last nine games and improve to #10 in the nation.
The Big East is loaded at the top end, with a ridiculous five teams in the top ten.
The win keeps Villanova in the driver's seat for a three-seed in the NCAA tournament. Earning a top-three seed would greatly increase the Wildcats' chances of playing their first two rounds in Philadelphia, although it also depends on where other top seeds are slated to play.
As the season draws to a close, we are more and more concerned with bracketology. Looking at the top-ten ranked teams in the AP, Villanova appears to have a decent shot at Philadelphia, but only if the Wildcats are able to win out the rest of their games and remain in the top ten.
One possible scenario for 16 pod captains:
| Team | Site |
| Pittsburgh | Dayton |
| Connecticut | Philadelphia |
| Oklahoma | Kansas City |
| UNC | Greensboro |
| Memphis | Kansas City |
| Louisville | Dayton |
| Duke | Greensboro |
| Marquette | Minneapolis |
| Michigan State | Minneapolis |
| Villanova | Philadelphia |
| Missouri | Boise |
| Clemson | Miami |
| Wake | Miami |
| Kansas | Boise |
| Arizona St. | Portland |
| Gonzaga | Portland |
Remember, only two "pod captains" (top seeds) can play in each first-round site. The NCAA tries to keep 1-4 seeds close to home, and tries to make sure that these protected seeds don't play any opponent too close to its home court in the first round. That is why it's unlikely for Villanova to play in Philadelphia unless it is as a top seed.
It would be better for Villanova for Missouri to lose, because if the Tigers earn their way to a Kansas City first round, Memphis might have to go to Greensboro, bumping Duke to Philadelphia or Miami.
A Wake Forest hot streak would also bode ill for Villanova's Philadelphia chances, although the Deacons and the Blue Devils could just swap sites.
Also, keep an eye on a scorching Kansas team, and surging Florida State, both of whom could take up crucial spots in Kansas City and Miami, respectively.
But it's too early to worry about all the possible permutations.
The bottom line is that if Villanova keeps winning, the chances are very good Wildcats fans will get to watch their team in a very familiar Wachovia Center.
Congratulations to reader "Sean Don" for most closely predicting the game's final score.
On to the player grades. "READ MORE" below for player performance grades and analysis.
- Dwayne Anderson (S, 36 min)
Love, love, love Dwayne Anderson's game, especially when the shots are falling. I criticized him last time for going 0-4 from the three, but I am thrilled that he kept shooting when they were going in at Syracuse. Anderson shot a decent 8-14 from the field, including a hot 4-6 from the three to score a team-high 22. He had 5 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 turnovers, and 1 steal. I like when he is involved in the offense, especially in the running game. Keep it up.
Grade: A- - Dante Cunningham (S, 34 min)
It's an unpopular opinion, but I think Cunningham is hurting the team with all his poor shots. Despite what the announcers say, Cunningham is simply not a good jump-shooter. Yes, he can hit the open 15-footer, but take that out to 17 feet, or put a man on him, and he can't find the bottom of the net. I miss the days when Cunningham's line would read something like 6-8 shooting and 10 rebounds. Nowadays, Sunday's 5-14 is business as usual for Cunningham, who for some reason has assumed a role at the center of the offense. On an unrelated note, the Syracuse game was the first time (at least that I've noticed) that Cunningham was listed in the official box score as a center, not a forward. I don't know what that's all about, because Dante is a textbook college four. Cunningham scored 12 points on his hideous 14 shots. He did well on the boards, leading the team in rebounding with 12. He also passed the ball very well, with 6 assists, and cut down on his recent penchant for turnovers, committing 2. He had 0 blocks and steals. Good all around game for Dante, except with all the bad shots.
Grade: B- - Reggie Redding (S, 34 min)
A monster game for Redding, doing the things he does best -- defense and passing. Six steals! Seven assists! And he shot a judicious 3-5 from the field. He was also 5-6 from the foul line, but he missed the most crucial free throw of the game at the very end, which would have put Villanova up by four instead of three. The offense definitely suffers with him out there sometimes, but with 6 steals and 7 assists, he earned his 34 minutes on both ends of the floor Sunday.
Grade: B+ - Shane Clark (S, 31 min)
Clark bounced back from his recent slump with a good game, at least offensively. He shot 6-8 from the field, and pulled in 5 rebounds on the offensive glass, to finish with 15 points and 8 rebounds total. I am still not sold -- at all -- on the defense. Sometimes it's like playing 5 on 4 on defense, with how slow he is to rotate or contest an outside shooter. And I can't remember how many times I've seen Clark just let a penetrator go right past him to the basket. That said, credit where credit is due for a nice hustle game. Clark is at his best with put-backs and follow-ups. I don't like to see him take jump-shots (his two misses were jump-shots that weren't even close), but more power to him on glass cleanup duty.
Grade: B - Corey Fisher (24 min)
Five minutes more than last time and still 10 minutes too few. It's clear, now, that Fisher is by far Villanova's best player. Would anyone disagree? So why are there always five or more players with more time than him? Even against Syracuse, four players played nine-plus more minutes than Fisher, even though Fisher was the best player on the court. It makes zero sense to me. Against 'Cuse, Fisher continued his hot shooting, going 5-6 from the field, 1-1 from the three, and 5-7 from the foul line. When you shoot 5-6 from the field as a guard, it probably means you should be taking more shots. Fisher finished with 16 points, 2 assists, 1 turnover, 1 steal, and 3 rebounds. Imagine what he could have done with 10 more minutes.
Grade: A - Scottie Reynolds (S, 23 min)
I don't agree with just 23 minutes for Reynolds, but Wright doesn't like to play Scottie and Fisher together, which is a mistake on his part. Reynolds shot 4-9 to score 10 points, but was cold from the three (1-5) and the line (1-3). He had way too many turnovers (5), including two really disastrous turnovers in the game's final minute. It was a sub-par game from Reynolds, who needs to move to the two guard if this team is going to make any kind of tournament run. You read it here first. Scottie is an All=American talent from the two, but his proficiency at the one is less than desirable.
Grade: C- - Corey Stokes (13 min)
Is it just me, or does Jay Wright often seem to yank out Stokes after any missed shot? (Steeling myself for many profane "it's just you" comments...) Stokes, a rhythm shooter if there ever were one, needs to be left out there to warm up. How can Wright not see this? It would be obvious to the laziest assistant in grammar school intramurals. Just 13 minutes for Stokes after his monster game against RU? I don't get it. Against 'Cuse, Stokes scored just 3 points on 1-4 shooting. He grabbed 3 rebounds, and had 1 block and 2 turnovers.
Grade: C- - Antonio Pena (5 min)
I really don't think Pena is so bad that he has played himself completely out of the rotation. Has Pena regressed this much from when he was starting every game? If so, why has Wright allowed that? Or was Pena never good enough to start? Either way, it's baffling and unusual for a former every-game starter to be seeing so little time.
Grade: Incomplete - Incomplete grades: Antonio Pena (5 min), Frank Tchuisi (0+ min).
- Did not play: Jason Colenda (CD), Russell Wooten (CD), Maurice Sutton (RS).
Labels: Big East, bracketology, grades, Jay Wright, NCAA tournament, NCAAs, recap, Syracuse
33 Comments:
Looking forward to hear everyone's opinion of the grades.
Pete,
You need to start giving grades to Wright. From what you say, sounds like an F- is in order. Or should we reserve that for losses (or at least games other than road wins against top 25 teams)?
As usual, I think your game reviews and grades are tinted by your certain favoritisms or dislikes (blaming missed free throws/turnovers on Jay Wright, too harsh on Dante, and [of course] lobbying for increased playing time for Fisher). I'm certainly of the belief that there's always room for constructive criticism; but it seems to me that the positives of most games are lost amongst the laundry list of negatives (and vendettas) that often dominate this blog. To me (and I don't think this is unreasonable) the positives (a Big East road win, at one of the toughest college bball venues in the country, against a ranked team) outweigh the negatives (unnecessarily close game in the closing seconds). They can't all be pretty; and they CERTAINLY can't be easy.
I simply fail to see much balance in the criticisms on this blog- The cynicism seems to overwhelm any optimism. To each their own; but these are just my opinions.
"one of the toughest college bball venues in the country, against a ranked team"
Over the years Villanova has by far the best record of any visiting team in that particular venue (see http://suathletics.com/documents/2006/4/17/DomeSeries.pdf). That success predates the Wright years, so obviously he deserves no credit for it at all.
Good job Pete. Also, very nice breakdown of the NCAA seeding situation. Your bubble coverage last year was excellent. Looks like we can expect the same high quality of coverage this year- with seeding and location to be debated as opposed to inclusion.
As for the Dante comments, he's not a bad shooter. Granted, he is in a little slump right now, but Dante's ability to shoot is what has opened up this offense. He's too quick for Cuse's big men, so Jim Bo started with the zone, even though after last game he swore he wouldn't. After Nova shot them out of that and Cuse went man, Dante drew cuse's big men so far out (because they feared his shot), the lanes were wide open for Fisher and Redding's dribble drives and Clark's offensive boards.
Fisher might be the best player on the team right now, but Cuinningham is who defenses are focusing on (making life easier for others, especially Fisher).
Pete...I am removing your blog as a favorite. You're a jealous fraud. Your critiques are slanted by your dislike (jealousy?) for Jay and certain players and your like (for whatever reason) for other players. To question Sunday's win at the Dome you would have had to be there to witness the fact that we withstood not one, not two but 3 Orange pushes and then still held them off in front of 26,000+ crazies. Have you been there for a Villanova game before? Do you get to any of the games or just send missives from your pc during the games on tv? Take care and good luck. Signing off from letsgowildcats.com
Pete,
I'm going to make the mistake of taking you seriously, and making one last effort to try to bring you back to the reality based community.
Let's focus specifically on the Fisher situation. Unlike some of your Wright obsessions (e.g., your views on player development), in this case you do make a colorable argument. The problem isn't that you are wrong, necessarily. The problems are that you ignore context and nuance. Let me be a little more specific.
You have heard the reasons Wright's defenders raise for the amount of playing time that Fisher gets now (which is plenty, but yes, less than it could be). Matchups/size and having a sparkplug off the bench are the most significant ones. Now, it's one thing to disagree with these things, but you go much further than that - you are entirely dismissive of them. No recognition that (for example) Villanova is already smaller than most elite teams (albeit not much smaller than Connecticut, for example, anda little bigger than Marquette), and that your call for them to get even smaller, whether right or wrong, goes against the conventional wisdom. At worst, Wright is making the wrong judgment call. But you act like his decision is wholly irrational - a point of view which would be over the top even were the team losing, but which is just freakishly out of place when the team is winning.
That's just one example; if I had time I could list others. But your critics aren't asking you to stop criticizing Wright; we are merely asking you to do so with some degree of proportion, logic and respect.
One more thing - in term of the size issue. Look at his minutes against Marquette - 33 and 32. Clearly, Wright plays him more against smaller teams. Again, disagree with this if you want, but clearly Wright has reasons for his playing time decisions, the reasons are at least rational, and the decisions have led to a top 10 ranking and a team performance better than most people expected.
That doesn't mean that his decisions are beyond question, it merely means that they deserve a little more respect than you give them.
Pete -
You're mancrush on Jay Wright has gone too far. I'm worried your obession is going to lead to his death.
I don't know what everyone is whining about. I really don't.
I gave the team credit for winning the game. It was one of the best wins of the year. That much is obvious.
That said, they did almost blow it at the end. That is a fact. Most of the time, that wide-open three goes in. How many liked our chances in OT?
My opinion is that Syracuse wouldn't have even had three looks to tie it if Jay hadn't used his offense-defense substitutions.
How is that not a fair criticism? It's not like I just wrote "WRIGHT SUX" with no explanation.
I happen to LIKE Jay Wright. I think he is a very nice man; I've met him several times. I just don't agree with all he does on the basketball court. I think it's OK for me to point out what I don't agree with on this blog. If you don't, you're free to read elsewhere -- but I don't think many of the other sites offer much of an opinion, anyway.
@10:35
Thank you for the compliment. Bubble/bracketology/seeding are some of my favorite subjects. You'll be hearing a lot about that stuff in the next few weeks.
@11:59,
You're right, I don't buy the "size" issue at all. I just don't. You cited Marquette and UConn; you could have also cited Pittsburgh and Villanova 06 and countless other teams. Even this year's UNC is not that big compared to us.
You have to go with your best talent. It looks like Wright understood that in 06 and 07. Why he lost that in 08 and 09, I don't know.
Re 12:21, Pete, aside from the fact that you take that view to an absurd extreme, what your posts lack is any fundamental acknowledgement of the fact that almost all coaches & knowledgeable basketball commentators place a higher, often much higher, emphasis on size than you do, and that MOST of the time size correlates heavily with success. You act as if Wright has some bizarre unexplainable fixation on the importance of size, when that is simply not the case.
I’d note that Pittsburg, like Connecticut, is bigger than Nova this year – even given Wright’s current rotation; the disparity would be greater if Wright followed your “advice.” Marquette is smaller, more out of necessity than anything else, but then no one is exactly touting them for a final 4 berth, are they? And don’t forget that Nova 2006, after a nice run, lost big in the elite 8 to a more traditionally sized team.
Moreover, you aren’t merely extolling the value of smaller than traditional teams, you are saying that Wright’s failure to go even smaller than an already significantly smaller than average rotation is not simply wrong but irrational. You are acting as if your own quirky, non-traditional belief about size is not merely the “correct” point of view, but so obviously correct that even a small deviation from it (ironically Wright comes closer to sharing your view than most coaches) makes for a lousy (not just mediocre) coach.
And ultimately THAT’s why most of your commenters think that you are not just wrong, but a JOKE who knows nothing about the game, and why I’m beginning to think that recent commenters who think that this is a parody site might just be correct.
Blah blah blah,
It's very easy to say "you are wrong because you don't know anything about basketball" -- I say that about Wright all the time.
If you actually read my posts, I actually have logical arguments.
My two criticisms of Wright were
1. Not having ballhandling or good FT shooters in the last minute of a game we were leading. Since you know so much about basketball, you'll know that is an obvious strategy that everyone needs to use.
2. Not playing Stokes and Fisher enough. I am not sure this even has to do much with size! Stokes is bigger and stronger than Redding. Would a lineup of Fisher, Reynolds, Stokes, Pena, Dante play all that much smaller than Dante, Clark, Anderson, Reynolds, Redding? I really don't think so. And I think the added speed would help us. Sometimes, a team needs to play to its strength rather than to its opponent's. Look at 06 -- that team was way smaller than anything I have ever proposed on here -- and they went to the elite 8 and lost to the best team in the country. Sometimes it works to play your best players. Wright, it seems, used to know that. Maybe he has gotten a little more conservative with age. I don't know.
sure, fisher has been playing very very well but i do not think he should start when we have won 9 of 10 games with redding, clark, reynolds, cunningham, and anderson starting. if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
That is exactly the kind of attitude that is going to get us beat in the NCAAs.
It always ain't broke, until it is broke.
This was one of the best recaps and grade evaluations. Finally I can read through Anderson/Clark/Redding's write-up and not need to hear about Jay Wright, Malcolm Grant or Corey Fisher. This is how it should be.
Still, the idea that you keep pushing for Fisher to start is annoying. None of us here will disagree with you that he needs more minutes, but we're winning and I trust that Jay sees the big picture. Fisher DID start to kick off the year, and a few other games this season. However, he often found himself getting into foul trouble, or having lack luster offensive games.. albeit this is a small sample size.
Manu Ginoboli comes off the bench, so in the end all that matters is how many minutes you play. Fisher may just be best served to be that spark off the bench, instant offense. If when he comes into the games and plays like he has been, then absolutely leave him on the court until he tires. He is the best we've got!
And with Stokes, I don't think Jay yanks him out just for the sake of it. In fact, from watching the IVBB shows, I know Jay is encouraging Stokes to look for his offense more. I'm sure you've noticed that Stokes is trying to expand upon his overall game lately, and I doubt that is by coincidence. Jay is developing him to become more than just a 3pt shooter, and I am looking forward to seeing the dividends.
It's okay to give Jay Wright some credit!!! After all, we are ranked #10 overall, a ranking that we have undoubtedly earned. This all in spite of being, in your words, a worse team than last year. I know you will stand by this statement, simply because you look at it from the narrow focus of available personnel. That is just stupid though. I think we're a much better team this year, and it shouldn't even be a debate. The emergence of Dante (who is shooting his best % of his career, despite your non-empirical eye witness test), the growth of our sophomores, and the defined roles that Clark and Redding have finally embraced (for the most part). If we had Malcolm Grant this year we may be a better team than we are now, simply for the added depth and additional competent ball-handler, but even without him and Drummond in this season's roster, we are a better team than last year. If you continue to refute this, it cements your place in a room with padded walls.
And for the end of the 'Cuse game. Jay Wright drew up plays to get the ball into Scottie's hands against their press. This was to ensure that they must foul our best FT shooter.
Scottie traveled.. twice. At least one of those calls, if memory serves, could've been called a travel. The results were hard to watch, but to say that Jay Wright did not prepare for the press is ridiculous. They got the ball into the hands of the player we want.
Fair comments, IMKL.
One thing -- you're saying Dante is a better shooter, I am saying he is worse. You call my side "non empirical eye witness test" -- tell me, has dante's shooting percentage gone up or down from last year?
It's gone up, in my post I said he is shooting his best % of his career.....
Link: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/players/46437
Up slightly over last year, despite taking almost 5 more shots per game. You are remembering his last 2 games. Before that, he had 7 consecutive games of shooting 50% or higher.
Why do I need to check these stats for you? You wrote the question as if I couldn't provide evidence that his shooting percentage went up!
Now I don't want to compare Dante to Hansbrough, but he is shooting a better percentage than him. He's shooting a high enough percentage for a forward to help our team. We may all wish he took less jumpers and took it to the hoop more, but to say his shot is awful is ignoring the facts. The majority of his shots are mid-range jumpers, and he is connecting on them consistently.
Actually, his FG% is up a tiny bit, though not significantly. What is significant is that it remains very high - .545 - despite Cunningham taking more shots, and a higher pecentage of his shots from outside.
Re 1:41, you fail reading comprehension. I didn't address #1; as for #2, my point wasn't that you failed to support your case with logic (you did in this case, though you often don't), but that you fail to even acknowledge the existance of reasons for Wright's playing time decisions, thus turning a semi-reasonable disagreement about tactics (where you take the unorthodox position) to a bizzare and irrational attack on Wright.
As for your proposed lineup, (1) it would play a little smaller, (2) against many teams, it would create some matchup problems for Nova, especially on defense, and (3) by starting Pena over Clark, it violates your own statement that we should start our best players (wrong, but you should at least remain consitant).
I think stokes minutes are limited in games where he has bad defensive lapses. If you just follow stokes through an entire game often times he completely loses his man on defense and it results in the other team scoring. He did this a handful of times during Syracuse. One play in particular he completley lost his man in the lane and that watched him drain a three. Very frusterating for a coach and fan to watch. I think Jay is pushing for him to earn his minutes by playing good defense, which is a fair way to treat his players.
anyone know how to watch this depaul game tonight if your ISP does not allow access to espnfuck60
Pete, Will you pleeeeaaaase make a Jay Wright Blingee for this site?
you want stokes, fisher, and pena all to play more...who deserves to lose minutes then? there are only so many minutes to go around
Clark, Redding, Anderson can lose some minutes for Stokes, Fisher, and Pena.
sure they can but do they deserve to lose minutes
I don't think it would be anything personal, you just need to get the more talented players on the court a little more.
not sure what Pete has against Reggie now but he has gotten this team out of a few jams in the close games. Fact is that he's one of the more fundamentally sound players we have. I dont think you want to be trading his minutes. There is a place for all these guys. That being said as history has shown mark it down that the bench will get shorter the next few weeks.
Pena for Clark right now? As good as Pena could be, and as important as he will be to the team next year, in terms of current play, you have got to be kidding.
Less playing time for Anderson makes no sense at all. He is certainly one of their top 5 players right now, probably one of their top 4, and fills a role that neither Fisher or Stokes is well suited for.
Redding? That's really the only person for whom you could make a decent case for less time, but he is in there for his defense; if we are switching out Stokes for Redding, we are losing a LOT on D.
Bottom line: the suggested changes might help Nova on O, but on D, for reasons of size and talent set, it would make them worse. And give that recently O has been fine, and D ... variable but sometimes problematic, it would seem an odd change to make.
But on a more basic level, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, the problem isn't that Pete thinks that these changes are desirable, but that he seems to think that they are so obviously the correct moves that Wright's failure to make them makes him a lousy coach. And that, my firends, is just plain crazy.
So, was it "just plain crazy" when Pena was getting 25 mins + per game, and Clark was getting < 10, last year and early this year? Was it crazy then?
To you, anything that doesn't agree with Wright 100% is "Crazy."
And that's crazy.
Pete, you really are a fucking loon and I am a little afraid for the people who know you in real life. You must be a real fucking joy.
Earlier in the year, and last year, Pena was playing much better than Clark. You and I don't know for sure the reasons why (though health seems to be the most likely explanation for Clark's transformation). But Wright, who is of course not perfect, is at least able to react to real world events, unlike a freak like yourself. I mean, the fact that you have critisized him for playing the person who is playing better of late says more about your own mental state than it does about Wright's coaching skills.
And still you can't get it through your diseased brain (are you suffering from Syphilis by any chance?) that the main problem with your blog isn't your wrong opinions, but the fact that you seem to think that the fact that Wright fails to agree with your wierd, unorthadox opinions makes him a bad coach.
Please, please stip blogging. You are embarrassing yourself badly.
And no one, least of all me, ever has said "anything that doesn't agree with Wright 100% is 'Crazy.'" The fact that you can read that bizzare statement into the many criticisms of you in comments is evidence of your deep, deep mental illness (it's not the only evidence, of course).
If I had a dollar for every time I've been diagnosed with mental illness by an anonymous blog comment, I probably could afford my psychiatrist bills!
Post a Comment
<< Back to LetsGoNova.com