Tennessee/Stanford women's basketball vs. Men

Christine Brennan is NOT going to like the stuff some of you wrote on this thread. Just saying.

 

I like watching women's basketball. But I don't think they're more fundamentally sound or would have a chance against a men's team. I actually have similar arguments usually with my dad - about whether a top college team (men's) could beat the worst NBA team. Uh, no.

But, the most enjoyable basketball player to watch at the University of Minnesota over the last 10 years was Lindsay Whalen, who was much more entertaining than any men's player the Gophers have had since Bobby Jackson. She actually could make plays during a game that a lot of guys can't: faking a behind the back pass with one hand and going in for a layup, full-court behind the back passes, etc. But that doesn't mean she'd have a prayer of beating a scrub like Lawrence McKenzie or that she wouldn't be totally overwhelmed playing against Kansas.

 

I still fail to realize why this is a staple of the criticism of the women's game at this point when you can see low shooting percentages, low foul-shooting percentages, missed lay-ups and plenty of turnovers in the men's game as well.

 

Don't you all know the rules yet? Zag is allowed to make all the sweeping generalizations he likes. The rest of us are not. Simple enough, right? And really, what we've seen doesn't matter, because Zag saw games, too. No opinion that disagrees with his could ever be legitimate, right?

Of course, Wooden is suddenly a being politically incorrect or he's just lost it because his argument doesn't fit your post. Never mind how many others have said the exact same thing, on and off the record.

But hey, one really good LSU team had weak fundamentals, so that argument must go out the window, right?

I'm not arguing that women can come close to competing with men. They don't have the size and athleticism and the talent pool is much smaller, so the level of play is not as good.

But women in general do approach the game differently than men. They are more likely to be team-oriented. This isn't always a good thing, because sometimes they aren't aggressive enough in looking for their own shots. That problem is going to come up far more often with young female athletes than young males. This is obviously a generalization and it is changing over time because the way we raise young girls in this society is changing. But I'm not sure it has changed at every level the way others would have us believe.

There are very real psychological differences between men and women, and that extends to athletes. Call it stereotyping if you like. I call it facing reality.

 

How many Division I women's basketball games have you covered? That's right -- zero, or one right -- so quit talking out of your ass just because you have this need to try and rip me.

It ain't just LSU, it is almost all of the top teams in women's hoops these days that play a style of game that is far closer to the men's game than this outdated idea about what the women's game is based on what it was in the 1970's and 80's.

Ironically -- the women's teams like Georgia, USC, Texas Tech, Texas, Virginia, Tennessee, Old Dominion and Louisiana Tech (and teams coached by Vivian Stringer, Iowa and Cheney) --the teams that were really good really fast in the early days of the sport -- they figured it out quickly and built themselves with athletes and played tough, pressure defense and annually beat the shit out of the "15 passes and 10 dribbles, a drop step and a jump stop for Muffy in the corner" teams that the John Wooden's of this world love to try and wax poetic about.

And the archaic -- and yes flat-out racist -- notion that things like dunking and no-look passing -- two things guys like Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant and LeBron James have made into an art form out of by the way (yeah, I know they don't have great fundamentals either right) -- are not smart basketball or good fundamentals are outdated and silly.

The game has changed dramatically both on the men's side and the women's side and the athletes are so much better now than they ever have been.

Let's see -- a dunk is about 99 percent -- a lay-up off the glass is probably more like 85 percent (actually a little less according to Harvey Pollack) -- what do you think is the more fundamentally sound way to attempt to score if given the choice and capable of doing both?

You are way over your head on this one -- go back to arguing about whether or not Xavier Nady is trade bait enough to make your precious team better.

And for the late-arriving Molly Yard wannabe crowd -- this isn't an argument about who is bigger and stronger between men and women -- it is dispelling this silly notion that women play the game with more fundamentals and work harder on the things win games, which is a crock.

 

Zag, have you ever been wrong about anything?
How can I be more like you?

 

It isn't a criticism -- it is just a debunking of a silly myth about how much more fundamentally sound women's basketball is than men's. It is a ridiculous notion.

 

I have been wrong about plenty of things. I am not wrong about this and you know it, which is why you have turned to partronizing mode.

But keep telling yourself that women have better fundamentals than men - it will clearly endear you to rest of the clueless, you know, the Christine Brennan's -- and likely David Duke's --- of this world.

 

Do you keep bringing up race because you're green?
Have you noticed who is in my sidesaddle?

 

Oh, I forgot - you are voting for Obama and some of your best friends are black so you can't be a racist....... :

I bring up race because racism and stereotyping are at the heart of your argument. You might not know it, but it is. The men are playing too much "playground ball" while the women are playing "a pure game" -- well you better take a look because the best women's teams -- for the most part -- they are playing "playground ball" as well.

And the difference between me saying "playground ball" and people like you saying that is that I don't view it as a negative. In fact, that is the game in its purest form.

 

It's an illusion, partly caused by the more deliberate style of play. More deliberate = more passes ("ah, fundamentals!") and the fact that the men sometimes make mistakes from trying to do too much with their athletic ability.

Tennis analogy: If Andy Roddick tried to serve at Maria Sharapova's speed (115 mph), he would get 95 percent of his serves in.

But he goes for more, because he can (and because he needs to at that level), and thus he faults more often.

But the fact that in a given match Sharapova might get in 60 percent of her serves and Roddick 50 percent does not mean Sharapova is more fundamentally sound.

 

I don't think a racist would vote for Obama. I happen to know I'm not one -- not because I voted for him in the primary and hope to get to do so in the general, but because I know my beliefs.
Of course, for all you know, I'm black or hispanic or Native American or, like yourself, green.
You keep bringing race into this. I never made any reference to women being smarter, which is where racists make their argument.
I said they play as a team more, which I am 100 percent certain is true.
But like was pointed out earlier, it doesn't matter what anyone but you has seen, because only you can make generalizations.