Most of Iowa's losses

JoeHawki

Well-Known Member
I am trying to figure out why Iowa can hang with most teams they have played in the first half, but let the game get away quickly in the 2nd half each time. Is it poor coaching? Teams not taking Iowa seriously at the start of the games? It just seems to me that the Iowa players go away from what got them ahead each game. Almost like they play too conservative, once they get a lead. Could they be playing not to lose, after they get a lead?

I would think if they played all 40 minutes like they have the first 20 minutes, they could win. More games.

Confusing to say the least. Your thoughts?
 
On several occasions I've felt opposing coaches have made the necessary adjustments at halftime to take advantage of our many weaknesses and Fran and Co. have been virtually powerless to make the changes to plug the holes when the game starts going south. We still don't have the talent to compete with most B10 teams and if we over-achieve in the first half, it catches up to us in the second.
 
Teams aren't real "up" for Iowa. We take an early lead, play them well. We get their attention, they turn up the intensity and focus and then steal our lunch the rest of the game. Once they get a big lead they let up a little toward the end, our players are still playing hard and we make a mini-run to cut it to 8 and then they refocus and pummel us again.
 
Basketball isn't football. In basketball, you can basically end a game with a well timed 5 minute stretch. You can also cruise and turn it on when you need to.

This is why I really only turn on the last 5 minutes or so if basketball games. It is either over by then, or the game is just really starting. I then know if it is worth watching or not.
 
Last edited:
Basketball isn't football. In basketball, you can basically end a game with a well timed 5 minute stretch. You can also cruise and turn it on when you need to.

This is why I really only turn on the last 5 minutes or so if basketball games. It is either over by then, or the game is just really starting. I then know if it is worth watching or not.

Midway through the second half of yesterday's game I couldn't take it any longer and switched to the golf tournament, which, even with Tiger Woods out of contention, was far more entertaining and interesting.
 
Basketball isn't football. In basketball, you can basically end a game with a well timed 5 minute stretch. You can also cruise and turn it on when you need to.

This is why I really only turn on the last 5 minutes or so if basketball games. It is either over by then, or the game is just really starting. I then know if it is worth watching or not.

This is a pretty good assessment. Just like football is "a game of inches", bball is a game of "runs" -- the pendulum is always swinging. It's why you here so many coaches talking about winning a series of "4-minute games" within the game.

Unfortunately for the Hawks, their best defense is the other team having an off-night. Because they just don't have the size, depth or athleticism to play straight up man with any other B12en team, they play a lot of zone. It's the lesser of 2 evils and at least attempts to force the other team to primarily beat them with the lower %, outside shot.

Problem is twofold --
1) Being a game of "runs", the pendulum often swings toward the odds of hitting more outside shots as the game progresses.
2) No one on Iowa is very good at defense (weak mentality and intensity), let alone playing zone defense (low IQ). They lack good court awareness (cutters), play way too much help defense (i.e. leave their zone), have poor positioning to track ball movement and aren't quick enough to react / recover.
Excellent example - Michigan's 1st possession of 2nd half...
Cole leaves his lower block zone all the way to free-throw line / top of the key to (over) help on Morris. Morris fires a pass to Smotrycz in baseline corner (Cole's zone) and Cole tries to recover while Smot has wide-open look to drain the 3.
This was a repeat play early in the 2nd half. After getting stung, Iowa hedged toward the outside (leaving the zone), over-helped on Morris, allowing baseline cutters (poor awareness) into the lane and Morris exploited the interior. It was a classic breakdown of Iowa's zone by Michigan -- hit clean looks from the outside over a packed-in zone, stretch the zone, hit the cutters and pound the inside.

This has been the recipe too often for Iowa -- losing the 1st 4-minute game to open the 2nd half. Now they face a deficit in the teens and need some 3's to catch up. Problem #3 - no reliable shooters that can consistently hit the outside shot, open or not. Any comeback they can muster is too little, too late (and usually fizzles before the last 4-minute crunch-time).

The only cure for Iowa bball is Cole and Gatens to graduate, May to regain his confidence, Basabe and Marble to develop and incoming athletic size.
 
This is a pretty good assessment. Just like football is "a game of inches", bball is a game of "runs" -- the pendulum is always swinging. It's why you here so many coaches talking about winning a series of "4-minute games" within the game.

Unfortunately for the Hawks, their best defense is the other team having an off-night. Because they just don't have the size, depth or athleticism to play straight up man with any other B12en team, they play a lot of zone. It's the lesser of 2 evils and at least attempts to force the other team to primarily beat them with the lower %, outside shot.

Problem is twofold --
1) Being a game of "runs", the pendulum often swings toward the odds of hitting more outside shots as the game progresses.
2) No one on Iowa is very good at defense (weak mentality and intensity), let alone playing zone defense (low IQ). They lack good court awareness (cutters), play way too much help defense (i.e. leave their zone), have poor positioning to track ball movement and aren't quick enough to react / recover.
Excellent example - Michigan's 1st possession of 2nd half...
Cole leaves his lower block zone all the way to free-throw line / top of the key to (over) help on Morris. Morris fires a pass to Smotrycz in baseline corner (Cole's zone) and Cole tries to recover while Smot has wide-open look to drain the 3.
This was a repeat play early in the 2nd half. After getting stung, Iowa hedged toward the outside (leaving the zone), over-helped on Morris, allowing baseline cutters (poor awareness) into the lane and Morris exploited the interior. It was a classic breakdown of Iowa's zone by Michigan -- hit clean looks from the outside over a packed-in zone, stretch the zone, hit the cutters and pound the inside.

This has been the recipe too often for Iowa -- losing the 1st 4-minute game to open the 2nd half. Now they face a deficit in the teens and need some 3's to catch up. Problem #3 - no reliable shooters that can consistently hit the outside shot, open or not. Any comeback they can muster is too little, too late (and usually fizzles before the last 4-minute crunch-time).

The only cure for Iowa bball is Cole and Gatens to graduate, May to regain his confidence, Basabe and Marble to develop and incoming athletic size.

How about not being in a zone to begin with. A decent team will always get good looks in a zone no matter how well you play it. Now you can argue that they don't play man to man very well either although I would say some of them certainly do, but I'll take my chances any day playing man vs a zone and watching shooting practice.
 
I'll take the blame for this. I keep missing the first half of games. the last couple of games I've been able to watch have been close in the first half, which I missed, and then blowouts in the second half when I've been watching.
 
I think besides leaving shooters wide open, in the second half we quit taking advantage of the easy baskets that we get in the first half. We almost always abandon going inside which is where we had the advantage yesterday. I
 
I'll take the blame for this. I keep missing the first half of games. the last couple of games I've been able to watch have been close in the first half, which I missed, and then blowouts in the second half when I've been watching.

I hope you're leaning toward missing the whole game rather than tuning in and causing them to suck for 40 minutes.
 
Lack of depth is the main reason.

We don't have enough guys that can score. How many missed "bunnies" have you seen at critical times during the game this season? How many wide open shots are missed when we need big bucket to stop an opponents run?

Not every guy can be "on" every game. Depth means you have a roster of talent that goes at least 7 deep with guys that can score and play defense - chances are 2 or 3 of them will be "on" on any given nite.

We could use a real big man and a consistent PG that can score and create shots for his teammates. Cartwright has shown flashes here but some games he just disappears. I like this teams effort but we don't have the horses to go 40 minutes with quality teams.
 
Pretty simple answer IMO. Teams come out in the second half and get in our jocks defensively and we fold. Make Gatens and May dribble, front Basabe, trap the ball out of Cartwright's hands and we are back to Lickliter ball where we have to scramble to even get a shot up. Other teams have the luxury of having matchup advantages at every position on the floor against us, so it's just a matter of time before their talent takes over.
 

Latest posts

Top