This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, it's just something I've noticed that seems to dominate every discussion board, comment thread, or blogpost, or newspaper article about a Clemson basketball game, regardless of the situation. Every time Clemson blows a lead, every time another team makes a run, even every time Clemson manages to build a lead, people either reflexively label it a "collapse" or they start talking about the coming collapse. To me, a "collapse" implies a series of inexplicable events wherein a big lead evaporates while the team looks on wide-eyed in disbelief. Like the Illinois game earlier this year. That was undoubtedly a "collapse".
But this past Maryland game was completely different, and in the name of reasoned analysis I think it's important to distinguish between collapses and non-collapses. We lost to a better team. We did a great job coming out and taking advantage of a what, in retrospect, was a bad opening strategy for Gary Williams as he tried to slow us down with some pressure defense similar to what other teams had been doing early in the year against us. But we turned the tables by attacking the press without turning the ball over (too many times, at least) and getting good looks at the other end underneath and from long range. But once Gary Williams called off the press, we struggled in the half-court set to get good looks. Meanwhile, we struggled to get any stops on defense throughout the entire game, even when we were leading by 15 points. The only time Maryland didn't score is when they stopped themselves by throwing the ball away or missing a layup. There was no way to watch that game and not realize with five minutes left in the first half that Maryland was going to close the gap, not for reasons inexplicable but because they made a adjustment to their strategy that played to their strengths and our weaknesses. The rest of the game was like watching a rising tide against the banks of that 15-point Clemson lead. Maryland overcoming the Tigers was inevitable unless a) we made some miraculous adjustment of our own, or b) the 15 point lead could somehow hold up through a series of stupid Maryland mistakes. Since Maryland doesn't make mistakes and Purnell isn't known for in-game adjustment, you could call the game for Maryland with Clemson leading by 12 with five minutes left in the half.
Moreover, and I hate to break it to people here, but a 15-point lead in a game with 167 total points ain't that much of lead, particularly when the lead comes at the 12/13 minute mark in the first half. If the final score ends up 65-60, then maybe its something of a lead. But we were on a near NBA pace in 40 minutes of basketball. That's too many points and too much time remaining to consider 15 points any kind of definitive lead--its completely within the realm of expected score deviation for two teams given the final result.
We were beaten by a better team that matches up particularly well with us in their home arena. Just because they essentially spotted us a fifteen point lead doesn't mean we collapsed. I, for one, am unconvinced that we are prone to collapse more than any other given team. For every Illinois game there are dozens of games when Clemson has held a 12+ point lead (Virginia, Miami, and Florida State are three games just in the last two weeks) and every team across college basketball inexplicably loses games from season to season. Maybe its the lack of outstanding successes punctuated by occasional heartbreaking losses, but for whatever reason the myth of the Clemson collapse has just lodged itself in the collective psyche of the Clemson basketball fanbase. I'm just trying to say that while some blown leads are collapses, others are a result of fundamental roster or coaching problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment