Breaking Down the VT-UVA GameIn the scouting report I listed three keys for UVa to pull out the victory:
And looking back at those keys ... Jeff Allen. Obviously Jeff Allen's choice to give his elbow and Jeff Jones' forehead some bonding time made that category an easy check for Virginia. Even before the elbow Virginia had done a good job of neutralizing Allen as a scoring threat. Jeff Allen's last three games against Virginia have been disastrous; he was shut down by Assane Sene last year in Blacksburg, sat on the bench suspended during last year's game at JPJ and then was ejected in this year's contest. Ball Control. One of the most amazing stats of the new Tony Bennett era has been Virginia's ability to hold on to the ball. It is an important part of Bennett's overall strategy - UVa takes fewer chances both with its offense and the way it chooses to crash the boards in order to make the other team have to go against a set defense. This strategy also assures that Virginia can control the pace of the game to take opponents out of their comfort zone. Conversely, VT's system is based around causing chaos and forcing the opponents into turnovers and bad shots that can be used to spring the Virginia Tech transition offense. The Hokies get a lot of their turnovers off of players driving the lane or the pressure applied when they are able to Hedge a screen far away from the rim and take chances. All of Virginia Tech's players, post players included, are instructed to do their best to get/cause deflections and then to make a play on the loose ball. In this game, the Hokies were able to win the turnover battle. Virginia turned the ball over 16 times, but the key statistic was that Virginia Tech was able to get 11 steals off of the Cavaliers. Getting steals allowed VT to crank up the speed of the game and get easy baskets to cover for its inconsistent scoring ability. In total, 7 different Hokies recorded at least one steal, meaning that the turnovers were coming from all over the place. Virginia Tech's ability to cause turnovers also put a good deal of pressure on Virginia's offense; the Cavaliers like to be very deliberate with the ball and use a good amount of clock while finding the right shot within the offense but due to pressure from the Hokies, UVa took some early shots and got out of its offense for stretches in the game. Virginia Tech didn't do themselves any favors by turning the ball over 14 times themselves, though only 7 of those were steals, which helped the Hokies avoid giving up extra easy baskets. Virginia Tech's game plan to get steals exists as a way of trying to set up the Hokies for easy baskets at the other end. So far this season UVa has improved every game in its transition defense, though Wake Forest was able to exploit blown assignments by UVa down the court. Virginia Tech based a good amount of its game plan on the one that Wake Forest rolled out for the Virginia game and pushing the tempo was part of that. So the Hokies pushed the ball and looked to get it down the court not only off of steals, but off of missed and made shots as well. Often there was nothing there for VT to take advantage of but getting the ball up the court quickly helped lead to opportunities in secondary situations and didn't allow UVa to set its halfcourt defense as the way it likes.
Match Virginia Tech's Effort for 40 Minutes. As I mentioned in the scouting report, Virginia Tech needs to win the hustle and mental battle in ACC games to put itself in position to win. The Hokies take pride in being able to constantly come at their opponents and put pressure on them to play at a high level for 40 minutes. The most accurate part of my entire breakdown of the game was when I wrote: "UVa should get a strong early boost from the crowd, and riding the ebb and flow of home court advantage will help the Hoos." Now I didn't expect UVa to ride the ebb and flow of home court to the extremes that the runs in this game caused, but UVa did feed off of the electric home crowd in this game and used that to its advantage. I think there is a school of thought out there that would suggest that the Hoos were successful in this category for 37 minutes only to fail miserably for the last 8. I agree and I disagree. I think Virginia carries the demeanor of its head coach, never too high or too low. While it has been pointed out numerous times that Virginia Tech tightened the game each time Virginia went on a large run, it is also important to point out that every time Virginia Tech closed the lead and returned the pressure to the home team, UVa responded with a run of its own, except in overtime. The teams were sharing blows, but Virginia Tech finally just landed the last one. There were plenty of strong individual efforts in this contest; Jerome Meyinsse played an excellent game (which is becoming a norm for him) as did Mike Scott. Sylven Landesberg struggled for most of the night but it wasn't due to a lack of effort;Virginia Tech had a team and a strategy capable of giving Landesberg trouble. Considering this was the second game in a row in which Landesberg had faced such a situation, it's understandable if he was starting to get a little frustrated, though he didn't appear to be at any point. So my conclusion is not that UVa wasn't mentally tough enough, or couldn't match Virginia Tech's effort. I think UVa failed to match the desperation Virginia Tech was experiencing. Virginia was trying to close out a game in which opportunities to do so kept coming its way, while Virginia Tech was fighting and hoping for a stop so they could have one more possession. Once some breaks went the Hokies' way, that emotion kicked into overdrive and VT didn't take its foot off the gas until the game was over. I wouldn't give this category to UVa but I also don't think the effort for this game is something that should be questioned at all. Both teams battled as they should have in a high stakes rivalry game The Last Three MinutesThis segment is obviously not for the faint of heart amongst you, but the last three minutes of regulation were the big story after the game and rightfully so. With 2:59 left in the game, Virginia Tech trailed by 10 points as Malcolm Delaney was fouled and sent to the free throw line. The events immediately before and following this point have been discussed to some extent but I would like to add a few thoughts to the discussion on what took place in that span. Don't Blame Jeff. Jeff Jones has been criticized for his decision to shoot a 3-pointer with just more than 3 minutes left in the game and 31 seconds on the shot clock but, at least in my opinion, it wasn't a poor decision at all. Jones had hit an amazing step back jumper on the previous possession and UVa had gotten a turnover from a pass from Malcolm Delaney to Victor Davila. Sammy Zeglinski was headed down the court with Mike Scott running ahead, Sylven Landesberg on his right and Jeff Jones on his left. Zeglinski chose very early in the play that he was going to Jones, drifts his way, scoops him a pass and Jones shoots the open 3 with Erick Green lunging at him; Jones misses and Virginia Tech comes back to win the game. There are plenty of reasons to suggest that Jones should or shouldn't have taken that shot but on a 4-on-2 break, the likelihood of something good happening with a 43% 3-point shooter taking an open shot are pretty solid. If Jones makes that shot, then the game is over. You also can't blame Jones because he didn't make the worst mistake of the final stretch. In fact, he didn't make the worst decision on that play. Zeglinski decided very early he was going to Jones; he was watching him as well as drifting in Jones' direction. This influenced the top defender (Green) to run at those two players and get a hand up on Jones' shot. If Zeglinski had run the same route but not locked on to Jones he would've seen Landesberg darting in from the other side of the court. That pass would've given UVa a 2-on-1 advantage with the ball in the hands of UVa's best player. Landesberg also holds his share of the blame. He drove the lane with 2:30 left on the clock and 23 seconds on the shot clock. Landesberg compounded his problems by leaving his feet once he got to the lane, which made it easy for Virginia Tech to steal the ball from him and go the other way to score. On the open 3-pointer in transition in which Dorenzo Hudson cut the UVa lead to one, it was a miscommunication between Zeglinski and Landesberg that left Hudson wide open for the shot. Ultimately, what happened were a string of tough plays by a desperate team and the combination of poor decision-making and missed opportunities by the other. If Mike Scott finishes a routine hook shot or Jones buries his open 3 from the corner, then the last three minutes of this game lose all significance and UVa still only has one ACC loss. As Kris Wright covered in his postgame article, Virginia struggled with Virginia Tech's extended defense, but even with those problems, the Cavaliers had chances to win and just couldn't shut the door. Bennett's Blunder? One of the most significant decisions in the game came during a timeout with 59 seconds left and Virginia leading 62-61. Virginia Tech had been on a serious tear, scoring quick baskets to cut into the UVa lead. There was plenty of reason to believe that Seth Greenberg would come out with a play designed to get Malcolm Delaney in a ball-screen situation and give him a shot to take the lead. On the other bench, Tony Bennett made a risky and uncharacteristic move - he decided to go to a 3-2 zone. For those of you who have been following closely all season, you'll remember that Bennett pulled out the zone for the closing stretch of the Auburn game as a way to handle the Tigers' ball screens that were creating scores. There are definitely merits to switching to the zone - it gives Virginia Tech a new look that it hadn't prepared for, it makes shading Delaney and taking him out of the play easier, it takes away a lot of screen action and it doesn't allow the Hokies to post up their guards as they had been doing for most of the night. The zone however wasn't run well; Virginia Tech got the ball inside to J.T. Thompson who scored to give Tech the lead. It's easy to criticize this move in retrospect, but I'll let you know why I disagree with this decision regardless of the result. First, I would like to say that I actually think it had a strong chance of working if there had been more discipline in the zone - a change-of-pace zone usually buys a team a few possessions. I disagreed with the call because it goes against Bennett's personality, profile and coaching style pretty considerably. If the Pack-Line had failed in set situations, it would've been one thing but the majority of Virginia Tech's scoring had come off of quick-change situations or out of bounds plays, not a play where UVa had time to set up. I think that if you get one play to stop your opponent, you want to do what you do best, especially considering how fervently Bennett stuck to the Pack-Line despite Wake Forest having a lot of success against it and being known to struggle against zones. Tony Bennett isn't a guy known to panic, or give way to gimmick plays either; his greatest strength as a coach has been his calm and patient attitude regardless of situation. Even if it wasn't meant to, and I don't think it was, changing to a defense that hadn't been run in two months for the biggest play of the season to that point had to have taken the players aback and went against form for Coach Bennett. I'm not saying it was the wrong call, and I'm definitely not saying that it didn't have a solid chance of working, but particularly for Tony Bennett that decision went against almost everything he has done since arriving at Virginia. Here are the plays detailed above:
Attacking the Pack-LineA formula is starting to emerge from the strategies taken by opposing coaches toward the Pack-Line defense and the Tony Bennett style of play in general. Early in the season, UVa faced creative attacks from Auburn, Penn State and Cleveland State that caused a great deal of trouble for the Pack-Line defense. What did they all do? They stretched out the defense and found a way to attack with four players on the perimeter (or in Penn State's case two players on the perimeter). Ever since those games, teams have taken a more traditional approach to defeating the defense and the wins have been racking up. This isn't a surprise as Cleveland State can afford to change up its game plan drastically much more than Georgia Tech can. That being said, I have a checklist for whether a team has a well-coached game plan and performance against UVa:
If a coach accomplishes those things, regardless of result, then I think he coached an excellent game against the Cavaliers. So far only Dino Gaudio and Greenberg have made the necessary changes to accomplish those things, which led to victories in both cases. Virginia Tech Gameplan Offense. The Hokies took a page from what they saw Wake Forest do. As I showed in that game breakdown, Wake caused the UVa defense a lot of problems by bringing one of its posts to the top of the key and having him dump it in to the other post in an exaggerated high-low set. Wake then threw in a couple down screens out of similar sets and UVa was off-balance for a good portion of the game. Greenberg doesn't have a post talent comparable to Wake Forest, but Virginia Tech puts a priority on getting the ball inside. If Greenberg allowed UVa to double entry passes and sit and clog the lane, it was going to be a long night for Virginia Tech. Instead of facing that, Greenberg flipped the court and had his guards do a lot of the posting up instead of his posts. The Virginia Tech guards had a size advantage on their counterparts so it set the players up in scoring position and it gave Greenberg much more capable dribblers and passers if they found they needed to escape a double team. With post players like Allen and Thompson coming out beyond the arc, it took away the players that would normally have help responsibility and rotated the roles of the help defenders if UVa had still decided to trap, which it didn't. In the clips below, you'll notice that there is nowhere for the normal double team to come from:
Defense. On defense, the goal was to play Virginia Tech's normal defense but to sink into the lane and make Landesberg a passer when he had the ball. Virginia Tech did an excellent job of forcing him to pass and not sending him to the free throw line. Tech also maintained discipline on Zeglinski, which took away Landesberg's favorite kick-out option. There were passes that were there for Landesberg that he just didn't make as well as plays that he made despite very strong defense. Not having Calvin Baker hurt Landesberg on these plays as Baker is a much more reliable scorer from the point guard spot than Jontel Evans. Here are some examples of the way VT chose to defend Landesberg and some shots that he hit and missed out of those plays:
Final ThoughtsThe bad breaks at the end of the game will be what will hang with people from this game, but the reality of the contest was that two very even teams battled through a close game. Both teams struggled with the defense and style of their opponents for 45 minutes. Because the game took such wild runs instead of staying close the entire way, the loss by Virginia looks worse than I believe it is. When you consider that Virginia Tech's run occurred within the flow the game, it isn't all of a sudden a once-in-a-lifetime finish. Bennett is a cool and calm guy and I expect his team to continue to stay on an even track through the ups and downs that accompany basketball in the ACC. Despite what some described as a collapse, I think one of the big lessons from this game was the toughness UVa showed throughout. Play of the Game I almost gave this to Zeglinski for his double-clutch fade away NBA 3-pointer that tied the game to force overtime, but that selection would be inconsistent with the criteria I have used thus far in picking a play for this segment. Zeglinski's shot was remarkable, but it was also a prayer that happened to go in and a shot that I don't think he could replicate in 20 tries. Had UVa won the game, Zeglinski's shot would have this spot but instead I've given the play to Will Sherrill. With 9:44 left in the first half, Sherrill broke in from behind the 3-point line at the rim with three Hokie players around it. Sherrill tipped the rebound to himself and then tossed it to Mustapha Farrakhan, who was fouled. It's the type of hustle play that can mean the difference in a close game and if these players keep putting forth that kind of effort, those plays are going to add up to an extra win or two.
|