I remember this vividly, when I think of Bama NCAA tournament play....this one comes to mind very quickly. Marymount was a good team then. Man how times changeHeartbreak -- but what a great game.....
Actually, if you believe in such things, it was preordained by Loyola Marymount's heartbreak a couple weeks earlier over the death of Hank Gathers.Heartbreak -- but what a great game.....
Horry? or Askins? lolIf Robert Keith just hit that at the buzzer!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro[emoji208]
I thought it was a good strategy to slow the game down and frustrate LMU. It worked until the end when we choked. Although we had very good athletes I don't think we were built to run the same way they were. That was their game and they were very good at it. They didn't care if they gave up 90-100 points because they knew they were going to wear you down and beat you late in the game when your legs were gone. Who knows how it would have turned out had we played that style but I still think the strategy was the correct one. That was a very, very bitter loss.Bama was the better team. Something gripes me about the better team playing to keep the game close. I know one argument is that Bama players would not have been able to keep up with LMU's pace without going too deep into the bench. LMU players never slowed down; Bama players were bigger so they probably tired easier.
Bama could have pushed and scored and developed a better offensive rhythm and probably grabbed a good lead though it took a while for Bama to get adjusted to the game. Bama's defense was much more than LMU was used to facing; Bama blocked a ton of shots. Bama was hitting the 3-pointers very well over a stretch of games going into this one as mentioned during the game. Stalling the ball led to a few more turnovers due to players passing up scoring opportunities to burn more clock resulting in more passing and dribbling than necessary.
Bama was one of the few teams that had the players to be competitive with UNLV that year. Really hated losing this game...
We weren't deep enough to run the entire game. Wimp played 8 guys....that was his trademark. He played 8.....and many thought over the years that was why we always flamed out in the round of 16......we were just tiredI thought it was a good strategy to slow the game down and frustrate LMU. It worked until the end when we choked. Although we had very good athletes I don't think we were built to run the same way they were. That was their game and they were very good at it. They didn't care if they gave up 90-100 points because they knew they were going to wear you down and beat you late in the game when your legs were gone. Who knows how it would have turned out had we played that style but I still think the strategy was the correct one. That was a very, very bitter loss.
I agree 100%.We weren't deep enough to run the entire game. Wimp played 8 guys....that was his trademark. He played 8.....and many thought over the years that was why we always flamed out in the round of 16......we were just tired
That game we played 6 -- and Sanders played all 40 and Waites played 39 (because he hurt his face)
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/1990-03-23-alabama.html
This makes sense but Coach Sanderson took this to extreme. An occasional quick basket will allow the back players to rest when they don't have to travel to the other end of the court to play offense.We weren't deep enough to run the entire game. Wimp played 8 guys....that was his trademark. He played 8.....and many thought over the years that was why we always flamed out in the round of 16......we were just tired
That game we played 6 -- and Sanders played all 40 and Waites played 39 (because he hurt his face)
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/1990-03-23-alabama.html
This makes sense but Coach Sanderson took this to extreme. An occasional quick basket will allow the back players to rest when they don't have to travel to the other end of the court to play offense.The strategy was very effective though; Bama just screwed up in the last 4 minutes or so. Bama was suckered into a couple of long pass, fast break attempts that resulted in early turnovers. The announcer nailed it when Bama had the rash of late turnovers. LMU was able to press completely in their half of the court late in the game because Bama refused to throw the breakaway pass and LMU was able to ignore defending it.
Maybe not run with UNLV in a fast paced game but Bama had the depth and talent to compete with them; Bama was playing very well at the end of the season. UNLV lost a few games but looked unbeatable late in the season; however, they beat Ball State by 2 points in the same round that Bama lost to LMU.Let's remember that Loyola, allowed to rev its full turbo, scored 149 points in the previous game against the defending national champion. We had fine players, but we had to slow the game down to win. And despite popular myth, we didn't have the depth or the talent that year to run with UNLV. Nobody did.
But we should have beaten Loyola.