Illinois 81, Northwestern 76 POSTGAME

[IlliniKat91]

Last year they probably would've. Slow progress is progress. It's still disappointing how much energy the Krush doesn't have this year, they seem bored most of the game. That lady in the first row that wears a hat every home game is more hype than the Krush ever is, let her lead them.

I am by no means saying I'm disappointed in the result. Finally seeing a game live, is clear just how close they are to really clicking and getting to a place where they're firing on all cylinders, particularly if Ayo sticks around for another season. (After tonight's performance, he looked like he needs another year IMO.)

As for the crowd, I can't explain the baited-breath feeling beyond we're so used to the team being terrible that it's hard to cheer. Winning cures all, but it's a lot easier to win when the energy of your home crowd carries you.

 

[Deleted member 29907]

I guess I'd have to say I'm happy to be at a place where 81 points in-league can result from a spotty offensive performance.

The point may be that relying on that many FTs is risky. Of course you can't control the other team's D and fouling, but that weave offense burning 10 secs of clock looks pretty ineffective. We don't seem to penetrate or back cut on any of that motion. I think we could have used the pinch post screen and lob at the basket many times last night against NU as Pardon didn't seem to be honoring that threat.

 

[YankeeIllini]

I am not kidding when I say the same thing you just did. Northwestern was never a rival in my book. They were never really a threat to us for decades, so why would I have considered them a rival? Really, the fact that we can no longer say that is just an indicator of the hard times into which we've fallen.

I don’t think any of us ever viewed them as even worthy of being in the B1G - since 1949 our head to head record is 98-27, and their all time conference record is 522-952. It’s god to help pu elem back in their rightful position in the cellar of the B1G

 

[PlayAZ]

Announced attendance was 13,924. Crowd and Krush seemed to have awfully low energy.

Cactus league Cub game yesterday, set a new league and team record in attendance at 16,069...course it was 72 also. so there's that.

 

[pruman91]

https://www.stltoday.com/sports/col...cle_e47f780f-5eec-5784-b890-3f37e6359266.html

CHAMPAIGN, ILL. • Things were much different for Andres Feliz this time around.
After scoring two points in Illinois’ loss to Northwestern earlier this season, Feliz turned in a career day Sunday in Illinois’ 81-76 win over Northwestern at the State Farm Center.
Illinois (11-18, 7-11) handed Northwestern (12-17, 3-15) its 10th consecutive loss.

 

[sacraig]

Announced attendance was 13,924. Crowd and Krush seemed to have awfully low energy.

To me that's just more proof that this isn't a "rivalry game" no matter how much the Big Ten wants to sell it as such.

 

[drsmitty74]

Announced attendance was 13,924. Crowd and Krush seemed to have awfully low energy.

It was like that at PSU game as well. I was there and was just..........blah.

This team feeds off of us fans. We really need to show up Thursday.

 

[Orange Line to Blue Line]

Am I the only one who is shocked how many coaches get caught with sleeping when a team switches defense late in the game? After Coach Underwood called that timeout with under a minute left, I had a feeling they were going to switch defenses to the 3-2 zone. Northwestern looked confused. How does Coach Collins not see that coming? During that late game situation I swear it happens 50% of the time in college. And 50% of the time it works every time (does that actually work there?).

 

[TCTORNADO]

Looking at the box score, our vaunted defense only generated 8 total TO's and only 2 of those were in the 2nd half. That against a team that doesn't have a PG.

 

[Johnny Lawrence]

Am I the only one who is shocked how many coaches get caught with sleeping when a team switches defense late in the game? After Coach Underwood called that timeout with under a minute left, I had a feeling they were going to switch defenses to the 3-2 zone. Northwestern looked confused. How does Coach Collins not see that coming? During that late game situation I swear it happens 50% of the time in college. And 50% of the time it works every time (does that actually work there?).

I think you actually did use it correctly there. Well played.

Does anyone remember how Kruger's teams would fall back into a zone with under 12 on the shot clock? I'm surprised more teams don't employ this.

 

[Ga65]

The point may be that relying on that many FTs is risky. Of course you can't control the other team's D and fouling, but that weave offense burning 10 secs of clock looks pretty ineffective. We don't seem to penetrate or back cut on any of that motion. I think we could have used the pinch post screen and lob at the basket many times last night against NU as Pardon didn't seem to be honoring that threat.

Thought strategy was to get shot in 7 secs and if not to use clock to force defense to use energy and/or make a mistake by getting bored or lazy. I.e. They are just burning clock and not really trying to get a shot.

 

[Jon]

NW also shot 40% and we out rebounded by 10. We also roasted them in transition off our 34 defensive rebounds better than we normally do off the typical 15 turnovers. I'm okay with a little different defensive success.

 

[alexander58]

Pardon gave Giorgi fits tonight. He did a great job of keeping Giorgi off the block and he looked very frustrated. Northwestern’s game plan was good. They just didn’t have enough athletes to cover everyone.

 

[3DegreeIllini]

Announced attendance was 13,924. Crowd and Krush seemed to have awfully low energy.

I attribute to not having much to cheer for in the last decade (at least for the Krush). But after this team woke up, I was expecting a lot more - especially for an in-state rival. There were NU free throws where it was dead silent.

 

[bombayIllini]

Looking at the box score, our vaunted defense only generated 8 total TO's and only 2 of those were in the 2nd half. That against a team that doesn't have a PG.

I think BU took the opportunity to try out diff schemes(?). Like a 1-2-2 press.

In the radio interview, BU was really happy with the first half D, but not with the second half D (seems to me that it has been happening every game).

 

[Foggy Notion]

 

[ChiefIllini]

I think BU took the opportunity to try out diff schemes(?). Like a 1-2-2 press.

In the radio interview, BU was really happy with the first half D, but not with the second half D (seems to me that it has been happening every game).

NW missed a ton of semi to completely open shots in the first half, especially Ryan Taylor. He was draining those in the second. Not saying BU is wrong, and the 1-2-2 press was a great play, but the half court was lacking, both halves.

 

[sacraig]

Another note on how this isn't a rivalry game:
You heard Bardo toeing the company line about it being a rivalry game, but it was always just using that line. Not once did I notice him giving examples of his experience playing in that "rivalry" and what it meant to him or his team.

 

[wpr]

Ugliest otter I have ever seen.

 

[goillini30]

Thought strategy was to get shot in 7 secs and if not to use clock to force defense to use energy and/or make a mistake by getting bored or lazy. I.e. They are just burning clock and not really trying to get a shot.

I think the dribble weave is just to get the help defenders moving, so they have a harder time guarding the high pick and roll when Giorgi steps out to set the ball screen on the (usually) 3rd time through the weave. The opposing player who's job it is to tag the roll man might be out of position, either to help on the roll or to recover to a shooter. That's partly how we kept getting the 3 point shooter open when he replaced (or lifted) into the spot where the screen just happened, which the color commentator (Hummel?) pointed out.

Also, late in the game we showed the weave look, but just pivoted, threw back to the wing who just handed off, and got into the spread action. We threw the lob, which was open, but it was a bad pass and Feliz (I think) just had to catch it and dribble back out. So BU had a counter to the weave in his back pocket that he saved for late in the game, it was a good call, it worked, but the bad pass kept us from scoring.

 

[The Dave]

These 2nd half woes have really been concerning to me. I saw some other people making some general comment on this topic in this thread so I thought I'd share some stats I pulled together.

Note that the info below excludes our 4 “cupcake” games as they skew numbers (even though we only went 3-1 in those games). Games excluded are: Evansville, Missouri Valley, Eastern Tennessee, and FAU.

So, excluding those we have played 25 games in which we are 8-17.

We had the lead at halftime in 13 of the 25 games (52%) but won only 32% of the games (8 of 25).

Looking at just second halves of games, we would be 5-19-1. The only games we haven’t lost the 2nd half are:

• The first NEB game (+1) - LOSS
• The first MIN game (+4) – this is surprisingly positive given bench play in a blowout - WIN
• Maryland (+15!!!) 0 WIN
• Rutgers (+3) – to force OT which we did win - WIN
• The 2nd OSU game (+4) - WIN
• And we tied Penn State in the 2nd half – LOSS

So, when winning the 2nd half, we are 4-1 (or 4-2 if you include the 2nd half tie vs PSU). Let’s include the PSU loss for arguments sake. That means we win at a 67% clip when we win the 2nd half. When we lose the 2nd half, we are 4-15 (21.1% win rate). That’s pretty drastic.

We’ve lost 8 games where we led at half.

In our 8 wins our average point differentials by half are:

• First Half: +4.63
• Second Half: +1.25

In our 17 losses our average point differentials by half are:

• First Half: -1.18
• Second Half: -10.12

That’s a pretty ugly story to tell. We RARELY win the 2nd half, even in games we win; and our point differential by half decreases on average across all games (wins and losses). We rarely get blown out in the first half.

In fact, the only 1st half we lost by double digits all year is the first Nebraska (-16). We’ve had SEVEN double digit 2nd half losses (-21 vs IAST, -14 @ UC vs OSU, -12 vs Miznoz, -39 vs Iowa!!!!, -10 vs Wisconsin the 1st time, -13 in the MIN loss, and -18 vs Purdue).

What does this all mean? I haven’t the slightest clue.

Is it conditioning (we are gassed in the 2nd half)? Is it X’s and O’s (we make bad halftime adjustments, or at least worse than the other team?). Is it bench depth/quality given our style of play (kind of a corollary to conditioning)? That's all for smarter posters than me to figure out.

 

[sacraig]

These 2nd half woes have really been concerning to me. I saw some other people making some general comment on this topic in this thread so I thought I'd share some stats I pulled together.

Note that the info below excludes our 4 “cupcake” games as they skew numbers (even though we only went 3-1 in those games). Games excluded are: Evansville, Missouri Valley, Eastern Tennessee, and FAU.

So, excluding those we have played 25 games in which we are 8-17.

We had the lead at halftime in 13 of the 25 games (52%) but won only 32% of the games (8 of 25).

Looking at just second halves of games, we would be 5-19-1. The only games we haven’t lost the 2nd half are:

• The first NEB game (+1) - LOSS
• The first MIN game (+4) – this is surprisingly positive given bench play in a blowout - WIN
• Maryland (+15!!!) 0 WIN
• Rutgers (+3) – to force OT which we did win - WIN
• The 2nd OSU game (+4) - WIN
• And we tied Penn State in the 2nd half – LOSS

So, when winning the 2nd half, we are 4-1 (or 4-2 if you include the 2nd half tie vs PSU). Let’s include the PSU loss for arguments sake. That means we win at a 67% clip when we win the 2nd half. When we lose the 2nd half, we are 4-15 (21.1% win rate). That’s pretty drastic.

We’ve lost 8 games where we led at half.

In our 8 wins our average point differentials by half are:

• First Half: +4.63
• Second Half: +1.25

In our 17 losses our average point differentials by half are:

• First Half: -1.18
• Second Half: -10.12

That’s a pretty ugly story to tell. We RARELY win the 2nd half, even in games we win; and our point differential by half decreases on average across all games (wins and losses). We rarely get blown out in the first half.

In fact, the only 1st half we lost by double digits all year is the first Nebraska (-16). We’ve had SEVEN double digit 2nd half losses (-21 vs IAST, -14 @ UC vs OSU, -12 vs Miznoz, -39 vs Iowa!!!!, -10 vs Wisconsin the 1st time, -13 in the MIN loss, and -18 vs Purdue).

What does this all mean? I haven’t the slightest clue.

Is it conditioning (we are gassed in the 2nd half)? Is it X’s and O’s (we make bad halftime adjustments, or at least worse than the other team?). Is it bench depth/quality given our style of play (kind of a corollary to conditioning)? That's all for smarter posters than me to figure out.

Probably the easiest possible answer here is that it is more difficult to make halftime adjustments when your team isn't yet expert in the baseline system. Especially early in the year (and to a lesser extent as the year has progressed), our team was still trying to figure out the baseline sets, so adding in wrinkles at halftime is a bit difficult. As the team has gotten more comfortable, you've seen us win more games as well as the second-half deficits shrink. This supports the above, perhaps indicating that the ability to start making adjustments on the fly has positively impacted our game outcomes.

 

[WizardBill]

Probably the easiest possible answer here is that it is more difficult to make halftime adjustments when your team isn't yet expert in the baseline system. Especially early in the year (and to a lesser extent as the year has progressed), our team was still trying to figure out the baseline sets, so adding in wrinkles at halftime is a bit difficult. As the team has gotten more comfortable, you've seen us win more games as well as the second-half deficits shrink. This supports the above, perhaps indicating that the ability to start making adjustments on the fly has positively impacted our game outcomes.

Way too logical! Soon you’ll be saying that BU knows what he is doing.

 

[BRucks]

Announced attendance was 13,924. Crowd and Krush seemed to have awfully low energy.

There was no flow to the game. Shot 60 free throws.

 

[Johnny Lawrence]

These 2nd half woes have really been concerning to me. I saw some other people making some general comment on this topic in this thread so I thought I'd share some stats I pulled together.

Note that the info below excludes our 4 “cupcake” games as they skew numbers (even though we only went 3-1 in those games). Games excluded are: Evansville, Missouri Valley, Eastern Tennessee, and FAU.

So, excluding those we have played 25 games in which we are 8-17.

We had the lead at halftime in 13 of the 25 games (52%) but won only 32% of the games (8 of 25).

Looking at just second halves of games, we would be 5-19-1. The only games we haven’t lost the 2nd half are:

• The first NEB game (+1) - LOSS
• The first MIN game (+4) – this is surprisingly positive given bench play in a blowout - WIN
• Maryland (+15!!!) 0 WIN
• Rutgers (+3) – to force OT which we did win - WIN
• The 2nd OSU game (+4) - WIN
• And we tied Penn State in the 2nd half – LOSS

So, when winning the 2nd half, we are 4-1 (or 4-2 if you include the 2nd half tie vs PSU). Let’s include the PSU loss for arguments sake. That means we win at a 67% clip when we win the 2nd half. When we lose the 2nd half, we are 4-15 (21.1% win rate). That’s pretty drastic.

We’ve lost 8 games where we led at half.

In our 8 wins our average point differentials by half are:

• First Half: +4.63
• Second Half: +1.25

In our 17 losses our average point differentials by half are:

• First Half: -1.18
• Second Half: -10.12

That’s a pretty ugly story to tell. We RARELY win the 2nd half, even in games we win; and our point differential by half decreases on average across all games (wins and losses). We rarely get blown out in the first half.

In fact, the only 1st half we lost by double digits all year is the first Nebraska (-16). We’ve had SEVEN double digit 2nd half losses (-21 vs IAST, -14 @ UC vs OSU, -12 vs Miznoz, -39 vs Iowa!!!!, -10 vs Wisconsin the 1st time, -13 in the MIN loss, and -18 vs Purdue).

What does this all mean? I haven’t the slightest clue.

Is it conditioning (we are gassed in the 2nd half)? Is it X’s and O’s (we make bad halftime adjustments, or at least worse than the other team?). Is it bench depth/quality given our style of play (kind of a corollary to conditioning)? That's all for smarter posters than me to figure out.

Great work TD! This might need it's own thread. It's certainly not nothing and should be probably be discussed although I shudder at the theories Loyalty can come up with.