From: tsatsoul@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college
Subject: Review of Purdue vs. Southwest Missouri St
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:32:11 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Living in Lawrence, KS, and being only about 3.5 hours away from Springfield,
MO, I decided to watch the Boilermakers against Soutwest Missouri State (SMS). 
The following is a report of the game. I didn't keep any statistics, and my
numbers might be a bit off.

Got the tickets on Friday, and then on Tuesday, drive, drive, drive, ....

Hammons Student Center. We are up on the bleachers, surrounded by 9145 mostly
SMS Bear fans. This was the second time these teams played, the first being a
53-44 Purdue victory last year in W. Lafayette. It was also only the third time
SMS played against a Big 10 team, the second one being a loss (61-54) against
Michigan State in last year's first round of the NCAA.  Purdue was also the
highest ranked team that the Bears had ever faced.

The student body must have been well prepared for this game: The Hammons
Student Center was standing room only, and was rocking from 6pm (game started
around 7:10pm).  This was going to be an excellent test for the young
Boilermakers and a good preparation for future Big 10 road games.

Purdue started the game with Waddell, Painter, Robinson, Martin and Stanback.
SMS had Murdock, Perry, Axley, Thomas, and Albright. Both teams started
nervously and missed some easy shots. Purdue turned the ball over twice in a
row and forced a bad shot.  The Bears got a 2-0 lead in the 17:15 minute and
Purdue tied in the 15:50.  The next Purdue point came at the 12:00 mark, to
make the game 4-4.  A note: last year the Bears went into a stall hoping to
beat Purdue in a low scoring game. This was not the case this time. Both teams
played agressively, but their defenses were excellent.

In the first 10 minutes of the game no team could get it going (it didn't get
much better).  Purdue played a tenacious man-to-man, and SMS had problems
getting a shot off; many times they took a forced shot with a few seconds
remaining in the shot clock.  Also, often SMS guards will be left alone outside
the 3-pt line, but they looked very tentative and would not take the shot or
drive.  Whenever some SMS player got the ball close to the basket he was
immediately surrounded by 2 or 3 Purdue players. Excellent defense.

Purdue on the other hand was trying to get the ball to Robinson who was
constantly double teamed.  He tried to do too much and ended up taking the ball
one-on-one or forcing shots.  The good SMS defense did not allow Purdue to pass
the ball inside and soon Robinson had 2 fouls.  He was replaced around the
11:30 mark, came back 5 minutes later, and left again around the 4:30 mark.  He
had scored 2 points.

Purdue played 11 players in the first half trying to find a combination that
worked, but to no avail.  The score was 10-6 for SMS with about 7 minutes left
in the half when Cuonzo Martin decided to take over.  He scored 9 points in a
row, and 11 of Purdue's final 13 points in the half, as well as having an assist
to Kenny Williams for the other 2 points.  'Zo was on fire, although yesterday
anyone who managed to hit anything could be considered on fire.  It was nice to
see that Martin has improved tremendously and can actually carry the team.

The game did not change until the end of the half that found Purdue trailing 
20-19 (!!).  It has been often said that watching Purdue is like pulling teeth.
I would have preferred pulling teeth.

The second half started, and, being more experienced after 20 minutes, my notes
get better.  

Both teams could not produce in the first minutes of the second half, and the
score was just 28-26 for Purdue in the 11:00 mark.  What stood out was the
exceptional defensive play of Matt Waddell who harassed two SMS guards
(Crawford #11 and Perry #14) allowing them a combined total of 7 points.  Tim
Axley (#34) of SMS got slightly hot, hitting a few jumpers and Purdue put
Martin on him.  But them the SMS guard #12 Johnny Murdock took over forcing 
Purdue to switch Martin on him, and a parade of players on Axley.  

No one could contain Murdock, though.  He did what SMS should have been doing
from the very start: he took the open 3-pt shot and started driving.  When
Murdock gave SMS the lead 29-28 with an uncontested trey the Purdue defense 
changed after a TV timeout. They started playing a very active zone that looked 
almost like a man-to-man in the perimeter, but left a big guy almost standing 
still in the paint. This stopped the uncontested 3-pt shot, and SMS started 
making mistakes: some turnovers (although it seemed like Purdue had more), and 
- especially - no one to dish it off after penetration.  The SMS guards ended 
up penetrating, finding nobody, leaning in and taking a bad shot hoping for the 
foul, which almost never came.

With 3:30 to go and the score 39-36 for Purdue, the Bears went into a delay,
trying to milk the shot clock before driving and missing.  Purdue played great
defense down the stretch and relied on Martin to provide the offense. 'Zo
scored on the next posession and was fouled, converting the 3-point play for a
42-36 Purdue lead with 1:21 left.  The rest was a parade at the free-throw
line, where Purdue tried, but couldn't quite lose the game.  SMS had over 10
fouls, so, although Purdue often missed the first freebie, there was another
one coming where they usually hit (they never actually missed both).  A 3-pt by
Murdock at the buzzer made the final score Purdue 48 - SMS 45.

Murdock was the player for SMS, providing a spark with 18 points and 2 steals,
but he also had 7 turnovers.  Crawford had 3 pts., Perry 4, Davis 2, Axley 12,
Graves 2 and Albright 4.

For Purdue, the player who carried the offense was Martin with 22, Williams had
4 important points inside, Waddell 4 (an open jumper and free throws down the
stretch) but he was also the defensive heart of the Boilermakers, Dove 1,
Painter 1, Roberts 5, Stanback 9, Robinson 2 (on 1 for 9 shooting) but also 9 
rebounds and good defense.

Kenny Williams showed that he can become a good player inside, but he fouled
too often and gave bad passes.  Robinson tried to do too much; it might help
him to see that other players can step up and do the job, too.  Porter Roberts
played "mostly under control" according to my notes; his defense needs work. 
Linc Darner was just too slow for the quick SMS guards, and was out most of the
time.  Stanback had 9 important points inside, but was overall mediocre.  The 
points were due to good position and great passes by (who else?) 'Zo, but he 
failed to dominate the SMS centers who looked even worse than he.  Personally 
I was disappointed byt Stanback's performance, but there were some positives: 
his inside defense was decent, he had good rebounding position, and he might
end up being better at center than at forward.

Some statistics I heard on the radio: Purdue shot 18-of-41 (44%), but it looked
so much less! I remember once in the second half, Martin drives and shoots 3
feet from the basket, misses, Stanback gets the offensive rebound, misses,
Martin up with the ball again, misses, Robinson up, misses, SMS rebounds.

One last important statistic: SMS has lived on the free throw line. This time
they shot 2-of-7, mostly because they failed to penetrate or get their big
people in the game. Purdue was 11-of-19, nothing to write home about either.

The crowd! Oh the crowd! Manic, LOUD, VERY LOUD, VERY VERY LOUD. They had just
beaten Oregon St., and were pumped up for this one. They *never* stopped, and,
without question, played an important role in the game. 

A tough game to win, and an unexpectedly (?) good test for the young Boilers.

And then, drive, drive, drive, ....

--- Costas Tsatsoulis
Resident Boilermaker at the University of Kansas
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college