Image Source: Seedy K
Key Takeaways
- The University of Louisville (U of L) was not ready to beat Duke, losing 84-73
- Duke’s adjustments at halftime, including letting Caleb Foster loose, proved to be the difference maker
- U of L’s inability to make three-pointers in the second half, going 2/17, was a significant factor in their loss
- The free throw disparity was a notable difference, but not the sole reason for U of L’s defeat
- Despite a competitive game, U of L was simply outmatched by Duke’s superior skill and strategy
Introduction to the Game
The highly anticipated matchup between the University of Louisville (U of L) and Duke was a "Dickensian nightmare" for the Cardinals, as they fell 84-73 to the Blue Devils. The game was a tale of two halves, with U of L leading for 19:02 in the first half, but ultimately unable to keep up with Duke’s pace in the second. As the author notes, "the outcome — 84-73 — was inevitable and inexorable. Yes, redundant, but used for emphasis." The question on everyone’s mind was whether U of L was ready to take on the mighty Duke, and the answer was a resounding "no."
Duke’s Dominance
Duke’s dominance was on full display, particularly in the second half. The Blue Devils made several savvy adjustments at halftime, including letting point guard Caleb Foster loose, which proved to be a game-changer. Foster was 7/8 in the second half, with all of his shots coming at the rim. The author notes that "Jon Scheyer — a worthy and wise successor to the GOAT — made some learned adjustments at the half. Louisville was unable to do anything they’d gotten away with in the 1st." Duke’s superior skill and strategy were too much for U of L to handle, and the Blue Devils’ 9-0 run in the second half sealed the deal.
U of L’s Struggles
U of L’s struggles in the second half were palpable, particularly from beyond the arc. After draining 10 of 21 three-pointers in the first half, the Cardinals went a dismal 2/17 in the second. As the author notes, "most of which after halftime were launched by guys that aren’t U of L’s long range marksmen." The Cardinals’ inability to make shots from beyond the arc, combined with Duke’s stifling defense, made it difficult for U of L to keep up. Additionally, the author questions the decision to limit Khani Rooths’ playing time in the second half, noting that "Khani Rooths was +13 in the opening twenty in nine minutes of action, and put the clamps on the victors’ ace better than any other Cardinal. Then only played three minutes after the break."
Free Throw Disparity
The free throw disparity was a notable difference in the game, with Duke attempting more free throws than U of L. However, as the author notes, "it wasn’t why U of L lost." The author also points out that "Louisville was whistled for only three more fouls than the Blue Devils," suggesting that the foul calls were not entirely one-sided. While the free throw disparity was a factor, it was not the sole reason for U of L’s defeat.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the game between U of L and Duke was a competitive matchup, but ultimately, the Blue Devils’ superior skill and strategy proved to be too much for the Cardinals. As the author notes, "U of L didn’t play a really bad game. They were much more competitive than against Tennessee and Arkansas. They were simply thwarted, just not good enough." The loss serves as a reminder that U of L still has work to do to reach the level of teams like Duke. As the author so eloquently puts it, "it wasn’t fun to watch it play out."
https://www.cardchronicle.com/basketball/100300/seedy-ks-gamecap-duke
