Aug 10, 2020
Sparks top Lynx to snap Minnesotas four-game winning streak
This news has been received from: twincities.com
All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.
The Lynx had been one of the WNBA’s better defensive teams through the first six games of the season. That end of the floor was why Minnesota started 5-1.
Sure, three of those wins came against the likes of Connecticut and New York, two teams that lack serious firepower, but Minnesota also contained Chicago and Indiana, two of the league’s better offenses.
Still, bottling up a team with as many weapons as the Los Angeles Sparks possess Sunday would have delivered another serious statement.
That statement was not made.
Instead, Los Angeles proved to have too much for Minnesota to handle, topping the Lynx 97-81 in Bradenton, Fla., to snap Minnesota’s four-game winning streak.
The Sparks shot a blistering 66 percent from the floor, while going 13 for 22 from three-point range. Riquna Williams paced Los Angeles (4-3) with 21 points, while former Lynx guard Seimone Augustus added 13. Minnesota’s defense seemed a step behind all afternoon.
“They have a lot of shooters, so we kind of had to rush them off the three-point line,” Lynx guard Bridget Carleton said. “They were hitting, they got hot, and then our second line of defense wasn’t there to help. And when it was there, they were able to kick it out for an open look, so the help wasn’t always there, and we got in trouble a couple times with that.”
Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve said Minnesota “basically played the game without our Big 3 today,” as Sylvia Fowles missed the game with a calf injury and Napheesa Collier and Damiris Dantas were not supplying their usual production.
Still, Minnesota (5-2) hung around, actually taking a third-quarter lead. It was the guards who led the way for the Lynx. Rookie Crystal Dangerfield was outstanding, pouring in 29 points, while Carleton added 15 points on 5-for-8 shooting.
“I told (those two) how much I appreciated what they gave us today,” Reeve said.
But it wasn’t nearly enough.
“We just didn’t execute a lot of what we wanted to do, but you’ve got to give L.A. credit,” Reeve said. “L.A. is a good team, I think one of the teams here that people think have a chance to win it all. but we were hoping to be better defensively and just didn’t get it done.”
Does that say anything about where Minnesota is at this point in the season?Related Articles
- Lynx activate Odyssey Sims, who could return to play in a week
- Without Fowles, Lynx still roll over Liberty, move to 4-1
- Thrust into starting lineup, Lynx rookie guard Crystal Dangerfield shows no fear
- Fowles, Collier, Dangerfield lead Lynx past Connecticut again
- Lynx rookie Mikiah Herbert Harrigan getting unexpected early opportunities
“I have no idea. That’s just not how I think. We didn’t get done what we were trying to get done today,” Reeve said. “We didn’t win the game. We’ve got to move on and figure out how we’re going to beat Washington (on Tuesday).”
That will require a stronger defensive effort, to be sure.
“I know defense is what we pride ourselves on,” Carleton said, “and it wasn’t there tonight.”
Sign up for Newsletters and AlertsSubscribe Follow Us
News Source: twincities.com
Tags: st paul ramsey county anoka county washington county dakota county wisconsin saints outdoors restaurant news restaurant reviews restaurant lists recipes art state fair st paul ramsey county anoka county washington county dakota county wisconsin saints outdoors restaurant news restaurant reviews restaurant lists recipes art state fair minnesota lynx
WHITLOCK: Since 1976, The Washington Post Has Panicked At Thought Of The GOP Candidate Winning White House
On September 28, The Washington Post officially endorsed Joe Biden for president. That may not come as a shock to anyone with a passing knowledge of the liberal newspaper, but the Post paints this year as unique and different. The unsigned editorial calls Trump the “worst president of modern times” and warns readers that “democracy is at stake.” An anyone-but-Trump anti-endorsement on August 21 lectured that “a second Trump term might injure the democratic experiment beyond recovery.”
Get it? You must vote for Biden because democracy itself is in danger. However, for the Washington Post, this year’s endorsement is exactly like every other. I tracked down and reviewed every Washington Post presidential endorsement since the paper began regularly picking candidates in 1976.
Here’s the box score: 11 endorsements of Democratic presidential candidates. 0 endorsements of Republican presidential candidates. 1 non-endorsement (in 1988).
The Democrats have exciting, “supple” (Barack Obama in 2008) candidates who inspire hope. In contrast, Republicans are reckless (John McCain in 2008) and bad on race (George H.W. Bush in 1992), to name a few of the paper’s concerns. While some Post endorsements were more enthusiastic than others, the conclusion is always the same: America MUST elect a Democrat president.
Sometimes, the Post will tell its readers not to be cynical. This isn’t a choice between the lesser of two evils, they say. The paper’s 2020 endorsement of Biden cheers: “Fortunately, to oust President Trump in 2020, voters do not have to lower their standards. The Democratic nominee, former vice president Joe Biden, is exceptionally well-qualified, by character and experience, to meet the daunting challenges that the nation will face over the coming four years.”
If that sounds familiar, it should. Turns out, Democrats had a great candidate in Hillary Clinton in 2016: “In the gloom and ugliness of this political season, one encouraging truth is often overlooked: There is a well-qualified, well-prepared candidate on the ballot. Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation.”
That language echoed through the decades. In 1984, the Post tried to dissuade Americans from reelecting Ronald Reagan, “enthusiastically and without apology” endorsing Walter Mondale: “He is a decent man and a diligent, hard-working one who has been a good Democratic leader…. We say this is a serious, steady, bright, decent, qualified man who wants to be president and who should be.”
Forty nine out of 50 states rejected the paper’s advice, reelecting Reagan in a landslide.
In an editorial on September 22, 2020, the Post called Trump a moral threat to the world, deriding “his degradation of truth as a common currency in public life.” That attitude didn’t stop the paper’s editorial writers from endorsing the morally compromised Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Reflecting on the choice from four years prior, the Post writers in ‘96 practically giggled about their tone: “In 1992 we enthusiastically supported him; the newspaper from hope, you might have called us.”
In a post-Me-Too world, the Post’s two endorsements of Clinton make one cringe. The paper in ‘92 hammered George H.W. Bush’s “below the belt” attacks and lamented that the Democrat’s “character has been pummeled in the campaign.” By this point, Gennifer Flowers had come forward discussing her sexual encounter with Clinton. In 1994, Paula Jones already accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, including exposing himself to her.
In 1996, the paper reluctantly acknowledged the Democrat’s moral failing: “Mr. Clinton’s shortcomings are more evident and inescapable than they were four years ago.” But Democrats must be supported, so the Post concluded that “somewhere in that changeable figure, we believe, lies a capacity to be better at the job of the presidency than he has been…. On that uncertain basis, we choose Bill Clinton over Bob Dole.”
It goes without saying that the endorsement of Barack Obama over John McCain brimmed with excitement: “Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building…. Obama has the potential to become a great president.”
In 2020, the Post used McCain’s friendship with Biden as a selling point. But in 2008, the paper’s editorial slammed the Arizona senator as reckless: “The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president.”
In a November 2, 2012 story on the paper’s history of endorsements, Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt strained credulity to the breaking point when he insisted that the journalistic outlet’s concerns “do not align us evenly with one party or the other.”
But that’s simply not so. Whatever roller coaster ride each presidential election brings, readers can be certain of one thing: The Washington Post is an appendage of the Democratic Party and it will dutifully get behind the nominee. Theatrics about the end of democracy aside, 2020 is no different.
The paper put it most honestly when the editorial board endorsed Jimmy Carter over Ronald Reagan in 1980: “For much as we prize and insist upon our intellectual and political independence around here, no one who has read this paper over the years would have exactly figured Ronald Reagan for The Washington Post’s dream candidate.” How apt for Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump or any presidential candidate with an R next to his or her name. Because, to the Post, they all cause nightmares.
Scott Whitlock is the associate editor of the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org blog site.