Slo-Mo, Sun Tzu, And Why Maryland's Loss in The FInal Four Was Inevitable

Some of those wacky Maryland fans are at it again! We've given up trying to
understand, we just sit back and marvel at the combination of bitterness and
conspiracy theories.  We were sent some links from ACCBoards, and the
obsession continues.  You have to give it to the hardcore - they've really
become the John Birchers of college basketball, seeing Duke lurk behind every
foul called and every bend sinister.  As obsessions go, it's very
impressive.

Sun Tzu Calls The Final Four! (In 400 B.C.!)
If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.	Which army administers rewards and punishments in a more enlightened and correct way?
He who is well prepared and lies in wait for an enemy who is not well prepared will be victorious.	Which army has the better-trained officers and men?
He whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious.	In which army are regulations and instructions better carried out?
Which army obtains the advantages of nature and the terrain?	To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.
He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious.	Which Commander Is More Talented?

This link is
funny in the obsessive sense, but some of the comments here are kind of
dumb. First, blaming Mrs. Boozer for having the nerve to get in the way of a
bottle, and then some borderline racist comments about Johnny Dawkins which probably would not impress the majority of their own team, and finally, and most
hilariously, the comments about Chris Duhon and drinking, in light of his
alcohol citation. Maryland fans should really
think twice before they discuss anyone else's drinking habits. We're not going
to get into that, but chances are Maryland fans know exactly what we're talking
about.

In another thread, they call Shane Black Vanilla, which is pretty close to
calling him an Oreo.  Maryland fans - what can you do?

Well, you can always make fun of them! One of the things we really like to do periodically is to hit the ol' slo-mo button and really watch
people's faces and body language. When we watched the Final Four game in slow motion, what we really saw was slow-motion disintegration. There is not a player
on Maryland's team who showed any confidence under pressure, and no one on the bench did, either.

Here are some examples. from the 2nd half, no action shots, just body language. 

We should also point out that this small sample in no way tells the story fully. On the Duke side you see organization, structure, and guys who clearly
understand how to respond to difficulty. On the Maryland side, from Gary Williams on down, you see a lack of control and an inability to be coherent. 

Just a few random examples: Lonnie Baxter constantly looks like he's about to cry.
Steve Blake disdainfully flipping the ball over his shoulder after being called for a foul. It's the closest he gets to being overtly demonstrative. Juan Dixon frowning during a break, glancing at the scoreboard with obvious concern. Mike Mardesich walking downcourt, hands on hips, head down. Gary Williams, constantly turning his back to the court to yell at his bench, or at one point, to accuse the officials of throwing the game. 

Before the game, we were curious about what Sun Tzu would apply to this game, and here again are those excerpts. Timely as always, and you can match them
to the pix in your own special way!

• Which ruler is wise and more able?
• Which commander is more talented?
• Which army obtains the advantages of nature and the terrain?
• In which army are regulations and instructions better carried out?
• Which troops are stronger?
• Which army has the better-trained officers and men?
• Which army administers rewards and punishments in a more enlightened and
  correct way?

 

Also, here is Sun Tzu on Offensive Strategy.  Obviously, the only city
at risk is College Park, win or lose, so maybe someone should send this over to
the CPPD.  Otherwise,  while there will be no city sacking going
on,  the philosophical points here are eternally sound. Apply them to the
game and see what you come up with:

Generally, in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin it is
inferior to this. To capture the enemy's entire army is better than to destroy
it; to take intact a regiment, a company, or a squad is better than to destroy
them. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of
skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.

Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.
Next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next best is to attack
his army. And the worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when
there is no alternative because to prepare big shields and wagons and make ready
the necessary arms and equipment require at least three months, and to pile up
earthen ramps against the walls requires an additional three months. The
general, unable to control his impatience, will order his troops to swarm up the
wall like ants, with the result that one-third of them will be killed without
taking the city. Such is the calamity of attacking cities.

Thus, those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle. They
capture the enemy's cities without assaulting them and overthrow his state
without protracted operations. Their aim is to take all under heaven intact by
strategic considerations. Thus, their troops are not worn out and their gains
will be complete. This is the art of offensive strategy.

Consequently, the art of using troops is this: When ten to the enemy's one,
surround him. When five times his strength, attack him. If double his strength,
divide him. If equally matched, you may engage him with some good plan. If
weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing. And if in all respects unequal,
be capable of eluding him, for a small force is but booty for one more powerful
if it fights recklessly.

Now, the general is the assistant to the sovereign of the state. If this
assistance is all-embracing, the state will surely be strong; if defective, the
state will certainly be weak.

Now, there are three ways in which a sovereign can bring misfortune upon his
army:

1. When ignorant that the army should not advance, to order an advance; or
   when ignorant that it should not retire, to order a retirement. This is
   described as "hobbling the army."
2. When ignorant of military affairs, to interfere in their administration.
   This causes the officers to be perplexed.
3. When ignorant of command problems, to interfere with the direction of the
   fighting. This engenders doubts in the minds of the officers.

If the army is confused and suspicious, neighboring rulers will take advantage
of this and cause trouble. This is what is meant by: "A confused army leads
to another's victory."

Thus, there are five points in which victory may be predicted:

1. He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
2. He who understands how to fight in accordance with the strength of
   antagonistic forces will be victorious.
3. He whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious.
4. He who is well prepared and lies in wait for an enemy who is not well
   prepared will be victorious.
5. He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will
   be victorious.

It is in these five matters that the way to victory is known.

Therefore, I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles,
you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know
yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your
enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.