Jason Silva-USA TODAY Sports
Here’s what you may have missed from last night!
UFC “Uruguay” ended on a sour note.
Vicente Luque and Mike Perry set the bar impossibly high, but even so, the disappointment of the main event stands on its own. My job is to watch fights — all the fights — so it’s hardly my first experience with a snoozefest, yet this one felt especially miserable. For me, at least, the general awfulness was enhanced by my own confusion at Liz Carmouche’s bizarre approach to upsetting the Flyweight queen.
Shevchenko herself is not without blame for the boring nature of the contest, but we all know exactly what we’re getting with “Bullet.” Much like Anderson Silva back in his heyday, Shevchenko focuses almost entirely on countering her opponent’s offense. If her foe does nothing, she’ll do slightly more than nothing. Convince her opponent to come charging forward, and Shevchenko will look like a superstar.
Against an opponent who did the absolute bare minimum, Shevchenko still managed to land a pair of knockdowns and completely dominate. Not fun, but somewhat expected and thus not a real factor in the feeling of frustration.
I find myself far more baffled by Carmouche. More accurately, I find myself baffled and annoyed at her coaches and their “strategy.” Game planning at the highest level is a high-stakes game, but Carmouche’s strategy played directly into the hands of Shevchenko and gave her almost zero chance of pulling off an upset.
Based on how calm and collected Carmouche’s corner was after the opening round, it seemed that Carmouche was following the plan — but WTF was the plan? To run laps around the Octagon, throw punches a solid two feet short of Shevchenko, and occasionally land the low kick? Pull guard? Does any of that sound like strategies that work at a high-level … ever?
Now, let’s face the facts: Carmouche was technically outmatched. Over 25 dull minutes, Shevchenko proved herself better in every aspect. All the same, there are basic ideas and concepts that any fighter can apply to give oneself the best chance at defeating an opponent who is simply better.
First, let’s dumb it down: in broad strokes, what are Shevchenko’s strengths? Range kicking, counter striking, clinch takedowns, and top control about sum it up. Weaknesses? A willingness to turn her back in the clinch and iffy bottom game would be the applicable ones here, along with lack of variety on the feet.
Apply the same questions to Carmouche: she’s strong in the clinch and opportunistic in top position, but historically has struggled with the whole kickboxing thing. Ideally, the path of least resistance involves Carmouche’s strengths lining up with one of Shevchenko’s weaknesses, but if that’s not an option, doubling down on what a fighter is best at is often a sound strategy. Alternatively, the underdog can shift their focus to an area where the favorite is historically weak.
Carmouche’s strengths lined up pretty well! Shevchenko has been outworked in the clinch before and put in compromising positions on the mat. It should’ve been a no-brainer! Yet Carmouche instead attacked Shevchenko’s best aspect (kicks and counters) with her worst (range striking).
Was this five-round display enough to show why that’s an absolutely terrible idea? Sure, Carmouche got tossed around in the clinch a couple times, but at least she has a deep knowledge of clinch work. Maybe if Carmouche doggedly pursued the clinch, she might have eventually been able to score a takedown or sneak her way around to the back. Each time Shevchenko attempts a trip, throw, or foot sweep, she’s exposing herself to a reversal to some degree — so force her to wrestle!
Small victories can lead to larger ones. At the very least, Carmouche certainly had a better chance at accomplishing something in a scramble than landing one slapping low kick every two minutes.
For complete UFC “Uruguay” results and play-by-play, click HERE!