Opinion | How tough should Caitlin Clark have to be to thrive in the WNBA? (2024)

As David Halberstam wrote in his book “The Breaks of the Game,” Lucas “brought Portland a sense of physical protection that Walton, somewhat intimidated by more physical NBA players in his first two years, badly needed.” Lucas told Walton he would be his friend and that bodies would be flying. Lucas’s protection allowed Walton’s game to flourish. Along with Lionel Hollins and others, Lucas and Walton carved out a memorable championship season. Ms. Clark’s teammates have been quick to help her up when she gets clocked; maybe they could be a bit quicker to protect her, too.

Steve Selby, Falls Church

The problem isn’t the perception that, as the secondary headline with Ms. Buckner’s column online stated, “Caitlin Clark is here to save the WNBA, as long as she doesn’t get touched.” The problem is that with greater exposure, which Ms. Clark has brought to the league, comes greater scrutiny.

In her comments to the media, Ms. Clark has never said nor implied what Ms. Buckner infers. She has acted in a professional manner, which is more than can be said about the Women’s National Basketball Association and some of its players. Using intentional hard fouls to put rookies in their place is irresponsible. If the league doesn’t like the scrutiny, it should have addressed this issue long ago.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem the WNBA cared enough to take it seriously before Ms. Clark’s arrival. Now that the league is garnering negative attention for letting its veteran players act with impunity, some want to blame Ms. Clark. If the league wants to grow the game, its leaders need to clean up the lack of professionalism on the court. If this lack of professionalism were to kill the current wave of enthusiasm for the sport, the WNBA would have no one to blame but itself.

Kenneth Pullen, Omaha

In a recent game, Las Vegas Aces star A’ja Wilson got repeatedly roughed up and still scored more than 30 points. Maybe we need to focus on her and her unique abilities — or on one of the eight or so WNBA players who are averaging more points, assists and rebounds than Caitlin Clark is. All this attention could have a negative impact on Ms. Clark’s development and certainly will cause resentment from other players who are scoring more, getting more assists and more rebounds, and playing on teams that have winning records.

Edward Drossman, New York

I’ve watched Caitlin Clark since her freshman year. Her dashes upcourt evoked Pete Maravich. She splashed Stephen Curry-like threes, played with the same fire as Cheryl Miller and seasoned her play with Magic Johnson’s exuberance.

However, she’s a professional, and she’s facing defenses determined to press her, harass her and frustrate her. And they’re succeeding. She leads the league in turnovers, and her field goal percentage and three-point percentage have plummeted from her college days.

Chennedy Carter blindsided Ms. Clark during an inbounds play, knocking her down. That was personal and didn’t pertain to basketball, and Ms. Carter should have been suspended. But let’s remember, that was one cheap shot by one player. The Indiana Fever franchise did the wise thing and submitted videos of play they considered questionable for the league to review.

During a recent game between the Chicago Sky and Connecticut Sun, the Sun’s Alyssa Thomas threw the Sky’s Angel Reese to the ground by her neck. That was a more egregious play than a shoulder check. Where was the outrage from people like Draymond Green, Charles Barkley and Geno Auriemma, who expressed so much concern for Ms. Clark?

Physically aggressive play can be a part of basketball. In the late 1980s and 1990s, the Detroit Pistons bludgeoned Michael Jordan incessantly. The NBA’s answer was to merchandise the Bad Boys.

Marc D. Greenwood, Opelika, Ala.

One term that appeared early in Candace Buckner’s screed against WNBA rookie Caitlin Clark’s “ardent protectors” set the tone for the rest of the piece. Ms. Buckner called Chicago Sky guard Chennedy Carter’s flagrant foul against Ms. Clark “shoulder-checking.” A “move” that NBA player Draymond Green “would probably scoff at as lightweight.”

A video clip of the incident, played over and over from every angle, shows Ms. Carter knocking Ms. Clark to the floor before the ball was in play while Ms. Clark was looking away. That is far from a shoulder check, which is typically understood as a tactic to gain position in a live-ball situation. The writer also inexplicably ignored the mini celebration from the Sky bench after the foul.

Most of the column focused on the racial and “Clark as the victim” commentary of those Ms. Buckner calls “Clarkies.” She offered comparisons to NFL and NHL teammates who protect their vulnerable stars. To extend that analogy: If an NFL lineman committed a flagrant foul, his teammates would probably try to calm him down and separate him from the other player, and the coach might yell at him. There would not be a group hug on the sideline.

Back to the “shoulder-check.” When one athlete (regardless of race) intentionally shoves another player while she is looking the other way with enough force to knock her to the floor, the risk of serious injury is much higher than if both are battling for position. This type of behavior should be denounced and punished for what it is: a dangerous, unsportsmanlike act. Sportswriters should not treat such conduct as a normal part of a rookie’s initiation, nor should they condone any teammates or coaches who celebrate it.

Joseph A. Capone, Oakton

I was an athletic child and found great opportunities in extracurricular sports in the 1970s. My town provided chances for boys and girls to play sports together, both on a coed swim team and by making space on the baseball team for a girl who felt more at home there than in softball.

I wonder whether it is time for schools to offer an “inclusive league,” one that welcomes everyone — even if it is just intramural until other schools adopt the program. It seems it would be such great fun and good for people of all genders to interact with one another. It might take the edge off competition, too, which can ruin athletics for some kids. I bet participation in single-gender sports would decline.

Blake Ketchum, Claysburg, Pa.

While well written, Jerry Brewer’s column gives short shrift to the girls and women who have sacrificed much of their youths to be the best athletes in their sports, only to be beaten out by a former male athlete.

If that seems fair, why are no trans men winning NCAA championships in individual sports? It’s simple: Biological men have a physical advantage. When a former excellent male athlete transitions, they clearly have an advantage over biological women.

Fairness is the bedrock of sports. If competition is not fair, there would seem to be little point to higher-end athletics. At the very low-end recreational leagues, it’s likely not nearly as much of an issue. Still, for girls who are marginal athletes trying their hardest, regardless of their God-given natural ability, to be benched for a trans athlete seems unfair.

Changing genders is clearly a very difficult and emotional decision. But it is a personal decision, and there are consequences to any personal decision. Those consequences should not negatively impact biological women.

There is a reason steroid use is banned in athletics: It gives competitors an advantage. Competitive advantage through chemistry is not the way to go in sports.

Mike Urita, Burke, Va.

In his column on transgender rights, Mr. Brewer makes the following statement: “The most aggressive people own the messaging, and culture-war politicians have leeched onto the tension. It might be the most effective wedge issue in their arsenal.”

He’s right: Both the far right and the far left are dominating the issue.

I am a lifelong Democrat and as socially liberal as a person can be, but transgender rights do not extend to the playing field or to sports in general. In fact, most of my friends feel the same as I do. The unfairness of letting people born male compete with those born female should be obvious to even the most progressive people.

John Palmieri, the Bronx

Mr. Brewer’s column on Jackie Robinson certainly brought back wonderful memories. As a young Jewish lad growing up in the 1940s in Toledo, I became an instant fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers for two reasons: 1. the first base coach from 1947-1957, Jake Pitler, was Jewish and I could identify with that, and 2. Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947, which also impressed me as a school-age kid.

My parents were very liberal and sensitive to discrimination against Black and Jewish people. I lived and died with those Bums and hated the Yankees because they beat the Dodgers in every matchup except 1955. I remember my namesake, Hank Greenberg (no relation), enduring antisemitism from players and fans, and how he proudly stood up for Robinson. So, Robinson captured the souls of not only millions of trampled African Americans, but also a lot of young Jewish boys like me who felt the pinch of antisemitism. Yes, I think we had a lot in common.

Larrie Greenberg, Washington