Stephen A. Smith’s recent claim that Juju Watkins is comparable to Caitlin Clark has ignited significant debate in the world of women’s college basketball.

While both players undoubtedly have impressive talents, Clark’s established track record and success on the court place her in a different category, raising questions about whether Watkins can eventually live up to the same level of dominance.

Caitlin Clark’s career has been nothing short of groundbreaking. Her ability to break records, including becoming the all-time leading scorer in NCAA Division I women’s basketball, is a testament to her skill and consistency. Clark’s remarkable journey continued with her swift transition to the WNBA, where she earned a spot on the All-WNBA First Team in her rookie season—a rare and impressive feat for a first-year player.

Her performance on the biggest stages, including a crucial victory over LSU, exemplifies the type of impact that separates great players from those still finding their footing. Clark’s ability to change the course of a game under pressure is a characteristic few players can claim.

However, when comparing Clark’s accomplishments to those of Juju Watkins, the disparities become evident. Watkins has been heralded as a potential future star, but her current performance is still a work in progress.

Despite the hype surrounding her, Watkins struggles with consistency, especially in high-pressure moments. Analysts have pointed out her troubling tendency to commit more turnovers than assists, raising questions about her ball-handling and decision-making. At this stage, Watkins has not demonstrated the same level of effectiveness or reliability that Clark has consistently shown.

Adding to the concerns about Watkins’ game is her style of play, which some experts feel lacks the substance necessary to be truly impactful.

Comparisons to players like Ryan Howard have been made, suggesting that while Watkins may have flashes of brilliance, she does not yet possess the all-around game needed to excel in crucial moments. As talented as she is, Watkins has not yet proven that she can carry a team in the way Clark has time and time again.

In fact, the consensus among many analysts is that other players, such as Hannah Hidalgo, currently outshine Watkins in terms of performance and consistency. Hidalgo’s skills, particularly in high-pressure games, have earned her recognition as one of the top players in women’s college basketball.

This has led some to question the validity of Smith’s comparison, especially since Watkins has yet to prove herself as a game-changer in the same way Clark and Hidalgo have.

Stephen A. Smith’s commentary on Watkins and the overall landscape of women’s college basketball has also come under scrutiny. His tendency to focus on standout moments, rather than examining a player’s overall consistency and impact throughout the season, can sometimes lead to misguided conclusions. For instance, his claims about Watkins’ potential fail to consider the full context of her performance. In basketball, greatness is not merely about scoring or flashy plays but about a player’s ability to affect the game in all aspects, particularly in terms of efficiency and team contribution.

One aspect of the game that Smith has also touched on is three-level scoring—the ability to score from inside, mid-range, and beyond the arc. While this skill is valuable, it is not the sole indicator of a player’s greatness. What sets players like Giannis Antetokounmpo apart is their ability to dominate with their strengths, without necessarily needing to be a versatile scorer from every area of the court. The emphasis should be on scoring efficiency and overall impact rather than simply scoring from multiple positions.

When comparing Clark and Watkins, the difference becomes clear. Clark’s ability to impact the game goes beyond just putting up points. Her scoring efficiency, combined with her ability to create opportunities for her teammates, elevates her team to another level. Clark’s playmaking, vision, and leadership set a new standard for what it means to be a great basketball player. It is not just about scoring from every angle; it is about knowing when to take over and when to involve others. This ability to elevate the performance of her teammates has been a hallmark of Clark’s playing style, setting her apart as one of the most complete players in the game today.

Ultimately, the comparison between Caitlin Clark and Juju Watkins highlights a fundamental truth about basketball greatness: it is not enough to simply score or have the potential to be great. True greatness is defined by a player’s ability to impact the game in a multitude of ways, from scoring efficiently to creating plays for others, and performing consistently under pressure. Caitlin Clark has demonstrated all of these qualities, earning her the title of one of the greatest players in women’s basketball history. Meanwhile, Juju Watkins, while still an exciting prospect, has much to prove before she can be placed in the same conversation as Clark. The gap between their current performances underscores the challenges Watkins faces in her development and the high expectations she must meet to live up to the hype surrounding her.