It was a good, enjoyable game, and Cal played better than I anticipated against a USC team that is good, and its becoming evident is better even than anticipated. Ultimately, I agree that the better team prevailed.
That said, I agree with the analysis of what is an alarmingly common occurrence in various sports at a number of Pac-12 schools; atrocious game/clock management. Coach Fox threw in the towel more than a minute before the end of the game. Whether better tactics would have worked is unknowable, though also doubtful, but also had a better chance of success than a course of action that had zero chance of success. I see a lot of this in the Pac, and because the coaches involved have done other positive things, they are given revered treatment that makes even questioning an obvious error, even to just get an explanation of the thinking at the time, much less to get any kind of correction for the errors. Which of course means they will be repeated again and again, sooner or later with disastrous results, and always unnecessarily.
We hung around until the 7 minute mark in the 2nd half, unfortunately the shots stopped falling. If we had one or two threes it might have changed the complexion of the game. Admittedly though SC's athleticism won the day.
"I fear that the offense may fall off a cliff in Pac-12 play with the kind of shots Cal can create . . . but we’re now four games in and the Cal offense has been, essentially, fine. Not an offense that will win you games by itself, but enough to be competitive when you play good defense"
Would you even say it was a Toyota Tercel offense? (I wouldn't. . . not yet, just because we haven't been able to keep up these results over an entire season), but maybe Grant and Jordan are above average jump shooters? There is a point where the dreaded mid-range becomes an ok shot within the flow of an offense. Even though my professional team stressed the Free Throw/Layup/3 point offense to the breaking point (and repeatedly broke over the past decade) - I don't think a mid range jumper is the end of the world, especially when a team as good as USC is able to contest everywhere. Sometimes an open shot is better than a covered "efficient" shot.
I think there was one thing that schematically - we could have done a bit better one (and maybe Alajiki helps here) and it sounded like our transition defense wasn't great - now a huge part of that is just the athleticism and ability of SC to get out and run, but the goal of a slug-it-out team like ours is to gum up the works and not give up easy baskets.
Honestly our transition defense wasn't tested. USC did a fair amount of walking the ball up, feeding Mobley, Goodwin, Ellis, or Peterson and frankly just doing whatever the hell they wanted 1 on 1.
Grant got worked defensively...he could not guard anyone on that SC team...they had him on Ellis, Peterson & Mobley at various times, to no avail. Those are all tough matchups, so it’s no knock on him...that’s a good ball club.
The Bears got killed by the offensive rebounds, and a dogschitt free throw-shooting team shot 85%.
Grant did well defensively on several traditional post ups where the $c player tried to back him down. He made his guy pass the ball out several times after a few seconds in the post. Where he couldn’t keep up was on drives and some rotations
Good point. I do remember one on Mobley in the 2H where he forced him into a tough hook shot that rimmed out - a rare stop....otherwise, Enfield did a great job of finding a matchup and exploiting it. Peterson especially - he’s a tough guard for everyone, not just GA - it’s not a knock on the Aussie...the Bears really missed Alajiki, tho, as at 6’7” with athleticism, he would’ve been a candidate to hang with the 6’9” DP. Was hoping Kuany could defend him, but the kid was too quick.
I would have liked Cal to foul, but instead they tried an all out blitzing trap
I had no problem with that. No way we had a chance at that point to come back
It was a good, enjoyable game, and Cal played better than I anticipated against a USC team that is good, and its becoming evident is better even than anticipated. Ultimately, I agree that the better team prevailed.
That said, I agree with the analysis of what is an alarmingly common occurrence in various sports at a number of Pac-12 schools; atrocious game/clock management. Coach Fox threw in the towel more than a minute before the end of the game. Whether better tactics would have worked is unknowable, though also doubtful, but also had a better chance of success than a course of action that had zero chance of success. I see a lot of this in the Pac, and because the coaches involved have done other positive things, they are given revered treatment that makes even questioning an obvious error, even to just get an explanation of the thinking at the time, much less to get any kind of correction for the errors. Which of course means they will be repeated again and again, sooner or later with disastrous results, and always unnecessarily.
Alajiki had an icepack on his left knee in 1H, and a sleeve on it in the 2nd.
We hung around until the 7 minute mark in the 2nd half, unfortunately the shots stopped falling. If we had one or two threes it might have changed the complexion of the game. Admittedly though SC's athleticism won the day.
"I fear that the offense may fall off a cliff in Pac-12 play with the kind of shots Cal can create . . . but we’re now four games in and the Cal offense has been, essentially, fine. Not an offense that will win you games by itself, but enough to be competitive when you play good defense"
Would you even say it was a Toyota Tercel offense? (I wouldn't. . . not yet, just because we haven't been able to keep up these results over an entire season), but maybe Grant and Jordan are above average jump shooters? There is a point where the dreaded mid-range becomes an ok shot within the flow of an offense. Even though my professional team stressed the Free Throw/Layup/3 point offense to the breaking point (and repeatedly broke over the past decade) - I don't think a mid range jumper is the end of the world, especially when a team as good as USC is able to contest everywhere. Sometimes an open shot is better than a covered "efficient" shot.
I think there was one thing that schematically - we could have done a bit better one (and maybe Alajiki helps here) and it sounded like our transition defense wasn't great - now a huge part of that is just the athleticism and ability of SC to get out and run, but the goal of a slug-it-out team like ours is to gum up the works and not give up easy baskets.
Honestly our transition defense wasn't tested. USC did a fair amount of walking the ball up, feeding Mobley, Goodwin, Ellis, or Peterson and frankly just doing whatever the hell they wanted 1 on 1.
Grant got worked defensively...he could not guard anyone on that SC team...they had him on Ellis, Peterson & Mobley at various times, to no avail. Those are all tough matchups, so it’s no knock on him...that’s a good ball club.
The Bears got killed by the offensive rebounds, and a dogschitt free throw-shooting team shot 85%.
Grant did well defensively on several traditional post ups where the $c player tried to back him down. He made his guy pass the ball out several times after a few seconds in the post. Where he couldn’t keep up was on drives and some rotations
Good point. I do remember one on Mobley in the 2H where he forced him into a tough hook shot that rimmed out - a rare stop....otherwise, Enfield did a great job of finding a matchup and exploiting it. Peterson especially - he’s a tough guard for everyone, not just GA - it’s not a knock on the Aussie...the Bears really missed Alajiki, tho, as at 6’7” with athleticism, he would’ve been a candidate to hang with the 6’9” DP. Was hoping Kuany could defend him, but the kid was too quick.
Any word on Sam’s injury?