He didn't.
And the whole year was out the window when the Tournament started. You can actually base everything on that game because that's what counts the most.
Do you agree with Forde here....?
- Thread starter Raptureme
- Start date
He didn't.
And the whole year was out the window when the Tournament started. You can actually base everything on that game because that's what counts the most.
When we get back to the final four I hope cal plays to win. No more sitting on small leads or playing tight. Leave it out there.
I also get pissed off when we lose huge games with 3 timeouts remaining. Just irks me especially when there are moments we could have used them.
Ulis should have been on the court with Aaron and Andrew in those last 6 minutes.
IMO.
I think a lot of people responding to this thread are missing the forest for the trees.
This shouldn't be about whether Player A should have played more minutes at the expense of Player B. Or whether Cal should have favored Player C over Player D.
What should have happened is Cal should have used ALL his players in the most efficient manner possible.
He started the year with a system which did just that. It utilized his depth, ensured none of his players got tired or in foul trouble, kept everyone motivated and involved, and most importantly allowed Kentucky to play the most dominating and suffocating defense for extended periods that college basketball has ever seen in its history!
Yet by the end of the year Cal had abandoned that (and any other planned substitution pattern) in favor of shortening his rotation, jerking players in and out at will, leading to issues with flow, issues with people not knowing their roles on the floor and ultimately issues with maintaining a cohesive defense at all times.
Instead of being the team which ran teams into the ground and dictated the pace, it was Kentucky that was allowing the other team to dictate the pace, and in the case of Wisconsin it was UK that actually got visibly tired late in the second half.
To the question, both Ulis AND Andrew should have played a lot of minutes. Again what made UK's team so special and so dominant was not that one single player was so great (in fact every player had weaknesses that could be exploited by the opposition if UK relied on any one of them too much), but that UK had so many very good players that they could overwhelm other teams if used properly.
Shortening the rotation gave away UK's biggest advantage, and turned what was a an all-time historically dominant team into a team that was still very good, but beatable.
This shouldn't be about whether Player A should have played more minutes at the expense of Player B. Or whether Cal should have favored Player C over Player D.
What should have happened is Cal should have used ALL his players in the most efficient manner possible.
He started the year with a system which did just that. It utilized his depth, ensured none of his players got tired or in foul trouble, kept everyone motivated and involved, and most importantly allowed Kentucky to play the most dominating and suffocating defense for extended periods that college basketball has ever seen in its history!
Yet by the end of the year Cal had abandoned that (and any other planned substitution pattern) in favor of shortening his rotation, jerking players in and out at will, leading to issues with flow, issues with people not knowing their roles on the floor and ultimately issues with maintaining a cohesive defense at all times.
Instead of being the team which ran teams into the ground and dictated the pace, it was Kentucky that was allowing the other team to dictate the pace, and in the case of Wisconsin it was UK that actually got visibly tired late in the second half.
To the question, both Ulis AND Andrew should have played a lot of minutes. Again what made UK's team so special and so dominant was not that one single player was so great (in fact every player had weaknesses that could be exploited by the opposition if UK relied on any one of them too much), but that UK had so many very good players that they could overwhelm other teams if used properly.
Shortening the rotation gave away UK's biggest advantage, and turned what was a an all-time historically dominant team into a team that was still very good, but beatable.
Last edited:
In the last five minutes against Wisky I thought Ulis should have played more. Three trips without hitting the rim was pretty darn bad. I simply like Ulis's attitude and game better than the Harrisons. I have never seen Ulis pout. I think coach K was right when he made the statement about Ulis having the face of a winner.
I'm not going to second guess the coaching decisions on the run we've had.
I'm still too appreciative for not having to relive the latter years of Tubby and the trainwreck of Gillipsie - and how Cal saved us from becoming Indiana
I also happen to believe that if indeed Ulis did earn more time on the court, Cal's decision was a bigger picture one based on future recruiting. Derailing the Harrisons undermines his ability to tell a future recruit that he'll help them reach their dream of playing in the NBA and provides recruiting ammo for a Bill Self or Coach K
I'm still too appreciative for not having to relive the latter years of Tubby and the trainwreck of Gillipsie - and how Cal saved us from becoming Indiana
I also happen to believe that if indeed Ulis did earn more time on the court, Cal's decision was a bigger picture one based on future recruiting. Derailing the Harrisons undermines his ability to tell a future recruit that he'll help them reach their dream of playing in the NBA and provides recruiting ammo for a Bill Self or Coach K
Guys, Andrew WON THE GAME BEFORE. His clutch play beat Notre Dame. Period. End of sentence. End of argument. Give all credit to Wisconsin. We didn't spend our entire year thinking "God I hope we get Wisconsin and this time it will be different". They wanted us and they had a well thought out plan to beat us down the stretch. Hats off to them. If they had worried half as much about Duke they wouldn't have lost to an inferior team.
You've beaten this drum consistently, and to a certain extent I agree with you. However, the dynamics changed when Poythress went down.
Truly platooning post Poythress injury would have meant major minutes for Hawkins. Not sure that was the best solution.
That being said, I believe Cal would have tightened the rotation even if Poy stayed healthy. Seemed to be a tight leash on Lee.
And all due respect, but the real point to this particular thread is that Pat Forde is a trolling loser.
Go back and watch the game. Ulis and Booker got abused by the bigger stronger players from Wisconsin. we were switching everything and Especially Booker kept getting stuck on a stronger player down low.
one thing the twins brought were power and size. we did not need more quickness or finesse that game , we needed toughness and size. and that's exactly what the twins brought. we just lost that's it. and we would of lost with Ulis and Booker in also. it was Wisconsin night period. we had the right guys on the floor. I think we win if the refs call shot clock violation and the momentum stays with us. lots of reasons we lost, but the twins were not one. that's just the more controversial reason.
one thing the twins brought were power and size. we did not need more quickness or finesse that game , we needed toughness and size. and that's exactly what the twins brought. we just lost that's it. and we would of lost with Ulis and Booker in also. it was Wisconsin night period. we had the right guys on the floor. I think we win if the refs call shot clock violation and the momentum stays with us. lots of reasons we lost, but the twins were not one. that's just the more controversial reason.
I agree with the belief that Ulis was the better option to play point against Wisky in the semi-final game. He may not have been the best option in many other games but, his ability to breakdown the Badger defense inside the lane was far better than either of the Harrison's.
Just my opinion but, I've seen it echoed by many others.
Just my opinion but, I've seen it echoed by many others.
If there are two obvious possible interpretations to something Cal has done, Forde will pick the one that puts Cal in the worst light. Every time.
He's irrelevant. After Bilas and Seth Greenberg smacked him down about Cal a couple of months ago, the work was complete. He's not on ESPN anymore, so i don't have to worry about accidentally seeing him.......
He's irrelevant. After Bilas and Seth Greenberg smacked him down about Cal a couple of months ago, the work was complete. He's not on ESPN anymore, so i don't have to worry about accidentally seeing him.......
No doubt you are correct that Pat Forde is a trolling loser.
As far as the question of platooning, although I was a huge fan of what I would call 'full platoons' (which at least in my mind they sub 5-for-5 for at least 30 minutes, which has been shown to be enough to beat opponent into submission), even after Alex Poythress went down with injury UK was still very successful with modified platoons (i.e. variations where either Hawkins (or potentially Willis) took the 10th slot or in cases where one of the players from the 1st unit would stay on the court and leak into the 2nd unit etc.)
BTW, the stats are very clear that it worked. In fact the two games that UK clearly went away from much of any platooning in the mid-part of the season were against Ole Miss and Texas A&M, and those were near disasters.
People should have realized at that time that platooning held tangible benefits which couldn't be recaptured otherwise. Those 'modified platoons' still provided UK with advantages which they otherwise would never be able to achieve. But beyond that and most importantly, it ensured that UK made use of its deep bench.
Cal could have abandoned platoons altogether but still made an effort to develop and keep all his players engaged and utilize a deep bench during the course of the game (like Pitino did in '96). Doing that, IMO it still would have been a better option than what Cal ultimately ended up doing, which was shortening the bench and in the process not taking advantage of what was the team's greatest strength.
BTW, I'm not so sure that if Cal had gone back and played 'full platoons' against Wisconsin by playing Hawkins that it would have been a bad thing.
With Hawkins on the 1st unit it would have allowed UK to pressure the ball 94 feet (and be relieved by Ulis with the 2nd unit who could continue the on-ball pressure). This would have forced Wisconsin's guards to work harder to initiate their offense, and not allow them to set the tempo. As it was, Wisconsin's guards were allowed far too much latitude IMO in how and at what time they wanted to attack UK from the perimeter. And that only became worse as the game progressed and UK got visibly tired, and in the end Wisconsin's guards were allowed to pick UK apart.
I agree that the platoon system gave us the most upside.
I suspect that Cal thought it also had higher risk involved.
Over the course of a 7 game series, I have little doubt that the platoon system would have led to a victory over anyone.
But in one game? If one unit doesn't bring it for, say, two four minute segments, then you may dig a hole from which you can't recover.
I suspect that was part of the thought process. Alas, we will never know for sure.
True! Willie had maybe his worst game of the season at the worst possible time. I love WCS but this game should haunt him forever. He was a wallflower and didn't compete.