I watched the ASU game, and I'm still asking myself how Cal got more or less even in the last minutes of the game? Somehow or other, ASU's big men did not show up at the end of the game. Not quite sure how that happened. The back court played ASU even or better, getting some important turnovers at the end, but then,I was rather disappointed that they did not seem to have any clear idea what they were going to do on the last possession. I think they still had a timeout. Wouldn't that have been a good spot to call a timeout and so that everybody could compose themselves for the final possession?
In the end, it was somewhat of victory that they were close enough that the game was decided on the final possession, but I don't understand why they were so far behind for most of the game before that.
One point I would make is that Montgomery does not seem to know how to use a timeout. Wooden was the undisputed master of using a timeout to control the tempo and emotion of the game. I can't recall a moment when Montgomery has used a time with any strategic importance. Montgomery could learn a lot from watching some replays of Wooden's old games and his use of timeouts.
After watching ASU, would someone give me a game plan for Az? And while you're at it, you might send a cc to Montgomery.
PS -- The psychos over at bruinsnation.com have an interesting analysis of the ucla-Washington game. The complaint is that they won ugly. If Cal had won against ASU, it would have not have been a pretty win, but it would have been huge for Cal. I would have taken it. But the larger point is that there is so much parity in Pac-12 basketball that most everybody is winning (or playing 500 ball) without style points. Most of the teams are playing with a thin bench. Nobody is dominating. Pac-12 basketball is really a form of mud wrestling.
http://www.bruinsnation.com/20...oundup-ugly-win