Cal8285 said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

*Insider premium content*

Wyking clarified today at the presser about his creative D: "We are trying to funnel our opponents into a path for a dunk. The reason being, when the path is clear one is easily susceptible to rush and then be hung on the rim. When the ball bounces off the front of the rim forcefully, there is no easier fast break started for us than that. We have not perfected this D, and it may require Jordan Brown and my type of guys to fully install it, but it will get done. Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development."

---

Wow. Tell me you are just pulling my leg with this. There is no harder rebound to anticipate than the one where the ball caroms off the rim forcefully. And Cal is going to somehow get all or most of those long rebounds?

The fact that we are spending any time on this is troubling. And if we are designing this defense for use with players who won't be here until next season, and Brown, who is not even locked in for Cal sounds like fantasy. And if Cal does perfect this defense, coaches will see it on film, and do things like have the shooter take a layup or floater instead.of a dunk, and all Cal's rebounders will be out of position looking for the long rebound. And this defense isn't going to stop the highlight dunkers like someone who is as good at dunking as Jaylen Brown. Ayton would feast on this defense for dinner.

Please say it isn't true. I sincerely want this coach to succeed, but every week now, it seems I'm inching closer to agreeing with Tsubamoto on this coach, something I really don't want to do.

---

Yes, pulling your leg.

---

FWIW, I thought your post was hilarious. It is also hilarious that anyone could be unaware that you made that stuff up.

"Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development." Nice. There are really only two choices in a season like this, cry, or find ways to laugh. I prefer the latter, and I thank you for helping out.

---

That's why you need to find the humor in that baby crawling race!

He's in over his head. I feel bad for Wyking because he should be an assistant on a staff where he could continue to learn and grow. Not the first comment from him that makes me think that about the situation.

Cal8285 said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

*Insider premium content*

Wyking clarified today at the presser about his creative D: "We are trying to funnel our opponents into a path for a dunk. The reason being, when the path is clear one is easily susceptible to rush and then be hung on the rim. When the ball bounces off the front of the rim forcefully, there is no easier fast break started for us than that. We have not perfected this D, and it may require Jordan Brown and my type of guys to fully install it, but it will get done. Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development."

---

Wow. Tell me you are just pulling my leg with this. There is no harder rebound to anticipate than the one where the ball caroms off the rim forcefully. And Cal is going to somehow get all or most of those long rebounds?

The fact that we are spending any time on this is troubling. And if we are designing this defense for use with players who won't be here until next season, and Brown, who is not even locked in for Cal sounds like fantasy. And if Cal does perfect this defense, coaches will see it on film, and do things like have the shooter take a layup or floater instead.of a dunk, and all Cal's rebounders will be out of position looking for the long rebound. And this defense isn't going to stop the highlight dunkers like someone who is as good at dunking as Jaylen Brown. Ayton would feast on this defense for dinner.

Please say it isn't true. I sincerely want this coach to succeed, but every week now, it seems I'm inching closer to agreeing with Tsubamoto on this coach, something I really don't want to do.

---

Yes, pulling your leg.

---

FWIW, I thought your post was hilarious. It is also hilarious that anyone could be unaware that you made that stuff up.

"Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development." Nice. There are really only two choices in a season like this, cry, or find ways to laugh. I prefer the latter, and I thank you for helping out.

---

It's not the first time I've been conned, nor will it be the last, apparently. At the moment, I feel "posterized" myself. Back in the day, when there was no dunking, the worst thing that could happen to you was to go up for a jump shot, and have someone stuff that ball right back in your face. It was sometimes called it a "Spalding."

BTW, there is an option other than cry, or laugh, and that is to just walk away.

helltopay1 said:

---

sluggo---was WJ really the #4 assistant?????

---

According to a former player on the 2015 team, WJ was lazy as **** and unprepared.

helltopay1 said:

---

sluggo---was WJ really the #4 assistant?????

---

No, I meant the #4 coach after Martin, Webster, and O'Toole.

Sluggo

What is also hilarious is that SFCB has exponentially more basketball knowledge than anyone who posts on BI. His only failing appears to be that he is not a smart a$$ (with no disrespect to my friendo KAB whose post I thought was extremely funny).

now i'm really depressed.

bearister said:

---

What is also hilarious is that SFCB has exponentially more basketball knowledge than anyone who posts on BI. His only failing appears to be that he is not a smart a$$ (with no disrespect to my friendo KAB whose post I thought was extremely funny).

---

In as much as I am a big fan of bearister's wit, I am honored!

SFCityBear said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

*Insider premium content*

Wyking clarified today at the presser about his creative D: "We are trying to funnel our opponents into a path for a dunk. The reason being, when the path is clear one is easily susceptible to rush and then be hung on the rim. When the ball bounces off the front of the rim forcefully, there is no easier fast break started for us than that. We have not perfected this D, and it may require Jordan Brown and my type of guys to fully install it, but it will get done. Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development."

---

Wow. Tell me you are just pulling my leg with this. There is no harder rebound to anticipate than the one where the ball caroms off the rim forcefully. And Cal is going to somehow get all or most of those long rebounds?

The fact that we are spending any time on this is troubling. And if we are designing this defense for use with players who won't be here until next season, and Brown, who is not even locked in for Cal sounds like fantasy. And if Cal does perfect this defense, coaches will see it on film, and do things like have the shooter take a layup or floater instead.of a dunk, and all Cal's rebounders will be out of position looking for the long rebound. And this defense isn't going to stop the highlight dunkers like someone who is as good at dunking as Jaylen Brown. Ayton would feast on this defense for dinner.

Please say it isn't true. I sincerely want this coach to succeed, but every week now, it seems I'm inching closer to agreeing with Tsubamoto on this coach, something I really don't want to do.

---

Yes, pulling your leg.

---

FWIW, I thought your post was hilarious. It is also hilarious that anyone could be unaware that you made that stuff up.

"Sometimes getting posterized like against that SC guy is a small price to pay for sustained development." Nice. There are really only two choices in a season like this, cry, or find ways to laugh. I prefer the latter, and I thank you for helping out.

---

It's not the first time I've been conned, nor will it be the last, apparently. At the moment, I feel "posterized" myself. Back in the day, when there was no dunking, the worst thing that could happen to you was to go up for a jump shot, and have someone stuff that ball right back in your face. It was sometimes called it a "Spalding."

BTW, there is an option other than cry, or laugh, and that is to just walk away.

---

Glad we are all taking this season in stride. Can't get too wound up.

Dear Concerned Parent--can you honestly say that a player from the 2015 team told you directly that "WJ was lazy and unprepared" or is that hearsay from another person??Without naming names, this is very troubling if true. direct quote from a player to you or hearsay from another person??

SFCityBear said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

First, your characterization and what he said are not at all the same.

---

I usually respect your posts, but this time, I really have to respectfully disagree with all of it. First, I did not CHARACTERIZE what Wyking Jones said. I QUOTED what he said, exactly and verbatim.

Quote:

---

Second, not all presses are designed to create steals.

---

I never said that. I wrote that my coaches "taught me that the objective of the press was to keep the ball from getting over the half-court line, either by stealing it, causing a turnover, or getting a 10 second violation called on the opponent." Not only just steal the ball. And a big part of Wyking Jones' press is the trap. Isn't the purpose of a trap in a press to get steals or cause a turnover, at least for most coaches? When they are trapping, I don't believe defenders are thinking about who gets a shot at the other end of the court.

Quote:

---

Some are intended mostly to force time off the clock and disrupt the offense's ability to get into the set or play they want to run, or to force pace and quicker shots.

---

I basically said that, didn't I? I wrote this: "There are secondary objectives, like forcing the opponent to use up clock, or don't make it easy to start his offense, or get his guards tired out, and so on,"

Quote:

---

And you might have noticed we aren't the greatest half court offensive team in the world, so forcing quick shots off a scattered set plays into break opportunities if they miss.

---

????? We want to give the other team more shots because we don't have a great half-court offense? If you design your press to give opponents shots you want him to take, and I design my press to try and keep him from getting the ball into the frontcourt, then your press is giving him more shots than mine would, even if I stop him only one time in a game. What Wyking Jones said makes no sense to me.

Quote:

---

Finally, the object of DEFENSE is, among other things, to force the offense into shots that are not the most efficient for them. You might say the object of defense is to stop the offense from scoring, but in reality you want to take away strengths, force less efficient shooting, and work the odds.

---

I was not writing about DEFENSE in general. I was writing about a FULL COURT PRESS, which is one type of defense which Cal often uses, as a supplemental defense to our half court defense. Cal's PRESS is all Wyking Jones was talking about in the statement of his that I quoted.

Quote:

---

That's not at all the part I found strange. What I find strange is the idea that you want their five shooting, since Welch is a very good shooter. If that was a guy like Roberson who we used to leave open under Montgomery, of course you do it. He couldn't shoot from outside. Welch can. On the other hand, as Wyking noted, all five guys on the court for them could shoot so pick your poison I guess.

---

So if all five UCLA guys on the court are good shooters, why would you want to give ANY of them MORE shots, by designing a press to give them shots at the other end? Wouldn't you try and keep all of them from getting shots at the other end as much as physically possible within the rules?

---

Eh, I was going to do this point by point but why bother. You started this whole thing buy over-interpreting a tossed off comment that to me had more to do with who Jones wanted shooting and less to do with pressing. You seem to want to ignore basic concepts like forcing the least efficient shots as part of defense, not just in this post but in many others. It's like you're stuck in high school with some guy in short shorts screaming at you to pack the paint or something. The game has changed. I am not saying, by the way, that we accomplished much of anything for long with the press, but that your view of the press and of defense as you presented it was simplistic. We don't agree.

bluesaxe said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

bluesaxe said:

---

First, your characterization and what he said are not at all the same.

---

I usually respect your posts, but this time, I really have to respectfully disagree with all of it. First, I did not CHARACTERIZE what Wyking Jones said. I QUOTED what he said, exactly and verbatim.

Quote:

---

Second, not all presses are designed to create steals.

---

I never said that. I wrote that my coaches "taught me that the objective of the press was to keep the ball from getting over the half-court line, either by stealing it, causing a turnover, or getting a 10 second violation called on the opponent." Not only just steal the ball. And a big part of Wyking Jones' press is the trap. Isn't the purpose of a trap in a press to get steals or cause a turnover, at least for most coaches? When they are trapping, I don't believe defenders are thinking about who gets a shot at the other end of the court.

Quote:

---

Some are intended mostly to force time off the clock and disrupt the offense's ability to get into the set or play they want to run, or to force pace and quicker shots.

---

I basically said that, didn't I? I wrote this: "There are secondary objectives, like forcing the opponent to use up clock, or don't make it easy to start his offense, or get his guards tired out, and so on,"

Quote:

---

And you might have noticed we aren't the greatest half court offensive team in the world, so forcing quick shots off a scattered set plays into break opportunities if they miss.

---

????? We want to give the other team more shots because we don't have a great half-court offense? If you design your press to give opponents shots you want him to take, and I design my press to try and keep him from getting the ball into the frontcourt, then your press is giving him more shots than mine would, even if I stop him only one time in a game. What Wyking Jones said makes no sense to me.

Quote:

---

Finally, the object of DEFENSE is, among other things, to force the offense into shots that are not the most efficient for them. You might say the object of defense is to stop the offense from scoring, but in reality you want to take away strengths, force less efficient shooting, and work the odds.

---

I was not writing about DEFENSE in general. I was writing about a FULL COURT PRESS, which is one type of defense which Cal often uses, as a supplemental defense to our half court defense. Cal's PRESS is all Wyking Jones was talking about in the statement of his that I quoted.

Quote:

---

That's not at all the part I found strange. What I find strange is the idea that you want their five shooting, since Welch is a very good shooter. If that was a guy like Roberson who we used to leave open under Montgomery, of course you do it. He couldn't shoot from outside. Welch can. On the other hand, as Wyking noted, all five guys on the court for them could shoot so pick your poison I guess.

---

So if all five UCLA guys on the court are good shooters, why would you want to give ANY of them MORE shots, by designing a press to give them shots at the other end? Wouldn't you try and keep all of them from getting shots at the other end as much as physically possible within the rules?

---

Eh, I was going to do this point by point but why bother.

---

Or "since I can't refute anything he said, I'll just reply with a personal attack instead."

Quote:

---

You started this whole thing buy over-interpreting.........

---

I quoted Wyking Jones' words. I did not over-interpret any of them, because I did not interpret any of them. I listened to them, and took them for what they were, words with specific definitions from a dictionary. And I reacted with utter disbelief. Wyking Jones said this:

"UCLA is a talented team. They shoot the ball at all five positions. We PRESSED them, and THEY TOOK THE SHOT WE WANTED THEM TO TAKE, issue is, they made them. Your five man, your four man SHOOTING THREES AGAINST THE PRESS, WE WANT THAT,.."

Quote:

---

......a tossed off comment......

---

If you had watched the press conference video, you would have seen that when Wyking Jones first got the microphone, he hesitated for a few seconds, thinking about what to say. When he finally spoke, it was the statement that I quoted, and he went into detail about his concept of what he was trying to do with his press. His statement was clearly thought out, not "tossed-off."

Quote:

---

.......that to me had more to do with who Jones wanted shooting and less to do with pressing.

---

Go back and read the words. Words mean things. It is YOU who are interpreting what he said, not me. He talked about giving an opponent open shots and talked about a press in the same sentence. If you are talking about pressing, the only shots you usually talk about are the shots YOU get from stealing the ball on the press, not shots you are gifting to the opponent. Prior to the season, Wyking Jones was promising Cal Admin and Cal fans that we would have more offense, by using a press to get shots off steals and turnovers. Now he is talking about gifting the opposing players some shots with our press.

Quote:

---

You seem to want to ignore basic concepts like forcing the least efficient shots as part of defense, not just in this post but in many others.

---

I am in full agreement with this concept for defense in half-court defense. If it is used as a strategy for a press, then, well, you've seen the results this season. How is that working out for you? From the beginning of time in basketball, I challenge you to show me a team that had a press designed to produce shots for the opponent, least efficient shots or otherwise. By the way, when did I ever ignore the concept of forcing least efficient shots as part of defense? Be my guest. Prove it, my friend.

Quote:

---

It's like you're stuck in high school with some guy in short shorts screaming at you to pack the paint or something. The game has changed.

---

This kind of personal attack is getting a little boring. But I am interested in who you think the guy in short shorts is. My coaches all wore long pants, sweat pants, or street clothes, and some wore coat, tie and hat. My teammates wore short pants, but we didn't scream at each other. We communicated. That the game has changed, I don't like some of the changes, but I agree that it has changed.

Quote:

---

I am not saying, by the way, that we accomplished much of anything for long with the press, but that your view of the press and of defense as you presented it was simplistic. We don't agree.

---

First you accuse me of over-interpreting, and then you accuse me of being simplistic. Which is it? Oftentimes simple is better, so I'll take simplsitic as a compliment. Mike Montgomery doing the color on the Cal-UCLA telecast, critically talking of all the problems Cal was having, said, "Basketball is, after all, a simple game."

bearister said:

---

What is also hilarious is that SFCB has exponentially more basketball knowledge than anyone who posts on BI. His only failing appears to be that he is not a smart a$$ (with no disrespect to my friendo KAB whose post I thought was extremely funny).

---

Bearister, thanks for your praise. I love you man, but please lighten up a little. I can think of a number of fans who know more ball than I do, and that is just in this forum. Outside this forum, there are probably hundreds or thousands of Cal fans who know way more than me or anyone else here. I thank KAB also for being so gracious in replying to me that he had just pulled my leg. There are some who would have torn me to pieces for taking KAB's very creative post seriously.

What I try to do here is when I see a statement that doesn't seem true, I research it out, and if turns out that the statement was not true, I will post about it. When I see Cal doing something that goes against all I was ever taught, I will post about that. And I will tell some stories about other basketball teams and players, including my little experience, to reinforce what I say.

By reading posts here, I have learned a great deal about basketball from the past to the present, and I have only other posters to thank for this new knowledge.

I disagree with a lot of posters here as well, and have gotten into heated discussions where it turns personal. I've learned over time not to take offense as often to electronic messages from nameless posters. And I thank them for teaching me some civility and better ways to debate than blow my top, which as a young athlete, usually detracted from my performance. Still there are those here on the BI bent on my destruction. For them, the Bear Insider even has a solution for that, the ignore list, and I myself am probably on more than a few of those lists.

I am thankful for the internet, because it increases my knowledge of basketball (and other things) exponentially, but like with all technology from the beginning of time, it has side effects. In my case, it is addiction to posting, and to posting long posts, and getting insulted by a few of those who read my posts. It goes with the territory of saying what I think. I am not always right, nor always wrong, like anyone else who posts here. When I'm wrong, I'll admit it, but if I think I am right, I'll stick to my guns.

Here's a complete flyer on this conversation. Maybe Jones was basically trying not to throw his players under the bus. Rather than say what he may be thinking, which is that he's trying to teach them a defensive scheme, but they're mostly unable to execute it so far, he chose to instead soft-pedal the failing.

I suggest this because in our discussions of Monty over the years, everyone admired his unfailing honesty, but some also noted that he's certainly not a players' coach, which may have affected the talent he was able to recruit. Perhaps Wyking doesn't want to burn bridges with his roster, as he tries to install his system.

Again, it's a complete flyer suggestion. I don't think he really was planning to give up uncontested 3s, but that's what happened.

let me try ... and I am in no way trying to defend WK ...

a press does have different goals as many have already said

I think our goals when we press full court are:

a. get turnovers and turn them into easy points in the open court
b. if we don't get turnovers, then to force teams to take lower percentage shots than they otherwise would get in their half court offense. This is done a number of different ways:
- force the offense out of what they WANT to run
- speed up players, because it often results in them making mistakes, or missing shots
- put players in situations that they are not good at, including certain players taking bad shot attempts (for them)
c. change up the game, including the mindset of our own players

Concerned parent?????I think we all could benefit from a reply--

I like Jeff's interpretation. Not that it excuses WJ's comments which were at best artless, and at worst clueless. I agree with HoopDreams that there are multiple purposes of the press (let's face it, no one runs a press that gets a turnover every possession or even most possessions--unless the offense is Cal's) with turnovers being #1, taking time off the clock #2, and forcing a low percentage shot #3. Having your opponent's big men taking 3's isn't a bad strategy; however having them take wide open 3's is. Especially when you know they can shoot it well. In this way, I think both SFCity and HoopDreams are basically correct, and I also agree that nothing would have been served by WJ saying, "we were pressing to get UCLA to speed up and take poor shots, but our guys kept missing their assignments and forgetting to guard the corners as if we'd never practiced before."

helltopay1 said:

---

Concerned parent?????I think we all could benefit from a reply--

---

It's a paraphrase direct from the player.

Oh dear-----

Lazy as an assistant or Lazy now? Assistants can be buried on the bench. Aka:Theo

HoopDreams said:

---

let me try ... and I am in no way trying to defend WK ...

a press does have different goals as many have already said

I think our goals when we press full court are:

a. get turnovers and turn them into easy points in the open court
b. if we don't get turnovers, then to force teams to take lower percentage shots than they otherwise would get in their half court offense. This is done a number of different ways:
- force the offense out of what they WANT to run
- speed up players, because it often results in them making mistakes, or missing shots
- put players in situations that they are not good at, including certain players taking bad shot attempts (for them)
c. change up the game, including the mindset of our own players

---

a. As to trying to get turnovers, how many have we gotten off this full court press, and how many have been turned into a basket? Have we even gotten one 10-second violation called all season? One of the objectives of the press has to be to get the opponent to worry about making it over that line in 10 seconds.

b. I think maybe I agree with all you are saying. Maybe I have been arguing about semantics. To me a press was originally called "pressure" or a "pressure defense" that can be played three ways: full court, three quarter court, or half court. When we trap with four of our players in the back court with one guy back to defend, then by the time the ball gets up the floor past the half court line, it results in a mismatch, sometimes 4 against 1 defender, and there is no more "pressure defense" taking place anywhere, as defenders are scrambling back to get in position somehow to play some defense. That is why I think that the press has broken down at that point, and what you hope you have is a transition from your full court defense to a half court defense of some sort. Transition defense, if you will. I don't see how after the press breaks down, that there are always enough defenders in the front court to be able to leave only one shooter, your preferred shooter, open.

UrsaMajor said:

---

I like Jeff's interpretation. Not that it excuses WJ's comments which were at best artless, and at worst clueless. I agree with HoopDreams that there are multiple purposes of the press (let's face it, no one runs a press that gets a turnover every possession or even most possessions--unless the offense is Cal's) with turnovers being #1, taking time off the clock #2, and forcing a low percentage shot #3. Having your opponent's big men taking 3's isn't a bad strategy; however having them take wide open 3's is. Especially when you know they can shoot it well. In this way, I think both SFCity and HoopDreams are basically correct, and I also agree that nothing would have been served by WJ saying, "we were pressing to get UCLA to speed up and take poor shots, but our guys kept missing their assignments and forgetting to guard the corners as if we'd never practiced before."

---

I have no problem with leaving bad shooters open. It can be a good strategy. If I have a Tyrone Wallace or Sam Singer on my team, I expect other teams to leave him open for threes. There are a couple of things with Wyking Jones characterization of Cal's strategy. First Cal gave most of the 3-point opportunities to UCLA's best shooters, 18 attempts in all for Ali, Hands, Welsh, and Holiday, all above 40% shooters, and Cal gave only 12 shots to UCLA's weakest shooters, Golomon, Olesinski, Wilkes, and Smith, who range from 17% to 38%. And giving threes to their bigs is not always a good strategy, because Jones had to know that Welsh was a good three point shooter. The good shooters made 9-18, and Cal did get burned by the weak shooters who went 8-12 from three.

Secondly, Cal gave up 107 POINTS, one of the worst defensive performances in school history, as we lost by 23 points. Even if UCLA's weak shooters had shot their normal percentage, and made four fewer threes, that is only 12 points difference. in their total. If all their shooters shot their usual percentage from three, that would only be six fewer threes or 18 points, and they still would have scored 89 points, which is still a very high total. I would submit we gave them far too many threes to shoot, seven more than they usually shoot, in fact.

Third, UCLA shot twos at a rate of 60%, 15-25, and they usually shoot twos at 53%. Combined with their assist totals, 22 for the game, indicates they were making a lot of open two-point shots as well. Because they shot such a good percentage for so many minutes, indicates they were getting a lot more open looks than normal for them.

Pete Newell said, "The basic requirement s of a press are well-conditioned players, good quickness, great hustle, and a sense of team unity. Another requirement is careful planning. Without any of these ingredients, a press can look like a sieve."

Right now, our press is a sieve. I don't see lack of hustle, and I think we have some quickness. The conditioning I wonder about, because we play only six players, basically, and against Washington, they looked tired in the 4th quarter. And I have real questions about the planning for the UCLA game. I think we gave them too many threes, and too many open looks from three, and too many open lanes to the basket.

SFCityBear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I like Jeff's interpretation. Not that it excuses WJ's comments which were at best artless, and at worst clueless. I agree with HoopDreams that there are multiple purposes of the press (let's face it, no one runs a press that gets a turnover every possession or even most possessions--unless the offense is Cal's) with turnovers being #1, taking time off the clock #2, and forcing a low percentage shot #3. Having your opponent's big men taking 3's isn't a bad strategy; however having them take wide open 3's is. Especially when you know they can shoot it well. In this way, I think both SFCity and HoopDreams are basically correct, and I also agree that nothing would have been served by WJ saying, "we were pressing to get UCLA to speed up and take poor shots, but our guys kept missing their assignments and forgetting to guard the corners as if we'd never practiced before."

---

I have no problem with leaving bad shooters open. It can be a good strategy. If I have a Tyrone Wallace or Sam Singer on my team, I expect other teams to leave him open for threes. There are a couple of things with Wyking Jones characterization of Cal's strategy. First Cal gave most of the 3-point opportunities to UCLA's best shooters, 18 attempts in all for Ali, Hands, Welsh, and Holiday, all above 40% shooters, and Cal gave only 12 shots to UCLA's weakest shooters, Golomon, Olesinski, Wilkes, and Smith, who range from 17% to 38%. And giving threes to their bigs is not always a good strategy, because Jones had to know that Welsh was a good three point shooter. The good shooters made 9-18, and Cal did get burned by the weak shooters who went 8-12 from three.

Secondly, Cal gave up 107 POINTS, one of the worst defensive performances in school history, as we lost by 23 points. Even if UCLA's weak shooters had shot their normal percentage, and made four fewer threes, that is only 12 points difference. in their total. If all their shooters shot their usual percentage from three, that would only be six fewer threes or 18 points, and they still would have scored 89 points, which is still a very high total. I would submit we gave them far too many threes to shoot, seven more than they usually shoot, in fact.

Third, UCLA shot twos at a rate of 60%, 15-25, and they usually shoot twos at 53%. Combined with their assist totals, 22 for the game, indicates they were making a lot of open two-point shots as well. Because they shot such a good percentage for so many minutes, indicates they were getting a lot more open looks than normal for them.

Pete Newell said, "The basic requirement s of a press are well-conditioned players, good quickness, great hustle, and a sense of team unity. Another requirement is careful planning. Without any of these ingredients, a press can look like a sieve."

Right now, our press is a sieve. I don't see lack of hustle, and I think we have some quickness. The conditioning I wonder about, because we play only six players, basically, and against Washington, they looked tired in the 4th quarter. And I have real questions about the planning for the UCLA game. I think we gave them too many threes, and too many open looks from three, and too many open lanes to the basket.

---

Agree with all of this. Our defense was somewhere between awful and putrid in the press, the half court and every other configuration. I don't believe WJ deserves slack for the performance or preparation. I am willing, however, to cut him some for his post-game comments. He could have thrown the players under the bus and didn't