From: larry@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college
Subject: Re: UCLA/Stanford and a little whining about Cal
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:12:33 GMT
Reply-To: larry@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Organization: Department of Chemistry, UCLA

In article <57708@olivea.atc.olivetti.com>, rsmith@strobe.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Russ Smith) writes:

> This game was quite similar to the Cal/Stanford
>game which bothered me so much. the better team won, but on paper, Stanford
>is 20-25 points worse than both Cal and UCLA, yet both games were fairly
>close because Stanford is well coached and their opponents played like
>they aren't coached. 
>

What was that?  You said Stanford well-coached?  Come on, don't
rub it in now that we're down.  I can't count the number of
times over the years I've cursed Montgomery since he came to
Stanford.  Stanford may have two trips to the NCAA since his
arrival, but IMHO they should have been there twice more.  I have
certainly seen teams with less talent than the Stanford squads in 1987
and 1991 make the NCAA with at-large bids.  And I don't even want
to think about that fiasco against Siena in the tournament.  
  Since there is this thread hanging around about coaches, I'll put
in my two cents on Montgomery.  He's a fairly good coach for defense.
The '88 team which self-destructed against Siena in the first round
made excellent use of the 1-1-3 zone (possibly introduced by Boyd
Grant at Colo. St?) and in general the Cardinal has played fine
defense over the years, possibly accounting for the above opinion
that Stanford is a well-coached team.  However, offensively ol Mike
leaves a lot to be desired.  His patented offense (actually, no need
to patent as no one would dream of adopting it) often lacks motion
on the part of players.  This was especially true during the Lichti
years, but has improved of late.  He also has a terrible time making
adjustment during the game.  This usually shows up big against 
truly well-coached teams like Oregon State, where a quick change of
defense could befuddle the Cardinal for 4 to 5 trips down the court.
  The players I have talked to have said that Montgomery is actually
quite innovative with the offense in the practice gym, but that
he is reluctant to implement these new ideas in game situations.
  Lastly, Montgomery seems to have no idea about tempo.  The Stanford
teams in the past have tended to run up and down the court at whatever
speed made the other team happy.  One of the reasons they were able
to handle Arizona in '87 and '88 at home was due to the fact that
Arizona was equally bad at choosing tempo, so the Cardinal were not
placed at their usual disadvantage.
  Overall, I don't think Montgomery is a bad coach, but a lot of
people seem to think he is quite good which I just can't see.  I am
always extra puzzled when his name is brought up in connection with
a more prestigous coaching job.  (I think some wag suggested Maryland
was looking at him before they snatched Gary Williams from Ohio
State)  
  Then again, maybe the team of rookies he has this year is
forcing him to learn.  Or maybe Bill Walsh is secretly calling
the plays for basketball too.

  -Lec Luthor
   Criminal Genius and Cardinal Fan Extraordinaire
   Official Member of the Moses Scurry Rebounding Club
   lec@monty.chem.ucla.edu
  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.college