In Reply to: Re: agree, it's unseemly posted by barrya on January 08, 2025 at 10:39:45
I really don’t want to get stuck in vernacular. Your definition’s seem to be determined by the outcome. Things went well — aggressive works. Things went wrong — soft.
You have watched a lot more of UCLA than I have. I’ve only seen the big games (and the first half of the Nebraska game). I don’t watch ucla play pissant u. My takeaway is that UCLA plays hard. We are NOT a soft team. I think icla is very far from a soft team. I think we are small in the front court and Mara is just not very strong. He’s not “soft” he’s just not strong yet. I think Cronin ALWAYS sends out a focused and tough team. Unfortunately, IMO his teams are very unskilled and have poor IQ. He couples that bad combo with no offense plan (or at best a very limited offensive plan). He just feels his D focus can carry the day 60-58 every game. As a person looking for entertainment I HATE THIS METHODOLOGY.
When Cronin used the term “soft”, I must sssume he is talking mentally. This team is not physically soft. Undersized sure, NOT physically soft.
If a coach lives by the Cronin methodology, you better win because aesthetically you aren’t gonna please the fanbase. If you lose you’re gonna be shown the door soon thereafter.