Barford said we came out sluggish

and didn’t give enough fight! how can this happen to a Sr.team who ha been through this many many times! what did he excpect auburn to come and and do in front of a packed house! just totally inexcuseable for an experienced team to ever come out flat on the road especially a team that is as good as Auburn.but I knew they would and expected us to get what we got because we have started slow at home a few times. This should be a wake up call and I’m sure it will but to say we were sluggish is Lame!!

That is playerspeak or coachspeak. They all say that when team digs a hole in the beginning. And it is true for every college and pro team. I am sure you have seen it before. I ignore it.

He wasn’t player speaking,he was a zombie the whole half but came out much more aggressive in the 2nd half…why didn’t he and the team start the game that way is my point.this team has started slow several times this yr and with our experince it should not happen,now if we had several freshman starting yes but not this group,it is something that will have to change or we are going to be in trouble.

I think they lack quality depth! That leads to playing time being extended for the 3 senior guards. Being tired takes your guts!
Maybe they will figure it out to build a lead and go sit on the bench and rest while others play. It’s hard to do when you go down double digits in the first few minutes of a game. This team lacks the killer instinct of the 94 team they have been compared too. And by the way they aren’t as good as that team and sure aren’t as tuff.

The “lack of energy,” “lack of focus,” “sluggish” thing is repeated by many players (and even some coaches) on losing teams, game after game after game. Sometimes I think it is just regurgitation of something they have heard before that seems right to say in the moment. Sometimes I think it is accurate. I think Barford’s summary was pretty accurate for Saturday’s game. It happens. Doesn’t mean the players don’t care. I think it happens much more on the road than at home. The home crowd giving energy is part of the home/road dichotomy that is so prevalent in college basketball.

If I have an unsolicited critique, it would be that I hear CMA say often that we have to “play with energy.” He may very well be correct (probably is) … but I do wish that we had a plan B for when the energy is not there because it isn’t always going to be … at least IMO. And maybe we do have a plan B. I just hear the “energy” word a lot, and it seems like a “must” with us sometimes.

On the loss diagnosis i always hate to hear such general statements by players and coaches. The lady commenter did reflect my sentiment when she said she really liked the opposing coach because he was a tachtition and instead of just saying they did not play with enough energy the coach would tell the player that the player they were defending would beat them down the floor. The description seemed like a specific criticism they could use to turn it into a specific action instead of just saying to play with more energy. Coach A is great and I am sure he gives the specific feedback that a player can use. It is just frustrating to only hear the general non specific reasons why they lost and not feeling good that the next game will be better because they are going to do x.

Coach Anderson also said there was not enough ball movement and people were standing around, the specific results of “being flat” or not playing with energy. The cliches will always be there in certain soundbites, but in more in-depth interviews more detail usually comes out.