@KUSTEVE
Hell yes, Self is going to match-up with whatever is thrown at him; that's what this team offers him the chance to do.
But match-up has two meanings.
The one that first comes to mind to most fans is matching up as much as possible proportionally.
If they go big at a position, we go as big, or bigger.
If they go small at a position, we go as small, or smaller.
But there is a second meaning of match-up. Maybe meaning is not even the correct term. Maybe it is "approach" to matching up.
The second approach is: turn whatever they do against them. It usually involves going inversely proportional to what the opponent does.
If the opponent goes big at a position, you go small to create and thus exploit a quickness advantage.
If the opponent goes small at a position to try to create a quickness advantage, if you have a bigger guy, you substitute him, tell him to sag off, and then use his greater height to counteract the quickness advantage created and exploit the shortness inside.
Whether you counter in proportion, or in inverse proportion, depends on who you see when you look down your bench.
Substitution tactics can get complicated. You might go proportionally at one position because you have that guy on the bench. At another position, you might opt to substitute with inverse proportionality, because of who you have on the bench.
And substituting in either of those tactical ways has also to square with the larger strategy of how the team can be expected to perform as a unit with those resulting tactical substitutions.
One of Self's greatest gifts appears to me to be his ability to square his tactical substitutions with team strategy in real time about as well as any coach around. Whenever you see him substitute, I often see a situation where he might do better subbing another guy on the bench in terms of 1 on 1 match up considerations. But then when I stop and think about the effect on the entire team in the given circumstance, I usually decide Self made the best choice for a sub. And, of course, he is doing it in real time down on the court and I am getting a minute or two after the fact to reflect and analyze that he does not get. He has to be thinking ahead of the action, not after the action. And so I have great respect for him making the right decision ahead of time.
This particular team has a ton of flaws IMHO. I really don't think anyone but Self would have a prayer of turning it into much of a team this season. But but the diversity of the chess pieces is one strength of this team. And Self is the ideal kind of coach to be able to use that diversity of abilities to cobble some kind of a surprisingly good team together. If Scott Drew had this KU team, I would guess it would finish around .500. But Self is a master of fitting pieces together in grand strategy for a season, in strategy for a game, and in tactical moves that serve the game strategy well, so he may make a very good team eventually.
No coach is good at everything. Self is apparently not,say, as swift as Larry Brown, at improvising plays for given situations in the moment. But Self has seemed to get better at that sort of thing over the years.
But at "defining who we are" up front, i.e., the grand strategy, and at moving the team game to game toward the grand strategy via strategy, i.e., keeping the rotation in individual games in continual bias toward that grand strategy, and in finding tactical responses to individual situations that put the unique talents of particular players into service of the game strategy and season grand strategy, he is pretty tough to beat.