Arizona’s three-game trip through Lithuania provided an early look at a roster that is talented, young in several important areas and still working through the process of developing continuity.

There should not be any definitive conclusions drawn from three August exhibition games.

There are, however, observations worth carrying forward.

From a Unit 1 Hoop Source evaluation standpoint, Arizona improved from one game to the next. The Wildcats became more disciplined defensively, competed better physically, rebounded with more consistency and showed improved offensive organization as the tour progressed.

They also leave Lithuania with two areas that remain worth monitoring: perimeter shooting and point-guard play.

Those are not weaknesses we are prepared to label in August. They are questions that will require more evidence once the roster is complete and the regular season begins.

What became much clearer during this trip is that Arizona has enough talent, size and defensive potential to become a very good basketball team.

The Wildcats finished the tour 2-1, losing 99-88 to Lithuania’s B team before defeating Ukraine’s senior national team 107-85 and closing the trip with an 88-74 victory over a blended group of Lithuania A- and B-team players. Arizona entered the trip with 10 newcomers and only six returners from last season’s Final Four roster, making these games an early laboratory for a significantly reconstructed team.

The First Game Exposed What Arizona Needed to Work On

Arizona’s opening loss to Lithuania’s B team may ultimately have been the most valuable game of the trip.

Lithuania immediately forced Arizona to deal with physicality, experience, rebounding and offensive execution.

The Wildcats were outrebounded 49-31. Lithuania collected 18 offensive rebounds, shot 49.2 percent from the field and made 11 of 22 attempts from three. Arizona, meanwhile, went just 3-for-18 from behind the arc after missing all seven of its first-half three-point attempts.

Those numbers matched what was visible between the lines.

Arizona looked like a team still becoming familiar with itself.

Spacing was not always clean. Defensive possessions were not consistently connected. Lithuania was more comfortable playing through contact, extending possessions and moving into its next action when Arizona disrupted the initial one.

That should not have been surprising.

Many of the players Arizona faced had already spent considerable time playing professional basketball in Lithuania’s first and second divisions. Motiejus Krivas acknowledged afterward that the experience of the Lithuanian players was something Arizona had to adjust to.

This is an important part of understanding European player development.

A young Lithuanian player can spend his developmental years inside a club structure while practicing and competing against older players. The game becomes physical earlier. Decision-making has consequences earlier. Players learn how to function within structure rather than depending exclusively on athletic advantages.

Arizona received that lesson immediately.

The positive development was what happened next.

Arizona Improved Every Game

The strongest observation from the tour was not the 2-1 record.

It was Arizona’s progression.

Less than 24 hours after struggling against Lithuania, Arizona responded with a 107-85 win against Ukraine’s senior national team.

The offensive execution changed significantly.

Arizona shot 53 percent from the field and went 8-for-15 from three. Ivan Kharchenkov scored 24 points, Ugnius Jaruševičius had 20, Derek Dixon added 18 and Caleb Holt produced 15 points and 14 rebounds. Krivas scored 16 in limited minutes.

That performance did not erase the first game.

It showed that Arizona could adjust.

The Wildcats were more decisive offensively. They played with better pace, attacked openings with purpose and generated better opportunities instead of allowing possessions to become stagnant.

Then came the finale.

Arizona defeated a Lithuania roster made up mostly of senior national-team personnel along with several B-team players, 88-74. The significance was not simply that Arizona won. It was how differently the Wildcats competed compared with three days earlier.

Arizona shot 48.5 percent, outrebounded Lithuania 39-31 and generated 20 second-chance points from 11 offensive rebounds.

Defensively, Lithuania was held to 39.6 percent shooting.

That represents considerable improvement from a first game in which Arizona was beaten 49-31 on the glass and allowed Lithuania to shoot nearly 50 percent.

That is the part of this trip that should encourage Arizona supporters.

The Wildcats were exposed in several areas and responded.

Perimeter Shooting Still Deserves Attention

Arizona’s perimeter shooting is still one of the areas I will monitor.

The first performance was poor: 3-for-18.

Against Ukraine, Arizona responded by making 8 of 15.

In the final game, the Wildcats went 8-for-20, good for 40 percent.

That is significant improvement.

It is also too early to conclude that the question has been answered.

Every team can have an unusually good or unusually poor shooting game. What matters over time is identifying dependable shooting that translates when defensive pressure increases and opponents begin scouting personnel tendencies.

Arizona has players capable of making perimeter shots.

The larger question is where the consistent volume and reliability will come from.

When Arizona eventually faces high-level Big 12 defenses capable of shrinking driving lanes and crowding Krivas around the paint, perimeter shooting becomes increasingly important.

If defenses can consistently help into the lane without being punished from outside, Arizona’s interior advantages become easier to defend.

The Lithuania trip gave us reasons for optimism, but not enough evidence yet to close that evaluation.

Point Guard Play Remains the Other Question

Arizona also leaves Europe without giving us a complete look at its point-guard situation.

JJ Mandaquit did not play during the tour while continuing to recover from a foot injury suffered at Washington.

That absence matters.

It would be unfair to evaluate Arizona’s complete point-guard situation without seeing a player expected to be part of the rotation.

What we did see was encouraging development from Derek Dixon.

Dixon had 10 points, four assists and no turnovers in the opening game against Lithuania. He followed with 18 points and four assists against Ukraine before producing 13 points and six assists in the finale.

There is playmaking available.

Caleb Holt also demonstrated that he can facilitate within the flow of the offense. He finished the final game with seven points, eight rebounds and four assists after recording a 15-point, 14-rebound double-double against Ukraine.

Arizona may ultimately operate with multiple creators rather than one traditional point guard dominating the basketball.

That can work.

Still, there will be games when Arizona needs someone who can settle the offense, recognize what the defense is taking away, organize the next action and consistently put teammates in the proper positions late in possessions.

That part of the backcourt evaluation remains incomplete.

Mandaquit’s return should tell us considerably more.

Arizona Has One of College Basketball’s Better Interior Anchors

There is much less uncertainty at center.

Motiejus Krivas gives Arizona one of the better returning interior players in college basketball.

The 7-foot-2 Lithuanian is coming off a season in which he averaged 10.4 points, 8.2 rebounds and 1.9 blocks while earning First Team All-Big 12 and Big 12 All-Defensive honors. He blocked 73 shots during Arizona’s Final Four season.

The statistics do not completely explain his value.

Krivas changes shot selection.

He gives Arizona a legitimate interior target, can establish position around the basket and provides a defensive presence behind Arizona’s perimeter defenders.

He was used carefully throughout the Lithuania trip because Arizona is managing his recovery from a foot issue.

Even with limited minutes, his impact became increasingly visible.

Krivas had 16 points against Ukraine before closing the trip with 15 points, nine rebounds and four blocks in only 22 minutes against the Lithuanian A/B group.

Arizona does not need to discover who its center is.

It already knows.

Keeping Krivas healthy may be considerably more important than anything Arizona could have learned statistically during three August games.

Ivan Kharchenkov Showed a Different Level of Offensive Potential

The player who changed the conversation the most was Ivan Kharchenkov.

Arizona already knew what he could provide defensively.

As a freshman last season, Kharchenkov started all 39 games, averaged 10.4 points and recorded 53 steals. Arizona has described him as one of the better perimeter defenders in the country, and his combination of size, activity and basketball intelligence already gave him significant value.

The Lithuania tour showed something more.

Kharchenkov scored:

25 points against Lithuania B.

24 points against Ukraine.

30 points against the Lithuania A/B group.

He averaged 26.3 points over Arizona’s three exhibitions.

That is the strongest individual takeaway from this trip.

Arizona lost a substantial amount of talent and production from last season. Someone has to grow into a larger offensive responsibility.

Kharchenkov showed that he may be prepared for that challenge.

He did not produce against one style of competition or during one hot shooting night. He consistently found ways to score over three games against older and physically mature opponents.

The next step will be seeing how that production translates once scouting becomes more specific and opponents begin game-planning to take away his preferred areas.

But the flash was real.

Arizona may have returned more offensive production at the wing than initially appeared.

Caleb Holt Can Affect Games Without Dominating the Ball

Holt also gave Arizona important information.

The highly regarded freshman did not shoot the ball particularly well early in the tour, including a difficult first half against Lithuania.

But he continued competing.

That matters.

He finished the opener with 13 points after starting slowly, then responded with 15 points and 14 rebounds against Ukraine. In the final game, his scoring dropped to seven points, but he added eight rebounds, four assists and continued impacting possessions without requiring high-volume touches.

For a freshman, that is important.

Young players often struggle when their scoring disappears.

Holt demonstrated early signs that he can influence games through rebounding, physicality, passing and defensive activity.

His role will continue developing, but his versatility should give Tommy Lloyd options.

Jaruševičius Gave Arizona Another Interior Option

Ugnius Jaruševičius should not be overlooked.

He became increasingly productive as the tour progressed.

Jaruševičius scored 20 points against Ukraine and followed with 14 points and eight rebounds in the finale in his hometown of Alytus. He also went 8-for-9 from the free-throw line in the final game.

His physicality translated.

That gives Arizona another piece capable of helping behind Krivas and allowing Lloyd to use different frontcourt combinations.

Over a long college basketball season, frontcourt depth matters.

Krivas does not need to play excessive minutes in November and December if Arizona can develop reliable interior support around him.

Jaruševičius showed enough during this tour to make that position battle worth following.

Defense May Become Arizona’s Foundation

Arizona’s defensive improvement may eventually become the most important takeaway from Lithuania.

Kharchenkov has already established himself as an impact perimeter defender.

Krivas provides legitimate rim protection.

Holt gives Arizona size and physical tools on the perimeter.

And by the third game, the Wildcats were beginning to look considerably more connected defensively.

Holding Lithuania to 39.6 percent shooting in the finale after the B team shot 49.2 percent in the opener represents more than statistical variation. Arizona defended with better positioning, competed better on the glass and handled physical actions with greater discipline.

There will be breakdowns with a roster incorporating this many new pieces.

The question is whether those breakdowns decrease over time.

During this trip, they did.

That gives Arizona something substantial to build from.

The Lithuania Tour Put Arizona in Proper Perspective

Arizona should not be evaluated based on whether it went undefeated during an international exhibition tour.

That misses the purpose of the trip.

This roster needed competitive possessions.

It needed adversity.

It needed to play against opponents whose experience, physicality and professional development would expose mistakes instead of allowing Arizona to simply overpower them athletically.

Lithuania provided that.

Arizona was beaten in the opener.

It responded against Ukraine.

Then it returned against a stronger blend of Lithuanian personnel and won by 14 while showing substantial improvement defensively and on the glass.

That progression matters more than 2-1.

From a Unit 1 Hoop Source standpoint, Arizona leaves Lithuania looking like a quality basketball team with a high ceiling, an established interior anchor, an emerging scoring wing and several young players capable of impacting games in different areas.

There are also legitimate questions.

Can Arizona become a consistent perimeter shooting team?

How will the point-guard position look once Mandaquit returns?

Can Dixon continue developing as an organizer while maintaining his scoring?

How quickly can the younger players handle the physicality and decision-making required when conference play arrives?

Those are questions for the season, not conclusions for August.

The most encouraging part is that Arizona showed the ability to correct problems quickly.

The Wildcats did not look like the same basketball team in Game 3 that they looked like in Game 1.

For a roster this early in its development, that may have been the most important result of the entire trip.

Final Take

Arizona has enough talent to compete at a high level.

Krivas gives the Wildcats stability in the middle. Kharchenkov showed that his offensive role could expand considerably. Holt demonstrated versatility beyond scoring. Dixon provided encouraging signs as both a scorer and facilitator. Jaruševičius strengthened the frontcourt rotation.

The two areas Unit 1 Hoop Source will continue monitoring are perimeter shooting and point-guard organization.

Neither should be labeled a weakness at this point.

Both need more evidence.

What can be said after three games is that Arizona competed, adjusted and improved.

That is exactly what an August international tour should provide.

At Unit 1 Hoop Source, we don’t chase noise — we study film, define roles, and project truth

Editorial Disclaimer

This evaluation reflects independent observations by Unit 1 Hoop Source based on games viewed during Arizona’s 2026 Lithuania exhibition tour. Statistics and roster information were cross-checked through available team and media reporting. Evaluations represent basketball analysis and projection, not statements from the University of Arizona or participating national teams.

Copyright

© 2026 Unit 1 Hoop Source LLC. All rights reserved. Original independent basketball journalism and evaluation. Unauthorized reproduction or republication is prohibited.