Hoops

National junior success not translating to seniors

I agree with the "ethnics" taking over post.
I was apalled when I saw a kid try to header the ball into the ring, then take a dive trying to get a foul shot and have the opposition player red-carded.
Where are we heading - he missed the shot!

Well Isaac, in your search for another ethnic group that has a big influence on Australian basketball, did you consider the Americans.

Whether as players or coaches, they have certainly made their mark in the past and continue to do so at the present.

Just consider what the ethnic American Coach of the Aussie Boomers achieved in the past week alone!!

Isaac - did you forget Boti Nagy, the controller of the Hungarian ethnic Basketball media?

#525 - I agree with you first sentence and am bewildered by your second.

We do seem to select kids to the AIS based on their ability to contribute to the Gems/Crocs program as oppposed to their long-term viability as an Opal/Boomer.

While that's inevitably part of the process when making these decisions at 15/16 (I still think we should be smart enough to say - mmm - not genuinely big, not exceptionally quick, very mature skill set (not a lot of upside in that area which is the easiest of those three things to teach) - probably a terminal talent, ie, expires at U20 level.

I still think it is imperative that BA build a better net and support system for the currently 'marginalised players' (development camp and state team quality who will be late bloomers for a variety of reasons).

This should be the bread-and-butter of the Underpinning League.

The reason why Australia does so well at the junior level is because they are all (or mostly all of them) able to train together everyday thanks to the AIS.

No other country has something like the AIS at the Under 19 level

IMO, the AIS is a huge advantage. If every other under 19 team had an AIS-type structure where their players were able to train together everyday, I dont think we'd be as successful at the Under 19 level.

I've read som interesting theories of late. I'm more involved the women's side of the game but I suspect many of the same theories hold.

We're not getting the best athletes in the country - they go mainly to AFL in this country (at least our body-type athletes). An average AFL player can make a very good living with terrific upside if they 'make' it. An average level basketballer probably has to get a real job, at least for a while, and the upside isn't that great unless they're NBA/Euro dollar good and there's a fair bit of competition for those gigs!

Consequent to that hypothesis - we can't guard anybody one-on-one. Because we're not the best athletes and because at home (and no, we don't get enough international competition) we don't have to guard the best athletes. Who in the current Boomers can guard their best counterpart internationally? Makes it hard to win consistently.

We have done so well in juniors because we have been ahead of the curve in development terms - our AIS has led the way and so we have had basically a two-year preparation cycle for our core groups prior to World's. The rest of the world is catching up and imitating some of the stuff we have been doing. Particularly in Europe but even the yanks ahve realised they don't develop talent well (but they have some pretty good athletes and a weight of numbers). The advent of the 17's will test this preparation theory and so far it holds.

Also, the game changes significantly between juniors and seniors. Its like coaching U12's - teach 'em a press and how to make lay-ups and you're made (you wont win at U18's with that game but you'll win for now). At juniors you can hide a lot of deficiencies with systems and structure but when you go to a level where they can identify and, more importantly exploit, those weaknesses, you get found out.

18 year-olds aren't smart enough to play Patty Mills for the pass when he penetrates - how many times did he get to the rack and throw it away or miss the finish this week?

We also dont seem to have an identity - somebody else mentioned somewhere we tried to out-Euro the Euro's. At juniors we have to play more truly to our character - run and gun, press, dont get caught in a half-court game. At Senior level we seem a little conflicted. I always think you lose when you are the one trying to match-up. We take a team away with four point guards but we dont use them because we are too busy trying to match-up - why not go with all four and the most mobile big and see how they go? Present some match-up problems I suspect.

We cant win the match-up game so we have to challenge their match-ups.

We also have a dis-connect between our junior development programs (the AIS - remember there's still a fairly high attrition rate even with those kids between seniors and juniors) and our senior program. We take 15 kids and smother them with love at the AIS while the others can basically please themselves. Even until this year BA have frowned upon the college route which means they 'lose' those kids for four years before trying to reclaim them. So end up relying on Europe but they tend to take only AIS-caibre kids - so where is the depth coming from?

Many many reasons - not so many answers :)

Sabres women won 108-55. Nixon had 30 and 11, plus 6 steals, while HBowley scored 19, McPhail 15, SChapple 13 and Marino 11 plus 7 assists.

Centrals had Conn (19) and Bayly (12) in double figures.

Sturt men won 115-82. Austin Smylie said farewell (I think he leaves in a few days) with 34 points (11-18 FG, 2-3 3P and 10/10 FT) and 9 rebounds in less than 30 minutes. Darren Ng had 21, Palmer and Shepherd had 13 each and 6 and 7 assists respectively, while Dodman returned to the team with 12 points and 7 boards in 18 minutes. Sturt were missing Forman who departed for New Zealand during the week.

Sturt were good from the stripe with 27/29.

Clayton led the Lions with 22/8/5, while Clausen had 16, Graves 14 and Atkins 12 and 6 assists. Centrals again missed Vandenbergh, Wilkey and Watson - three of their starters.