Hoops

Aus Dev Camp and FIBA Youth Team

My understanding is that the scholarship is reveiwable at any point in time so if you are not performing it can be terminated pretty quickly.

Not suggesting that is what has happened with Tippett and Payne - from what I hear it was simply a matter of being time to move on - the AIS isn't for everyone, all the time and I think both girls decided that it was time to move on to the next phase.

Timing wasn't perfect and I think that'll make the job even tougher for those remaining as far as the WNBL goes but that's not the priority of the program anymore from what I hear.

They are trying to produce elite Opals/WNBL players (as opposed to grooming a team for the next Junior World Championships which seemed to be the focus of the previous administration) so they are taking a much more flexible approach to their recruitment and duration of stay.

#306 - OK - I'll bite.

To clarify - the thread is about the Aus Dev Camp. These camps are designed to identify and nurture players with the potential to play international basketball for Australia. That is not the focus for the SIS/SAS network although naturally there will be some overlap. My arbitrary height criteria are based on Senior International play - so yes, if you're a 5'7 girl who shoots the lights out there's a good chance you're not going to be seeing a World Champs anytime soon. Sorry.

That doesn't mean that you have no future in the game, that any money spent on your development is wasted, or that you are a bad person! It simply means it is unlikely you have a senior international future. It probably means that the SIS/SAS network is the perfect place for you - the National program isn't the only game in town but it is the topic of this thread.

It may be that one day you'll be 5'11. It may be that you are Millie Bogues (Mugsy's daughter) and will prove everybody wrong, but chances aren't great.

The problem is not that we don't have a lot of 5'11 shooting guards in the girls though we certainly have quite a few. The problem is that we don't have many shooting guards (defined as players who hit perimeter shots regularly under pressure) fullstop.

You may notice that I too have mentioned the need to have players who are excellent competitors and learners, so we are not too far apart on that one. You though, don't seem to want to accept that height can be an advantage in basketball. I also wouldn't encourage open-heart surgery as a TID function. I think there are less invasive options.

I think you'll find that elsewhere I've stated my opinion that we were not beaten at the Women's by our lack of our height (or our surplus of height for that matter) but by our lack of athleticsim on the perimeter. We simply couldn't contain penetration and as we did at the 17's gave up too many uncontested 3's. Penetration - help - pitch to the shooter - poor rotation - score! Stop the penetration, stop the score.

The 19's took only two players over 6'1 to NZ so if they have height and little else lord help them. By the way, the two talls absent from that team due to injury were regarded as two of the studs of the 17's teams (from aroudn the world).

You seem to have missed out on a team to a taller player at some point and so have an axe to grind with tall players. That's a shame.

Was it you that threw in the 'picking height over talent' to get this whole diversion started?

To re-visit my original point (I think!). The women's game is changing enormously (the men's game has already undergone those changes). Players are becoming taller and more athletic. Diana Taurasi/Penny Taylor are somewhat of an international benchmark for the 2 spot - an athletic 6'1/6'2 with shooting range. Sue Bird is the point guard prototype - athletic 5'10 with handles and poise.

My point is that in grooming our future generations of international players we will not keep pace if we simply produce more of what worked last year. The old 6'2 inside outside threat with a good jump shot is now a 6'5 Lauren Jackson. Hollie Grima, who once would have been the dominant big internationally (at 6'3) is now a perimeter shooter who is unable to guard a Penny Taylor if she slides into the 3 and is undersized and underathletic to guard a Jackson or Fowles inside.

Our National team selections need to reflect the future demands of the game, not who were great at U16's.

#279 - absolutely. No secret there but nor does it diminish the quality of my argument that height is a talent.

If you re-read my posts you'll see I also acknowledged there are other talents (shock!horror!).

However, if we are to be realistic, it is what you might call a pre-requisite talent for this game. 5'9 might make you a dominant player in the National U14 Tournament (which should be abandoned IMO - but that's another story) but if if you're going to top out at 5'10 then you better have some pretty good complementary talents.

You might say that the more of one talent you have, the less of the others you require! An outstanding shooter - less athletic ability required (Andrew Gaze). A tough as nails, super-quick defender - less shooting ability required (Tully B). 7'1 and 140kg - no mid-range game or free throw shooting required (Shaq).

While there are obviously exceptions, if you are not 5'11/6' - then you are going to struggle to play the 2 spot for girls at the highest level (6'4/6'5 for guys).

Its not rocket science - find kids with the necessary pre-requisite talents - and I would limit that to attitude/competitiveness (without which you wont go far) and body (reasonably tall/athletic) and then develop all the other complementary skills (sorry there should be a thrid pre-requisite talent - the ability to learn new skills).

You are bound to still get some duds but I think we can get better at identifying those pre-requisite talents (particularly the attitudinal ones!).

#221 - height is still a talent, regardless of gender!

Anon - height is a talent! And a fairly precious one in international basketball at least until they lower the rings for girls!

But so is speed, athleticism, intelligence, conscience-free shooting and a range of other attributes.

I'm all for picking kids with Boomers/Opals-standard talent. Junior basketball is full of kids with what I call 'terminal talent' - they can dominate at this level but don't have the right mix of skills and talent to make it to all of the levels above and there will be a logical outcry when those kids who are performing now aren't selected because the kids with Boomers/Opals talent are.

I agree with right on - we do a poor job of nurturing talls - the terminal talents get all the love because they get all the wins and score all the points (because they get their hands on the ball first!).

I was in a town once where the two tall girls in the age group (one is now 6'3, the other 6') were forced to choose (by netball) between netball and basketball at age 11!! Fortunately they chose basketball - but I was in a building yesterday where the Australian U21 Netball Champs were being played and those girls are genuinely long, pretty much across the board. Netball requires a much more limited skill set for a big player and so is more easily mastered.

We tend to expect our bigs to be very good very early and if they are not, assign them to the 'gumby' basket and say things like - 'don't ever dribble' - imagine if somebody had said that to Erin Phillips before she was completely grown or under control.

Yeah - probably talking more about teams than camps.

Still NSWC 3rd in 16's - no players at camp?

Qld Sth 18's - 2nd by a point - 1 player in team; SAC 7th - 3 players in team.

Let me be clear - I am less concerned about the actual selections than I am about the perception that performances at Nationals are irrelevant in the selection process.

Everybody knows the AIS coaches and National coaches/selectors are highly visible at these tournaments (the AIS hold information evenings) - even moreso to the kids with aspirations. Yet their own performances and those of their teams seem to count for little.

Unless you are Victorian, you could almost argue you are better off being the 'star' of an ordinary team than a role player on a successful team - after all, who needs role players, we all want a team of 10 stars right?

Help! BA seem to have a plan - its just a shame its not communicated to the players. A memo indicating performances at Nationals will NOT be considered as part of the selection process would be a good start. Qld Sth - 2 silvers - 2 National team members (Tippett, Mangakahia).

It seems like Talbot, Donnelly and Mijovic haven't been considered for this tour because they:
a) have been on overseas tours this year(17's World's for Talbot and Mijovic/Youth Olympics for Donnelly); and b) because in all likelihood they will figure in selections for the 2011 Gems.

Valid reasons for sure and good for the game - spreading the opportunities and base.

I suspect however, the players weren't told - just left out! Hopefully they are resilient enough to understand their position in the pecking order.

This group is a pre-cursor to the 2013 Gems.