Hoops

Australian U17 Women's Squad Named

Wam - my beef isn't with the coaching group. Its with the Head Coach who has been appointed over the top of two guys who both continue to work with State teams, one of whom has been (and as of recently, is again) a Head Coach in the WNBL, the other who, as recently as last year, won the National U20's with a non-Victorian group.

The feedback given to one of the unsuccessful applicants by BA was that the successful coach 'has won a Nationals' - well so have most people who have coached Vic Metro/Vic in the last 15 years. My point is that I'm not sure winning with a Vic team is sufficient evidence that you are a good coach.

MELHOOPS - while your logic is sound, and its and argument I've used in BA's defence before, given the lack of merit in the coaching appointments themselves, and some of the decisions I've seen made with other teams, I'll be surprised by very little in BA's selection/development pathways.

Without labouring the point, Vic coaches get the bulk of the coaching gigs based on their winning recod at Nationals - perhaps a better test would be to send them away with the ACT team for a year and see how they go. Vic kids get the bulk fo the opportunities based on their winning record at Nationals - again, send them away with an ACT team and see how they stack up (no disprespect to ACT - could be any other team which doesn't have that many players to draw from.)

There is no doubt the Vics produce an immense number of talented, capable players who are well-coached and perform well at Nationals. But I think you'll find that many of their championships are won not by their starting five but by the depth they have on the bench - they simply have too many bodies for almost everybody. But that doesn't necessarily translate into them having the vast majority of the best players.

But I have to agree with anon577 - they produce a lot of 'cookie-cutter' players (5'11 - 6'1, good skills, reasonable athlete, plays a role well) and coaches are most comfortable coaching these players, because they already have their game plan to suit. Those tall, lumbering bigs, that change shots and drop shooting perentages from 45 to 35% present a challenge to their coaching skills so let's not go there.

Don't know many of the personalities in this group - just making general comments that seem to hold true pretty well.

For all those with longer term memories of the NBL. I have looked on the NBL website and that only lists the current teams and those that played in the inaugural season in 1979.
Why I am asking if the "Dragons" name was ever used, is that I have recently come into possession of a playing uniform that I would guess was from the early 1980's. However it is in good condition and I doubt that it was ever worn in a game. The shorts are white with navy blue trim and the top is navy with white trim.
Sponsor was "Peter Stuyvesant" a cigarette brand for those not aware and team name of Dragons is on the back above the number. It does have the official NBL Badge sewn into the both top and shorts.
I was wondering whether this might have been a "mock up" uniform for maybe a district club planning to enter into the NBL in the very early days. I do remember that Glenelg (Now Southern Tigers), West Adelaide & West Torrens (Now Forestville) all had teams in the NBL.
Anybody have any clues at all? Player number is 15 if that has any significance, which from memory was Al Green's regular number, but he was with West in the eraly days anyway.