Hoops

Clarkes Player Rotations? why? seriously...why?

Isaac, you hit the nail on the head with point B.

The shot taking is too structured for that "spontaneousness" needed to be more offensive.

Beyond the fastbreak 3, I've seen Ng take about 4 shots in 5 years that reminded me of Brett Maher: quick screen, pick n' pop from 18-20ft.

Ballinger is a bit more pro-active on this quick shots; were he a bit quicker, he'd probably head-fake most defenders and either lay it in or teardrop from about 5-10ft out.

Infact, now that I think of it; it's kind of Ironic that we've been a Guard heavy team for years, but have never improved their offensive output.

I just figured he was using SIRI to call the subs.

Isn't the issue the combinations?

The on court chemistry seems to be all over the place with a lot of the rotations and that seems the real issue.

I honestly don't think that it's a case of "We can't play the same level of defence that Perth can", because I've seen numerous times, even against Perth that we were able to play hard D equal to the caliber that they did. That was one of the key points to beating them 3/4 times last season.

I think the issue is that the team doesn't have it in them to play that style of game at all. Face it, we have Balls, DJ, Weigh, Ng, and Warren who; if you actually strip everything back, are all primarily offensive players. They play an offensive role normally and defence is a secondary thought.

Perth has a good combination of players, specifically that in Martin, Robbins and Wagstaff. I would consider them defensive players but "opportunistic" offensive players. They take defence or setting up offense as their preference but will score if the situation arises.

Just an opinion.

Perth play a high intensity, full court man to man defence + they have the skill level across the board.

I think these two factors are why regular subbing works for Perth.

Adelaide clearly do not play the same level of defence as Perth nor do we have the personnel. We have guys who need the ball constantly to be effective(Johnson)and guys who need alot of shots to be effective (Weigh, Ballinger). Without the minutes, Johnson is not going to get the looks on offence he needs (and deserves!) and Ballinger is not going to get the shots or the opportunity to be a leader!

As mentioned previously, Adelaide are essentially a team of role players who at most other clubs would be playing much less minutes.

In a 40 minute game our depth chart should look much like this:

C Johnson (30)/Helliwell (5)/Ballinger (5)
PF Ballinger (25)/ Simpson (15)
SF Weigh (30)/ Creek (5)/ Simpson (5)
SG Herbert (10)/ Creek (15)/ Ng (10)/ Warren (5)
PG Warren (30)/ Crosswell (10)

Johnson, Ballinger, Weigh and Warren all play 30-35 minutes out of the 40. Creek and Simpson come off the bench to play 20 minutes a piece. Herbert still starts but plays only 10 minutes a game. Make him earn an extra minutes. Crosswell plays 10 minutes as a back up to Warren and Ng depending on performance (which has been good as of late) gets 10 minutes to come in and light up. Helliwell manages 5 minutes pending foul trouble.

no because there is no truth in the bible, well not in what it tries to get people to do, but i think that should be reserved for a different forum.

its like trying to figure out what came first, the chicken or the egg? my point being we never truly will know why Marty does what he does. Its like finding the truth in the bible, its all fiction, your looking for something that doesnt exist.