Bulls - Phil Jackson....

I think that it is ridiculous that some people seem to think that a coach is not needed in a competitive team sport like basketball! That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard and those that believe this obviously have no sporting knowledge at all. Next these guys will say there is no need for Managers at work, no need for police (People should be able to police themselves), no need for University College lecturers (the students should be able to teach themselves by now).

KJ i am not saying that the coach is either needed or not needed, what i am asking is if there is less demanded on the coach if the talent of the squad is good enough.


Chuck Daly did not call a single time out because his talent was good enough to destroy teams with little direction or input. Has Phil been caught up in this same scenario where for the first 4 years the team was that good that he had to do little to direct them.

Now that the talent is not there to win by remote control it highlights more the potential short comings of the coach.

The coach may be doing nothing different to what he normally finds successful but now due to the personality of the squad it just does not work.

I don't think it's quite that, but more that Phil might leave more to the Hoops Gods. e.g., you can train hard and do everything right, but sometimes the shots fall and sometimes they don't, maybe your star gets injured, etc. So, perhaps as he's left more to the players just doing their thing, the disadvantages of that approach have come to the fore.

Kent,

IMO the '98, '99 and 2001 Championship winning teams were not the most talented going around at the time. They had talent yes, but none of those teams were a sure thing, particularly the 2001 team which was a shock grand finalist, let alone winner.

The corollary is the 2005/6 Bullets, champion team on paper but couldn't put it together and seriously underacheived.

The coach is there to get a talented team and turn it into a team of champions. I don't believe it is luck, or just 'roster', but at the same time I don't think it can all be put down to the coach.

Take Malcolm Blight at the Crows. Took over a mediocre team that was struggling, which then overacheived for two years and grabbed all their chances to win consecutive premierships, and then underacheived beyond belief in the third year. Few people would say that Blight is not a good coach, but what works, works when it works. Blight then got himself fired a few years later at his next coaching stint.

A coach without good players can't win, neither can good players without a coach (Dream Team may be an exception). Maybe it is just best to think of a coach as a crucial cog in the team.

Any coincidence that the BASA gravy train no longer exists?
Std of the talent was higher when we were rorting the system, as others are now???

It's an interesting point. Sometimes they don't seem to matter that much but most of the time a new good coach can really turn teams around. Coaches often have a very big impact on how teams perform.

coach 20%
roster 30%
luck 50%

And injuries (perhaps that comes under...luck.)
Brad Davidson .

When did Brad Davidson become MVP of the league??. Surely a team should be able to win without him. Injuries are part of sport.

Watching him play in our trials and the first game,I just think we would win a few more games with him playing.

I think at this level a coach is their to guide the players and tell them whats going on in the overal game. If the players are missing shots, not getting rebounds then how can you blame the coach..the players are paid to do exactly that, if they suck they should be going home and practicing, its their job and they get paid freakin well enough to put in the effort.

A coach cannot tell you to get the ball in, and at this level nor can they tell you how to shoot, its to late for that.

So given that we're losing and it's not the coach's fault, would you cut a player? If so, who and what replacement would you bring in?

Is it sixers 700th game on saturday?
I don't think Brett Maher needs much coaching whilst playing for the 36ers.
Joyce was pacing up and down coaching everything.
Plenty to say to Dench and time keepers.
Fired up Crowe and Cameron, got the win.
Our coach was quiet.
Whether to cut the coach or a player, right now, I wouldn't. Davidson playing, things are a whole lot better.

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this. At this level of basketball one of the coach's most important jobs is putting together the right roster for the system he wants to run. Smythe did a great job of that in his early years, his recruiting midas touch was legendary (KB and Farley from nowhere, unleashed a previously mediocre Cat's potential, ditto Stiff and Mee to an extent). Then we went through a few years of fiancial turmoil where his hands were tied to an extent. The fact Mal's come on board this season and Phil's pretty much got the horses he was looking for and we still suck doesn't bode well for Phil's future.

I'd suggest the ability to recruit and retain top notch players is as important as the x & ys and leadership of the unit once the season's away.

Is it gospel that "financial turmoil" ever effected our roster? I don't know either way, but I understand we have always spent the cap. Are people just assuming that's the case?

In the year most impacted by finances (e.g., under the watch of Ferrier Hodgson), I believe we still spent more or less the cap. It was a touch under because, AFAIK, we had budgeted a certain amount for the second import spot and got Horvath for a little less. I've not heard anything over recent years to suggest that we have spent significantly under the cap, whatever that's worth.

Doc,

Certainly for at least one year the Sixers were only prepared to offer one year contracts (except, curiously, to Mark Nash - who they reportedly secured for bargain basement prices and performance).

Nash didn't come as cheap as people might've thought, I heard. Don't tell Squid or they might cry.

So it might have been more about long term security then? The whole Nash thing really confuses me. It makes no sense at all.

Issac
How many dollars were siphoned out of the BASA system, in cash form!
Car park fees?
Cash at stadiums?
Mark Davis had houses built. Homes could easily be built with untracable creditors and payments.
We never used to be anywhere near the cap.
Ferrier Hodgson may call it a balance day adjustment.


Given this back drop it was easy to recruit top players and coaches from the states( 3 of them at one stage).
Now it has to actually pay its own way in a market dominated by AFL.
I don't believe we will see a turn around for quite some time.
For the coach who started in one circumstance and now is in another, the playing fields have changed to something very different and he has little control with limited cash.

Isaac, in reply to post #155444. Whilst Smyth has been supporting Chappell publicly, it would be a derelict of duty if they haven't been scouting for another import should Chappell not come up to scratch. The trigger won't be pulled until they know someone is available to step into the breach straight away and rightly so. Smyth will not bough out of this thing without trying every trick to deflect criticism from him, that is his nature. First port of call will be the 'change import' scenario with the caveat of 'unfortunately Mike was behind the eight ball from the start with his back injury and all. We gave him every opportunity to come good but it just wasn't to be.'
Mike seems like a nice guy but the fact of the matter is he is not match fit even though the supposed 'back' issue is fixed. The world of being an import is cut-throat and the change should have been made weeks ago. Mike himself would understand that. So whilst I agree with this decision it is far too late. Sure, it's not pleasant but a strong leader has to make these decisions.
You will never hear 'I take full responsibility for the situation we're in' from Phil. Funnily enough though if he did do that, they may find the players respond. Quite often happens that way, but at the moment you can see the players body language switching off. It's not a happy camp despite all the rhetoric you hear in the press.

Dr Damage - no arguments from me. Just saying that they haven't had ultra-budget teams compared with other sides in the league.

Izzy - replacing Chappell is exactly what I'd try too. Though, with Davidson back and soft targets coming up (Breakers in Adelaide, Singapore on the road), a couple of wins could relieve pressure.

Was mostly looking for Skud's thoughts - they appear to lump some blame on Ng and Sutton going by their thread earlier this week.

So what you are saying Issac? Is that Smyth can only win when he is bought a team that has the best talent, by going way over the salary cap! Or that coaches like Beveridge at WS and Cook at the Gong are doing a much better job than Smyth, because both of these teams are opperating under the same circumstances that Smyth is in.

Trying to avoid commenting directly actually!

I do think that Beveridge had a great start and that the Hawks have shown that missing a couple of very key players doesn't write off your chances at all.

Save for the top dogs and Slingers (bit more predictable), I think it's been an interesting season so far. I thought 5-8 would be even but 5-12 can all beat each other on their night.