Maybe and Yes.

Yes I will keep renewing because I still believe it can't stay this bad forever. I'll be there when the tide changes and the 36ers are back to their former championship glory. Its a long storm to be riding out but the end is coming. Apart from that, any true fan regardless of the current performance would be attached to their team. There are players in the team now that I want to keep supporting.

EC, I admire your commitment. There is an alternative, and in my opinion, legitimate position. That is that the Club (and I lump all and sundry under the one banner, fairly or unfairly) are not paying due respect to the fans, especially the long-term fans such as yourself.

The fans are starting to vote with their wallets. If I recall correctly, your own view of the Club has changed slightly since last season and it appears from your posts that you are losing a degree of patience with the lack of action, particularly with Chappell. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe I got stuck into you last year for what I saw as blind support. It looks like every fan has a breaking point. The only difference is when that point is.

actually posted by Isaac under
Chappell vs Kings, impact on the crowd.

thedoctor, I am just as frustrated as everyone else each time I go to a game and see Chappell contributing very little, not only in scoring but also excitement to the game. I loved Farley and Charles Thomas for their entertainment. I too want Chappell replaced as there is a need for that and I want to see the team win most of their games, not losing them. However, I am sick to death of all the sack Chappell campaigns. It is a subject that has gone on for too long. The club must be aware of the fan's opinions on this matter and don't believe for a minute they would not be taking action. By taking action, I don't mean immediately sacking him because that may not be an option for whatever reason. What I would be sure about is that they are carefully considering what options there are for them. I've said it before, Hemmerling is quite a business pro with proven success behind him. I would be leaving things in his hands and trust he is doing the right thing.

EC, I agree that the club would be mindful of the fan's wants re Chappell, and are most probably working through the scenarios in getting another import in. However, what disappoints me is the continual lies that they feed out to the public. Now whether this comes from the front office or Smyth is debatable. People can handle situations (Chappell)that arise, in fact I think that is what keeps a season interesting.People however want to know the truth, whether it be money issues or whatever that is holding back a replacement. Feeling part of the club and riding the highs and lows is what gives them ownership and keeps them coming back. Lying to them does not.

thedoctor

EC, I admire your commitment. There is an alternative, and in my opinion, legitimate position. That is that the Club (and I lump all and sundry under the one banner, fairly or unfairly)

Ha! Ok, no banners from here on in.

I think a good way to assess the current import situation (and even Farley last season) is to look at what Sydney do when an import does not fit the mould for which they were hired. They find someone else, and they make that call early enough for the rest of the season to have the potential for success.

The Chappell call should have been made 6 weeks ago. It's almost getting to the point of any change being pointless. A new import would have to be here pre-Xmas for it to be worthwhile.

I was one who was happy with the recruiting over the break, especially Ballinger and Davidson. The season is becoming almost tragic now.

A few differences with Sydney:

1) We don't know how much cash they have compared to us.

2) We have to rely on our imports to do far more than Sydney have in recent years. Sydney have a wealth of Australian talent that we don't. In fact, I can't remember the last team that started both teams on the bench (and were on top of the ladder!) Would we really be happy with a guy like Isiah Victor - who does enough to keep his spot with the Kings but wouldn't be the sort of player that would suit the Sixers.

Having said that, I think Chappell should have been replaced after week 3 but it's important to note the differences with us and Sydney.

But that is why Isiah is till in there team and wouldn't be in ours. Chappell could play his spot and get away with it in Sydney's team! Just because we don't have the Australian talent, that just shows the poor recruiting the Sixers did. There are plenty of young Aussies who have come into the league over the past two or three years, how many would you say we have??? Easy answer..NONE! We recruit older players as this is what Smyth needs for his non structured style of basketball! What the sixers need right now is someone like Powell, who can straight out score. Won't win you a championship, but will put bums in seats because that's all we have to aim for this season...

I AM IN AGREEMENT THAT CHANGES HAVE TO BE MADE but in all fairness to chappell the game against sydney was mainly lost because we played zone instead of man to man in the first half and then in the last quarter when the sixers showed us a glimpse of what they can do and got within 6pts after being down by 30 the COACHING STAFF GOT IT WRONG FOR GOD SAKE WHEN A ROTATION IS WORKING FOR US LEAVE THEM TO PLAY LET US GET A SNIFF AHEAD DONT BABY THE PLAYERS THEY CAN REST THE DAY AFTER.
THIS IS MY HUMBLE OPINION

"Flying from NZ after playing on Thursday would mean tired legs. "

Really, thought it might be their arms...

I wasn't at Saturday's game against the Kings but have been following the discussions about it pretty closely. A number of people have lot has been said that a major difference between the first and second halves was the defensive performance of the 36ers. I wondered how that argument stands against the Kings scoring 56 points in each half, at similar percentages from the field?

I know they didn't get as many 3 point baskets in the second half. The defensive intensity may show in the much higher number of foul shots taken (and made) by the Kings in the second half. However, the real difference seems to be in the aggression and accuracy of the 36ers in the second half. They took a similar number of shots to the first but got a lot more in (especially 3 point shots) and had a lot more foul shots too. Maybe that offensive success keyed off of the defensive changes? Nonetheless, it doesn't appear that the defensive changes affected the Kings offensive output.