the point guards didnt control the tempo enough and they looked inside to Jawai too much, then were lucky Ingles hit some big individual shots late in the game which were not the result of running a play (it appeared).

The Aussie bigs should have been much better in the paint against the skinny guys 4 NZ.

Hard to judge Brown just yet I think given his offense will be based around players that aren't playing in this team.

Basing your offense around the post will make a lot more sense when Anderson or Bogut are getting the ball. They will get more attention and free up guys like Ingles, Newley and Harvey. Until then Brown has to make do with what he's got and basically just nut out a series win against NZ which is objective number 1, for now.

I would have like to see some more screen and roll plays with Newley/Ingles and Jawai/Ogilvy. It seemed like Newley and Ingles were getting to the lane and finishing well so if they also ran some screens you will need help from the 4 spot and that is when Foreman would become more dangerous with his spot up shooting

Agree with some of the comments.

Just remember it is a new coach with a new team that have really not played together that much before.

I like the fact that they had a 'pump the ball into the post' mentality. And whilst out bigs didn't put the points on the board as much as we would have liked, the philosphy surrounding this style of play long term should benefit the Boomers. It is the start fo an inside-outside game rather than our more recent outside-outside game which has not really put us into a position to medal at the highest level.

I too would like to see more pick and rolls, as we have the firepower to do it well. AJ can also hit the three so he adds more value as part of this play as well.

I thought we lacked hustle on defensive and in the rebounding. There just seemed to be no urgfency at all with the exception of Dellavedova, and ay 18 years of age he led the way in that department.

And as pointed out, some of the guys playing will not be there for the 2010 WC's. Bogut, Andersen, Neilson, CJ and Mills will all slot back in nicely. and as pointed out, thew new offence should suit these guys well.

I think the New Zealand series will test the Australian players commitment to defense and Brett Brown's ability to get his match ups correct.

Point in case: Matt "the Glove" Dellavedova's hustle on Penney. Dellavedova was so intense on 'D' that he eventually wore Penney down by the end of the game. Dellavedova's efforts should not be under appreciated. Aaron Baynes was another who played great D however I do not recall him getting any court time in the 3rd or early 4th quarter when New Zealand seized the momentum of the game. He was quick, athletic and strong enough to take Vukona, the same could not be said for Ingles, Jawai, Forman or Oglvey.

The Kiwis used their lack of size as an advantage, showed tenacity on the glass and appeared more willing.

*Ogilvy*

i don't know, to win at the inside game, the guys at the 3,4 and 5 spot have to be really on their game and the best in their class.
I don't see any of the big Aussie 3, Bogut, Jawai, Anderson as being the top of their tree. If Bogut can't do it in the NBA consistently, he is not going to do it at an Oympics. Same goes for Jawai, and Anderson has potential, but doesn't actualise that potential often enough at the highest level. These guys aren't big scorers and to be honest, not many in the Australian team are big scorers. Ingles is probably looking the most likely of late to post a big score. ( I never thought i would be saying that ).

I would be happier if Australia played more of an uptempo, guard run and gun type game. Heaps of pick and roles, screen and roles and let the Newley's Ingles, Wortho's do the brunt of the scoring.

One thing's for sure our defence and rebounding will need to improve, otherwise i would be calling back Goorjan very soon.

So have bogut and andersen commited to the world champs? Has CJ retired internationally? Even if he hasn't i'd probably pick gibson over him as a pure pg/back up to mills. CJ has had his chance and is more of a 2 guard anyway, which is a position we are knee deep at (2s/3s).

Cj is the purest point guard since Phil Smyth.

David, I think its worth trying a different game plan. The Boomers seem to have been stuck with a very poor perimeter offense for a very long time.

I think we now have the personnel to play a post up game AND a good pick and roll/ pop game. So if there is one thing I hope Brown can do it is to develop the Boomers offensive capability and give them the tools to attack a range of defences methodically, rather than the haphazard bombs away approach.

I disagree with your comment that we need to have guys at the 3,4 and 5 spots 'at the top of the tree' for this to be successful. Bogut isn't the absolute top of the tree, but he is good enough to be successful against most opponents internationally.

We just need to do a better job of getting him the ball in the right spot and then drilling the other guys to position themselves correctly and make the right cuts. I think if we do that, Bogut has the skills to break down a lot of opponents.

By going to Jawai a lot in the post, I think it will not only improve his game, but it will basically drill the other guys so they know how to play around Bogut when he joins the national team for major tournaments.

Beyond Bogut, I really think we have a cadre of big guys that are international quality and can put some pressure on opposing teams. I think Jawai could be a very dangerous, physical weapon for us off the bench and that Andersen has the height and shooting ability to do a lot of damage if opposing teams are unable to concentrate their defence on him (ie, if Bogut draws help D, Andersen should get a lot of easy, short and mid-range catch and shoots.)

Ogilvy looks to have some good skills and could be groomed to take over Andersen's role down the track. Schencscher has the size to be a solid defensive stopper and Baynes seems to bring good aggression and hustle as well. Who knows about Nevill and Maric, but there's another two guys with a lot of size.

LOL Paul, that isn't saying much!

Beantown - I think you underestimate the level of international competition in saying that you dont have to be the top of the tree - these are the absolute best players in the world.

We dont have anyone we can through it into repeatedly and then expect the defence to collapse. The system last year used our players' strengths very well, particularly our bigs, who got opportunities to post, shoot, pick and roll/pop and drive the basketball. It spread the defence extremely well.

That is why the 2008 was the highest scoring Boomers team ever.

BTW- you obviously didn’t see much of Phil Smyth in action, because he was as pure a pg as you can get. In many ways CJ makes his teammates even better than Phil did though because he is a genuine offensive threat.

I'm siding with Beantown on this...Look at teams like Argentina, Spain etc etc. They did not have "top of tree" as DavidK put it. They had very good players across all positions that played to their strengths, and hence why they were successful on the International stage. We have a number of very good players in a number of positions - it is how they gel together as a team that will make the difference. A team of individual stars does not always end up being a successful team. This is proven.

What are our stengths going to be at the 2010 World Champs? I would argue our big men will be our strengths in comparison to our back court.

We had a very one dimensional approach under Goorj's direction. Our hustle and rgency on defence under Goorj as in most cases terriffic. However we barely used the post, and relied far too heavily on scoring from the perimter. By developing an inside-outside game using our strengths, we are likely to generate more scoring avenues. Additionally, by going to our bigs inside in the first instance more often, we actually have the potential to improve our outside game as well.

Disagree with your assesment of the Boomers offence - I believe it used our strengths very well, which is supported by the fact it was the highest scoring Boomers team.

Not saying you have to have superstars to win - but if you want to bang the ball into the low post repeatedly, the guy you give it had better be amazing at it, and we dont have that guy.

Argentina and Spain are filled with some of the best players in the world - not sure which rosters you are looking at if you dont agree with that.

he appeared to sub too much

Paul, first of all you have misunderstood my comment above. I know that Phil was a great point guard and have a lot of respect for him. I was just taking a mischievous swipe at the main guy between Smyth and CJ - Shane Heal - a great gunner but never a real point guard.

I am interested that you felt Goorjian's offence was effective. I had a lot of trouble seeing much purpose in the Boomers offence last year, or in many years past. At the Olympics, the guys always looked like they were just passing the ball around speculatively, rather than with any clear purpose to exploit the defence (Kind of like many of Goorjian's NBL teams that used to go on big scoring droughts really).

Against the good teams, Bogut rarely seemed to receive a decent pass that put him in a position to create for others. Andersen showed he has a great face up jumper from mid-range, yet he only seemed to get those shots sporadically off broken plays rather than by design.

I also don't think I am underestimating our opposition. Obviously we are clearly overmatched by the US across the board. But which big men from Argentina, Greece, Italy, France, Brazil, etc is Bogut NOT capable of scoring on one on one? I think Nene has the size and strength to cover him, but who else? Scola is a great player, but he can't effectively guard Bogut. You think Oberto is someone Bogut should fear?

So what I am saying is that against nearly every team we will play, Bogut should have an advantage and will draw help defence. Lets not forget that Bogut was good enough to score effectivey against Tim Duncan not only in the Worlds when he debuted, but in the NBA as well.

Add to that a guy in Andersen that has proven he can put up good numbers against the best big men in Euro competition and a young guy in Jawai who, while raw skill-wise, is an absolute physical monster and I really feel we have forwards whose skills we can exploit.

I think if our big guys establish that they are a threat early, it will also open things up for Newley and Ingles, who will then get open looks and also be able to receive the ball on quick cuts to the basket.

Having said all that, like I said earlier, I am interested in what sort of plays you think Goorjian was generally trying to run. You seem like a guy who is knowledgeable about the game, and I am no coach, so I'd be interested if you or anyone else could describe the stuff Goorjian was running last year. (Or you could name the plays if they have well known names I could look up online).

^^Defensive plays is where Brian Goorjian excelled as a coach. the Boomers are the best defensive team the Team USA had faced againts during Beijing olympics.

On the Offensive end is where Goorjian cannot fully utilize the talents the Boomers have specially a go to guy when needed most to score.

The big question about coach Brown's report card is whether he has the capacity to create the structure at both ends of the court that play to the team strengths and get his players to respect him and play within his team structure.
Boomers were quite lucky to win Sunday night because there was very little clear offensive structure and indications that players were either not clear or not committed to a team offence. If Ingles had not dropped some very deep 3s that were individually created rather than created through offensive sets the result could have been different.
There seem to be some attitude issues that Gorg would have stomped on. If shots dont drop in tonights game and we see the same lack of cohesion the tall blacks are a good chance.

I'm with Beantown.

If Goorjian's offence was ineffective, why was 08 the highest scoring Boomers team? Doesn’t add up. If Bogut didn’t get opportunities against good teams, why was he our leading scorer against Russia (equal with Bruton) and Lithuania?

The Boomers offence was a mixture of a lot of things Goorjian has picked up over the years (including Princeton and Shuffle), which emphasises spreading the floor to create driving lanes (for bigs and smalls), post up opportunities, pick and roll/pop opportunities and makes it difficult for team defences, with three point shooting opportunities (an Aussie strength) inevitable when the defence helps.

As for Andersen, he has been a very, very good sixth man on very good teams in Europe, coming in and hitting open jump shots and scoring on mismatches in the low post. He has not, though, dominated the best big men in Europe. Anstey usually had the better of him in their matchups.

There is a big step from club comp to international comp, and Andersen has not been able to make that step, mostly due to his lack of physicality.

Bogut’s a good post player, but not good enough to pump it into every time - and better when he is facing the basket. Last year, he got to post up, shoot, drive, pick and roll, and it brought out his versatile game that has been stunted by the unimaginative North American style.

Only China employ the dump it into the low block tactic repeatedly, and even they struggle with it as it is very predictable for oppo defences.

Paul, we may not have internationally dominant bigs, the guys who are going to score a bucketload every night, but at least we have bigs who regularly compete at the highest levels in respected competitions. Can't really say that about our 1, 2 and 3 stocks (except Newley).

I think international performance shows that Bruton, Mills and Newley are well and truly up to that level - more so than Andersen.

Having said that, we dont run clear outs for our guards, do we?

XY, Bruton, Mills, Newley, Ingles.

Isaac, I agree those are the players who played at the Olympics for us. I do not agree that you have named four superstar guards who regularly show that they are internationally dominant players. Lets face it, taking away local parochialism, that list of names is not going to send shivers up the backs of anyone at international level.

I hope those guys prove to be superstars and take Australia to new heights. However, in reality it is more Australia's team play that will win us games, rather than having superstars.

Bruton went and played well OS recently. Mills could do the same and we're about to find out how Ingles and Barlow would fair.

IMO, we have zero international superstars all up.

No one is saying we have superstar guards. We didnt have an offence that is focussed solely on our guards, it used all players on the team.

Our two best three point shooters were Anstey and Bogut. That's how Mills and Newley got to the rack so often.

Paul, thanks for the 'Princeton' and 'shuffle' references - it confirms what I have heard before about what the Boomers tend to run. As I understand it, we have been running this style of offence forever - going right back to Barnes and perhaps even Lindsay Gaze before him (though I get hazy at that point).

Just wondering where you get the info about 2008 being the Boomers highest scoring year? Not saying you're wrong, but I'd be interested to see the stats year by year. Certainly, I would think the Boomers would be coming from a low base when it comes to international scoring. Up until the last couple of years the Boomers have never had much firepower. We used to just live off Gaze and Heal's shooting.

On Andersen, he has actually started about two thirds of the games he has played in over his career (393/ 605) according to one site I found. He also started 9/23 games for Barca in last season's Euroleague, including starting both Final Four games where he led his team in scoring (44 pts) and was equal second for rebounding. So he is more than just a sixth man - its not as if he is just scoring his points against the opposition's bench scrubs!

In any case, I was not arguing for Andersen to be the focal point of the offence. I am looking at Bogut being the post up focus and envision Andersen as one player who could do a lot of damage from the weak side when defences seek to deter Bogut from attacking the paint.

To me, Andersen shows the depth we have in our big man department and is one of several players who I see as solid internationals who will be most successful when used in a structured team offence that seeks to methodically exploit opposing defences.

Also, with Bogut, I am not looking for it to be 'dumped into him' every time. I mainly see him as our best consistent threat that can force a half court defence to react. By getting the defence to react to the threat he poses, we can bring his passing into play and I think we will get better shots for Andersen, Ingles, Newley, Mills, etc than they will create for themselves off the dribble.

Thats not to say we shouldn't ever run picks for our guards to create from, just that we should do that less and give Bogut the ball more in the half court game.

From what I saw of the team last year, our players just didn't seem to have a clear plan of what to do with the ball on offence. From what I hear about the game against NZ, not sure Brown has changed that yet, but I am fervently hoping he does.

Beantown - I could not have put it any better myself.

I just want to see more on ball screens, it is one of the best plays for man to man defense. They need to show the boys some old stockton and malone game tapes

Enjoying the discussion Beantown and LC.

Certainly the offence has similarities to what has been run at times previously, but there has been a lot of variation over the years, and Goorjian's offence itself is not a true disciple of any offence.

Andersen certainly has started games, but generally in Euroleague (where there are very few scrubs) for CSKA and Barce he has come off the bench. By saying that I am not putting him down, just showing the role he plays, where he is a scorer in a system (as you pointed out) - someone whose rebounding and defence is not super.

He is a super sixth man at club level. But I disagree that he is a solid international, he simply hasn’t been able to make the significant step up to international basketball – being pushed out of the post and out of screening position, missing open shots, fumbling passes. I don’t think the 'system’ can be blamed for any of that.

In addition, he shot the ball at 40% in Beijing, whereas Bogut and Anstey shot the ball at 60%, making Andersen a much less attractive option given the other two also have better all around games.

Bogut wasn’t underutilised, he shot the most shots of anyone on the team at the 2006 WCs and second most shots in 2008 behind a cocky young kid named Mills, who exploited the spread defence to get to the hole time and time again. Had we played a traditional offence with the keyway occupied Mills and Newley would not have been anywhere near as effective, and neither would have Bogut, who enjoys having space to face the basket and put the ball on the floor.

LC thanks.

Big Sexy - on ball screens will be useful at times, but don't forget that a lot more zone is played internationally and those on-ball screens aren't as effective against a zone.

An off-ball screen to get a shooter an open look off a quick pass, or getting the defence to load up on one side (ie to double Bogut) then quickly reversing the ball to the weak side would work generally work better against a zone.

Always good to knock heads from time to time - particulary when it is about our favourite sport!

I personally agree with you that Andersen is never going to be dominant player at the highest level, however he can play an important role as he has done so at club level in Europe for many years now.

I don't have any stats that disprove your notions, however I do believe we need a more methodical approach to using Bogut, and our big men in general, in the post. As Beantown also pointed out, we create even more open looks for others if we did. It comes down to have a balanced attack and approach to offense which I remain unconvinced of in the past.

In any case, the more up-tempo offense we ran in Beijing also led to other teams runnning up scores on us - after all we lost games we needed to win! And yet Goorj's defensive focus and strategies was praised!

We certainly come from opposite sides of the fence. My opinion, is that a number of countries, particularly in Europe, teach their players from a young age to play that methodical style of basketball. That style is not the Aussie style that players play in juniors, in the NBL, or in most cases in the US.

The only player I can think of who would be better in a rigid system is Andersen, who is very used to it by now. But the rest of our talent is best at taking the opportunities the defence gives them, and free shooting the ball. It is a strength of Australian basketball, the only other high quality league that has that aspect like the NBL is the ACB, and I believe we should capitalise on it.

Trying to beat the Euros in methodical execution is like trying to beat the US with athleticism for mine. Spain plays to their strengths and it has worked very well for them. I think we should keep playing to our strengths, which were very evident in the games against Lithuania and Russia.

Andersen is not really the primary focus of this argument, but I will point out that he did actually shoot at 43.8% and was shooting 13/24 up until the final two games where he had bad performances.

I also agree with you that Andersen's main problem is that he gets pushed out of position too easily. Basically I think we agree that Andersen is a complementary player - but I probably have more faith in the impact he can make if set up to succeed - as a mid-range catch and shoot guy.

I understand what you are saying about not clogging up the middle too much so slashers can get to the basket. But I have to say I disagree - I don't think Bogut receiving the ball in the post will generally clog the key up too much for the other guys.

With Mills, he was mostly getting to the basket on the fast break before defences had a chance to setup. When that option is on, I'm all for exploiting Mills speed as much as possible. When it gets to halfcourt, Mills driving opportunities are generally going to dry up, because he is too small and light to score in traffic consistently.

Newley is not a bad slasher as he showed against the US, catching them out with some strong moves to the rim. But those opportunities only presented themselves occasionally and from my memory, they generally occurred when the defence was forced to adjust and then the ball was moved quickly to Newley, who was able to find a lane to drive. The way I see it, Newley is not a good enough ball handler to beat his man one on one on a consistent basis. (Ingles I hope will develop more strength and eventually become another decent slashing option but he is not there yet.)

So, IMO, because the above guys aren't going to create too much when the opposing team is able to focus on them in the halfcourt, we will do better with Bogut getting the ball most times and looking to feed a fast cutting Newley, Ingles or perhaps Mills, or if the opponent is packing the paint, find those guys or Andersen for a catch and shoot.

You're right that Bogut got the second most shots on the team at the Olympics, but that was mainly on the strength of two games - RUS and LIT. On other occasions, especially against the US when it really mattered, it was really obvious that our guards weren't very good at getting the ball into the post under pressure. Too often we were taken out of our offence and ended up making a desperation drive or jacking up a pressured shot.

I hope another part of what Brown is able to do is teach our guards how to execute whatever offence they want to run under pressure. Because we have been pretty poor in that regard for a long time too.

Paul, that is a really interesting point you make about the style of basketball we play in Australia. From what I have seen you are absolutely right - we do play a more 'free flowing' style and it does appear to be quite strongly ingrained in our players even at international level.

So I guess we are on opposite sides of the fence. What you see as free-flowing and unpredictable, LC and I see as haphazard and unable to consistently exploit opponents weaknesses.

I think we are better able to take what the defence gives us if we manipulate their players and get them out of position first with a deliberate strategy.

So in the end, I guess you could say I am an advocate for significant change in the way we play the game, in order to be more successful. I agree, we are not going to out Euro the European teams straight away, but I think with the right coaching and some determination, we can change the way our senior teams play the game. We have just as good athletes as they do, so athletically we can do it.

And you only have to look at how Guus Hiddink and Pym Verbeek have changed football in Australia, since they got the players to buy into a Dutch system. We haven't mastered it yet, but we control the ball and maintain possession in a way Socceroos teams never dreamed of even 10 years ago!

Anyhow, gonna have to run if I'm going to find a good pub to watch today's game from! Thanks for the interesting conversation Paul.

I couldn't help but be disappointed with the performance of the Boomers in game 1. I must admit thought a change in coach wasn't warranted.

Although to be fair to BB, I recall watching a series a few years back (at a time when we had Kendall, Markovic, and Bruce were all vying for a PG spot -- 2006?) and the BG-led Boomers looked terrible.

Team balance is the biggest question Brett Brown will need to fix.

Don't worry about offense, we have plenty of time to fix that but I'm not so sure about our defense.

Are our most attacking offensive players also our biggest defensive liabilities?

From another persepctive on the style of game as Beantown pointed out ("What you see as free-flowing and unpredictable, LC and I see as haphazard and unable to consistently exploit opponents weaknesses."), I have actually seen a minor shift in soem of the junior ball being played in Melbourne, and it is two-fold. This is even more evident at U12 and U14 levels at the moment, at levels I have not seen before in the boys side of things.

On one hand I have seen a gradual emergence of some coaches at the elite level encourage a more one-on-one style of play, incorporating pick and roll etc. Essentially a style that more accurately resembles that of how the game is played in the US.

On the other hand I have also seen other successful coaches at the same elite level adopt a far more structured and methodical offensive structure - even at U12 level. And in many instances I am talking about teams that are at the high-end of the table. this therefore begs the question - where do we want to go in relation to teaching our kids offensive structures? Do we want to head down the US path of one-on-one individual play, or do we want a more european style of methodicaly offense? Do we want a balance of both?


In any case, this is something worth considering. Personally I think we should be adopting a more methodical approach, but then taking advantage of opportunities that rpesent themselves - in other words the best of both worlds!

Athletically are we ever really going to be able to compete on that level with the US? Probably not, and hence we should be looking at adopting some of the European style that has worked quite well against the athleticism of the US over the past decade.

LC, I'm not sure why you seem to see a methodical offence and pick and roll style offence opposites?

I see a methodical style of play as one that can set good screens to run a pick and roll, pick and pop, or get a shooter open for a catch and shoot, as well as a low post offence.

In short, a style of play where our players can adapt and execute any one of the above, depending on what the game calls for.

Last nights Boomers game was a good example. I thought our offence was very good in the first half, with our guys effectively executing a clear plan to get the ball in the post to Jawai. Newley and Ingles also executed the pick and roll with Ogilvy exceptionally well.

The Kiwis knew exactly what we were going to do every time, but they had no shot at stopping it as long as we methodically executed the plan. So from an offensive perspective, I thought what we were doing last night was very pleasing and exactly what I want to see the Boomers doing.

Now we just need to make sure whoever is picked for the World Champs knows how to play man to man defence!

Agree with what happened in the first half and I generally liked what I saw in regards to the offense as you have so eloquently outlined.

But what I meant is that the way the game styles I am referring to are one-way extremes. Live and die by the methodical approach to a set offensive structure where no pick and roll is played, compared to a style wherebby the team lives through pick and roll and individual acts and has no other set offensive team-based structure.

I believe that the two styles can complement each other to be used methodically to pick at the defensive's weaknesses at any given point in time - as you outline. What I was tring to explain is that the styles I have witnessed are being played at polar opposites in terms of execution. I hope that makes sense.

Yeah, that makes sense LC. I supposed we shouldn't be surprised that it tends to just be one or the other at early teenage level though! They are just kids and probably there isn't the coaching time available to teach them more than one or two plays.

Hopefully though, the players marked out for elite coaching from their mid-teens, are starting to get enough intense coaching that they can learn how to run several different offensive styles by the time they are 18 or 19.

Don't know what sort of time commitment this would take as I'm not a coach. Anyone who is think the above is a realistic goal? If anyone reading this is an elite level coach, does this already happen?