I actually think Burston is a slightly better player, but I would take Schenscher, if he is staying in the country - not on a Euro clause that lasts until August. He is an Adelaide boy so potentially a long termer, had a great year in Adelaide and gives a little more offensively than Burston.

Matty B isnt a bad second option though, but both will be hard to get this off season.

i definetly go with Luke, less injury prone, an played twice as good with us then he has at perth this season. Not knocking Burston but i love to have the twin gingers back in Luke an Ballsy

Pros and Cons:

Burston:
+Lower points rating (8)
+Significantly lower salary (guess)
+More Compatible with Balls (IMO)
+Far better defensive player
-Injury Prone

Schenscher:
+Local
+Relatively durable
+Big upside if he goes back to the 2008/09 Luke who went for 17 and 11.
+Better Offensively
+Still compatible with Balls as he showed last year. Just demands the ball a bit more.
-Shocking season this year.
-Soft as butter and a poor defender (this year at least).
-Like the refs don't already hate us enough!
-Higher points rating and salary.

Burston, just, for me. No way in hell do we take both.

Given that the expected coach always runs two low posts {sometimes called a stack offence), i think you need both.

No offence to Jacob but i regard Luke and Matt greater threats in the low post, and for that offence you need two of them. The offence does Jacob no favours by putting him in the low block.

Ballinger of course can post up, but you need a post back up when either starting post man goes to the bench, and Ballinger would i think be as suited to facing up in that offence and having players screen for him, than what happens currently where he seems to be doing all the screening for the incumbant wingman.

Both, given the predicted offence.

Weapons of mass destruction as 2 low posts.

IMO i would take burston

Big red i think lacks in speed and agility and needs to bulk up too
some nba experience could help a bit. Soft and dosnt dunk on guys heads like he should

Burston has more speed and agility as well as that work ethic and experience of winning the championship and IMO hes fair smart but the injury prone is a concern

I would take Luke but only if he has no Euro/US clause in his contract. Matty is a good fit and played well when he was healthy and you know he is staying here. With Luke you have that risk he can jump ship and on any given year you have to cycle a new player through.

I can't decide - even.
Even NBL sats has them both 10 and 6 this season.

well looking at the 36ers results from the past 2 seasons id say neither

Insane to not go with Schenscher! Clearly put up huge numbers last season, and the crowd loved him. This season, Perth have not utilised him AT ALL, no way he should be getting as little as 4 shots against Cairns i think it was, recently. Just a wasted talent in WA, but think he will atleast get a ring out of this season.

Burston is soft, and is consistantly injured. Burston isnt as tall either. No where near the presence Schenscher offers at the Defensive end. No stat for changing a shot remember.

I'd take the local boy Luke if possible with zero clauses to Europe or NBA.

I'd keep both if we can.

Get rid of Cooper ASAP. I loathe the man.

Tripod, I think you must watch a different NBL to what I do!

burstons game is better suited to the nbl.

big luke may well be a better suited in europe.

Paul, i watch the NBL in which Luke went for numbers such as 17 and 22 against the Tigers, 39+ in against the hawks, and 33 against perth in 2009 on his way to 17 and 10.8 for the season. Put some halk decent players around him, that utilize him and its game on.

Probably Big Red.

* Better Free Throw Shooter
* Great in the Low Post
* Makes the interior harder to guard as Red and Balls are both 25-30ppg players on any night.
* May be "more foul prone" than Burston, but better shot blocker and has a better mid range game.
* Preferred rebounder so Balls can focus on getting up the court for shots.
* Alot better for a playmaker to run passes through

Burtson is great; but didn't offer a great scoring option for the team. Had Balls and Luke been playing again this year, then I think gilly would have had alot more passing options; as well as a better option for running the pick through.

What can I say, last year with the twin gingers, bruce running the plays and (yes, I'll say it) Hodge playing the versitile swingman role on the wing, you had arguably one of the best lineups I've seen the sixers with since the 98-99 season.

If people think Schenscher is clearly better than Burston based on last year, get tapes of games between Adelaide and the Dragons and watch the mismatch.

Burston would have to be close to the best defensive big in the comp, Schenscher would be well down the table. Burston has excellent hands, Luke's are ok, Burston is an excellent cog in a team offence, Luke is a liability if he isnt scoring.

Luke also has his upside though, of course, when he gets mismatches deep in the paint he is lethal, and his height and long arms make him a very effective rebounder at both ends.

More than happy to keep Burston but would take on Schenscher too if the opportunity was there. Creates something of a glut at centre, but denies another team a big centre as well and could present interesting problems for other teams. If I had to pick one of the two, I reckon it'd probably be Burston but it would ultimately come down to the composition of the team.

Anon 721 - agree that it's a presuming a bit much to assume he will come running back here, but Schensch is hardly going to say in the middle of the season anthing else besides staying on at Perth.

I like Burstons Aggression and mobility compared to Schenscher. He also has more speed and can put the ball on the floor and finish in a variety of ways.

Burston can create his own shot where schenscher has to be spoon fed. Burston also finishes with more authority!

If Luke jumped every now and then, put on 15kgs and had a teaspoon of cement he would be alot better!

Having said that BOTH would be nice! having neither wouls suck!

I'd take Burston on toughness.

I love Luke, but we need a core of big bodies that hit back when opponents get physical. Adelaide have been soft for way too long.

Burston over Schench, by just a little.

Both would be good, but would also likely create some structural problems as neither are the agile type bigs for example that Perth have used with success over the years building the 'Perth Wall'.

Neither is something I do not want to contemplate. Would leave a huge hole in the middle that is unlikely to be able to be filled by another Aussie player.

If Burston is a big risk to move away, I'd be asking him who he wants coaching (and make sure it also works for Ballinger) and then really try to keep him here.

I would love to see Luke back in Sixer colours, even though i got love for Burston, But Luke's my boy and i wanna see the Ranga Banga back with Luke and Balls.

Having both would be an awesome thing too cos we could move Balls down to SF where i personally think he would murder teams!

Agree 100% with Anon 759. Good post.

Johnson certainly killed us in the Game That Should No Longer Be Mentioned. Be a nice pick-up.

"And what if Burston, Ballinger and Herbert want to play for Ninnis?"

Then get Ninnis some good support coaching staff that can help him with ideas and develop the team better. They would also need to be focused on game night. Ninnis would have to listen to them of course. So they would have to be people that he would respect.

That if we have to keep Ninnis. Sadly I think we can do better.