We do very well in my opinion. We do lack two specialist skills at the moment though. Wing shooters and a back to the basket post players.

Yes we are producing the right type of players, if the right type of player is a role player.

The majority of our big men are soft jump shooters, or designated rebounders and defenders. Our guards are not explosive scorers and lack any consistency in shooting ability.

We are too focused on promoting good athletes, but not great athletes (ala Sam McKinnon or Simon Dwight)and this focus comes at the expense of high IQ players with average athleticism (ala Andrew Gaze, Shane Heal etc.) who nowadays wouldn't get a look in at the junior level. All the top guards in Europe are average/good athletes, but extremely high IQ.

Brett Rainbow (anybody????) would be a star in the Australian junior ranks today, and he could barely play.

Maybe the AFL has stolen too much young talent (especially in the 6' to 6'6" range) but I remember from my junior days it was always:
1. Who you knew and what club you were at,
2. Whether they thought you would grow to be 6'10"+
3. The children of complainers always got the most attention in terms of development,
4. If you were a 'big guy' who started playing inside, you were generally stuck, because NO ONE else wanted to play inside (sit on the wing shooting 3's and occasionally driving),
5. Your ultimately only as good as your coach and program is at developing your talent.

Andrew Bogut has been the rare exception, because he (and his parents) did all the development work themselves.

We are too focused on promoting good athletes, but not great athletes (ala Sam McKinnon or Simon Dwight)and this focus comes at the expense of high IQ players with average athleticism (ala Andrew Gaze, Shane Heal etc.) who nowadays wouldn't get a look in at the junior level. All the top guards in Europe are average/good athletes, but extremely high IQ.

The AIS is an amazing program. It is exceptional.

But I really think it does limit individual stars given the strict team play rules and principles of the team environment.

You look at the Breakers Academy in NZ, which isn't promoting athletes to become robots (In No way saying AIS players are robots, because they kicked my ass last time I played them, they're very good).

Up and coming players in NZ like Te Rangi, Fotu, Steven Adams, Tai Webster are given more freedom and it certainly helps them become efficient internationally.

Webster stepped right up at the QQT and pre tourny events.

Scoring 8 points in 12misn against Brazil,
Then he torched Macdeonia for 21 points, matched up against McCalebb.

Sometimes, I think the AIS just needs to give more freedom to individual players.

Right now they produce players who are very even in skill..
This is great in a team environment.
But when they go off to play in College programs, they are simply solid players.

I wasn't ragging on Sammy Mac or Simon Dwight, they were spectacular athletes.

If you want the perfect example of what I mean, its Daniel Egan (remember him?), I'm not hating on Egan as this was not his fault

1. Since the age of 14 he was being actively promoted while a Tigers junior,
2. He was 6'6" at 15 and a great leaper
3. At 16 he was on the Tigers NBL team

He could not operate outside of the structure of the Tigers shuffle, if he had to think on his feet at all (freelancing etc.) he would fail every time.

Players like Gaze, a 6'7" SG would be torn apart by the basketball brains at clubs for being too slow, not able to jump, and not strong enough (defence is another matter lol)

But in his prime he would DESTROY the current Australian team, he would have 30+ every single night, Ingles and Newly (although I like, but don't love, them) would foul ate every game.

we ( IE the NITC program) are producing the type of players who fit the mold of the "right" players - it is very similar to the approach that rowing and netball uses to identify its athletes.

The emphasis seems to be on those factors which can be measured ( eg the modified for basketball beep test).

For close to 9 years i attended most of the national u14 and u16 national championships.

At the u14 level I saw several examples of players who fitted the similar-age profile of players like Jenny Cheesman, Julie Nykiel/Michelle Brogan, Michelle Timms/Sandy Brondello ( both absolute legends offensively in the WNBA) type players in the girls ranks - who showed very hi basketball IQ , determination and skills - but not the athleticism of a Rachael Sporn or Jo Hill.

I saw none of those players earmarked for further attention by AIS coaches

Those players who did show that type of athleticism were actively and aggressively pursued by the AIS - players like Rebecca Duke ( great work ethic by the way and a top coachable player) and Renae Camino ( head case).

while players who did not fit the mold like Erin Philips ( wanted to be a scoring point Guard like Timmsy) and Angela Marino ( was also a scoring point guard who did not have good coaching until Tom Maher turned up)were discouraged from continuing.

Basically I think that the coaching "elite" are trying to keep their jobs safe by making safe choices - IE that old Proverb - "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" - that means that at the best they get the top performers of the middle ground (Foley, King etc) and few of the wild talent of the "odd person out"

Its good to remember that Penny Taylor missed selection in 2000 - and then went and played flat out in seabl for two consecutive seasons to hone the offensive and defensive game that she lacked in 1999-2000 - her international level basketball skill and talent was not developed to high standard at the AIS - although her fitness base was.

Just my opinion

I have a slightly different view of this. We have a lot of coaches who are development coaches in my view.

They are caught in the regimen of 545am skills sessions and ITC camps etc. All of this is about individual skills development, which we prize really highly in this country. We also stamp on the guy who is effective but looks wrong "he has an ugly shot..."

One of the things I have always heard about College is that they like our guys and girls (even more so) because their fundamentals are good, ie, there is something to work with. Any good coach can look at a player and say "great fundamentals, that gives me something to work with"...

We lack coaches who teach the game IMO. the Daniel Egan thing is interesting above. The Tigers greats, Gaze, Giddey, etc., moved brilliantly without the ball, and were always moving, and I always thought the shuffle helped with that.

In a reality check you have to remember that our entire population is about the same as London alone. We punch well above our weight already. We can't be doing that much wrong at the junior level. Basic fundamentals are a great base to build from. Basketball IQ comes from playing the game and the mental attitude to succeed comes from within. If you read the history of a lot of great players they have missed out on teams or opportunities but have used that to give them the passion to go on and succeed.

AJB, we might be small as a national populace, but we have a very large playing population to select from. That is the counter balance to the small population argument.

Many countries, outside the US and China, would salviate over the sheer numbers of juniors who play the game in this country.