Going back
Years ago

2010/11 - 2012/13 Adelaide 36ers

Marty Clarke/Radford

What was the team in his 1st year and are any of them still with the club?

Stability is the clubs biggest problem

1. Hill
2. Ng
3. Ballinger
4. Dowdell
5. Eddie Shannon
6. Johnson
7. Creek
8. Carter
9. Winder
10. Defries
11. Herbert
12. Holmes
13. Daly
14. Aaron Bruce

2 out of 14 are still with the club

2011/12 team:

1. Weigh
2. Herbert
3. Daly
4. Ng
5. Helliwell
6. Warren
7. Johnaon
8. Creek
9. Croswell
10. Bartlett
11. Simpson
12. Ballinger

Not sure if I missed anyone from this team but 5 out of 12 are still with the team

IMO this is a big reason why crowd has reduced because fans don't know the players well because they change every year

Also, if coach was so great to play for why have so many players left?

Topic #30209 | Report this topic

Years ago

*notice the players that left were the older players. Younger ones stayed.

Reply #391908 | Report this post

Years ago

I think that the teams in 10/11 and 11/12 were always going to struggle to find success, regardless of the coach. I'm not disrespecting the players, the mix was never right. This current roster should be doing much better than the 5 and 6 they currently sit on. The loss against Townsville hurt, a fifty odd point turn around to Melbourne and an overtime dissapointment to Perth also raise questions.

Its not too late to save the season, but immediate changes need to be made. A new coach with a new system might salvage something. A new import that gets some court time might also make a differance. For either of these to occur the club needs to admit it has stuffed up, get over it and get on with it.

Reply #391914 | Report this post

Marcus Camby  
Years ago

Come on give Marty a break ffs.

Not all the player departures were his 'fault'.

Ng - Career in Medicine (Would one rather chase a career as a Doctor / Surgeon that could carry one til one was 60 or continue as a fringe role player with the career finishing @ 35?).

Dowdell, Holmes, Bruce and ESPECIALLY Helliwell were uninspiring as basketballers (at that time).

Now I concede that an argument COULD be made that Marty could not make use of Holmes' rebounding prowess and Bruce's shooting / scoring, however a counter-argument could be made that they just didn't have the drive / confidence at that time. ...so for those 2 is 50/50.

All and Sundry, INCLUDING the Hoops massive, agreed that either :

- Ballinger was done due to injuries OR
- Ballinger was too much of a risk to retain due to injuries.

Many were happy to see him go (on amicable terms), so you can't really have a come back on Marty now that Balls has found his stroke again and being serviceable @ MEL.

Simpson was probably the biggest loss, this guy played with heart and offset some of DJ's flaws. With a possible sniff @ the NBA, how can we blame Marty for Simpson leaving?

Threads like this highlight (granted - factual) player movements, and attempt to incite more Marty dis-favour.

What good does it do?

Reply #391916 | Report this post

Years ago

Sign him up again and lets see his 10 year plan?

Reply #391920 | Report this post

Years ago

Stability isn't the problem here.

They've put together a great roster this season. I'd trade stability for a roster like that any day.

If the Blaze didn't fold this team would not be much better than last year. So be thankful for that as well.

They just need a coach that can handle pro level basketball and can deal with veteran players. there's plenty available. Keep this team together and you could have multiple titles.

Reply #391921 | Report this post

Marcus Camby  
Years ago

Mystro....well the Breakers stuck with their man despite many calling for his head.

Reply #391922 | Report this post

Years ago

Still don't understand how they got that team under the points cap? How they rate players? With or with out points system, why has perth the only club that hasnt changed? Alwayz in the finals and other clubs have fallen hard ie adelaide melb

Reply #391923 | Report this post

Years ago

Mick, if the Blaze hadn't folded, Adelaide still had two import spots to use in place of Gibson and Petrie. Reliable options versus the import lottery, sure, but didn't guarantee disaster.

Marty might not have stuck with any of his imports, but the ones we've had haven't been awful. Warren, Simpson, DeVries and Shannon have all had their moments. Howard probably too. Winder could've been OK in the right role.

OP, Boti had the rosters listed on his site. Creek wasn't an original signing for that first Marty season but came in as a replacement.

Reply #391924 | Report this post

Years ago

A big reason why crowds are down in SA is because the way the front office treats fans. Like cash cows. No interaction at all, ask some of the more respected jurnos [professional publications or the fan publications] and they all say they either 1/ have no contact with the 36ers or 2/ have very little contact with the 36ers.

You come on here and just look at the way they treat some corporate sponsors. First timers none the less. These sponsors come and watch a game for the first time, get misstreated and never return, along with 3-10 other people they originally brought along. I have seen it countless times on this forum.

Reply #391927 | Report this post

Years ago

I am a current sponsor and I have scaled back my sponsorship over the last couple of seasons, not due to the team's failure, but due to economic conditions. My business turnover has reduced by 67% due to the GFC and as a result have had to reduce some spending in all areas. I don't mind investing in the Sixers because it is a sport I enjoy and it is a tax deduction.

The Sixers have been on a shoestring budget for a few seasons now and I would encourage all fans to support the Sixers as much as they can.

Reply #391928 | Report this post

Years ago

I sit behind the corporate seats at moment. Empty every game... Wonder why...

Reply #391930 | Report this post

Years ago

Holmes is the only Aussie you would have back.

Reply #391931 | Report this post

Marcus Camby  
Years ago

What about Bruce Anon?

Bruce has more upside long term, although Holmes would be more immediate impact.

Reply #391935 | Report this post

Years ago

Bruce has a few marbles missing, who. Would you move on to have him back?

Reply #391937 | Report this post

Camel 31  
Years ago

Seems Crosswell was the big upgrade on Bruce.
Watched Nevil and Schenscher not being able to score on Helliwell , much like Weigh's guarding Redhage and Lisch on Sunday that made the highlights on the news services . Anyways we got Pero to go on Nevil now.

Reply #391940 | Report this post

Marcus Camby  
Years ago

Like Camel said...you don't think Crosswell should be given the boot for Bruce?

Reply #391943 | Report this post

Years ago

I reckon if the 3 year plan we could have had a great roster and stability which helps the team perform and the fans get behind the team.

This is one way they could have done it, without any mid-season import changes, which would have saved the club some money im sure.

Im confident its reasonably realistic, and hey we can 2nd last and last so wouldnt have done any worse on the court, and imo they would have been better, if nothing else they would have grown together as a team.

The on thing that is an issue, doing it this way would have meant Marty would have had to be less stubborn and more adaptable and coach to his players strengths not just have a system that suits no one, this reason alone does not make him the ideal coach, and could make my plan impossible, so lets say either he adapts or gets the sack say after the 1st season.

Ok herese my 3 year plan, what could have been, using the players we have had, just a few different ideas/roster moves.

Year 1


C Johnson/Dowdell
PF Ballinger/Holmes
SF Hill/Herbert (replaced by Creek due to injury)
SG DeVries/Ng (replaced by Bruce due to injury)
PG Winder/Carter
DP Daly

(in the ideal world with 20/20 hindsight we sign Madgen who went to the kings as 11th man instead of Ng or Herbert, but ah well.)

Firstly start and play Johnson at C, split the minutes with Dowdell, we were bottom 2 anyway so may aswell put some development into Johnson and it leaves Ballinger in his natural position, which may have helped him with his back injuries not having to bang with the C's so could have got more out of him.

Holmes off the bench, play 15-20 mins per game, he doesnt seem to be a guy that likes to come off the bench, so may not have been overly happy, but thats his role. Or he could start and play some SF, as he cant start PF alongside Ballinger, just too small of a big man rotation.

Play Winder in his natural position sg/sf, with maybe just some minor back up minutes at PG, dont force him to play PG when it was pretty clear it wasnt natural to him, i saw him play pre-season when DeVries was out and Carter started PG alongside Winder, he looked great and put up around 20pts a game in pre-season starting along side Carter without DeVries, which leads me to

Start Carter, play him 25 mins a game at PG, he is basically the only true pg on the roster, and he is pretty good imo, not a star but could be a Rhys Martin style starting PG imo, and when Bruce comes in later in the season he gives a good back up.

DeVries - keep through the injury and bring him off the bench atleast until fully fit, maybe the trade-off is he signs for the next season at a slightly reduced rate to repay the 36ers sticking with him and rehabbing him, he is doing great in Spain right now and is a decent import imo,

Hill, Creek, split the minutes between them, sure Creek was young, but again this is year 1 of a 3 year plan, let the kid loose, and we came 2nd last anyways so what do we have to lose. Atleast until DeVries is fully fit and takes some sf minutes.

Bruce - be realistic he came in mid season, as a fill in, after not plying pro ball for 2 years, dont expect rookie of the year form, just 15 min a game back up, which he did fine imo, then retain him the following year for a larger role.

So by the end of the season, with everyone fully fit bar Herbert and Ng, who were replaced by Creek and Bruce, my rotations would have been

C Johnson (25)/Dowdell (15)
PF Ballinger (25)/Holmes (15)
SF DeVries (10)/Hill (15)/Creek (15)
SG Winder (25)/DeVries (15)
PG Carter (25)/Bruce (15)

To me that would have been better than what we finished with and a good genuine core to build on and realistic to keep the bulk of the team together.

No need to go through import after import trying to find the exact guy who Marty has never found, just be adaptable, if Winder and DeVries arent PG's play them at SG/SF and use your Australian PG's.

Thats what COACHING is, its too easy to blame the player and replace them, and it gets bloody expensive im sure, that is why i am a fan of locking in your roster for a whole season and no mid season changes unless forced by injury. Make coaches select carefully and coach players to their Strengths, and it in most cases could work out i reckon.

Ok Year 2

Offer Carter and Bruce 100k each at the start of the offseason and hopefully retain them both, to share the PG and play some SG at times, both get 20-25 mins a game, should keep them happy, sort of realistic they would say.

Retain DeVries, let Winder go, cant have 2 import SG's, nothing against Winder, just reckon DeVries could have been our Lisch type guy, so chose him, but ultimately chose 1 import sg.

Bring in Weigh for Hill as happened.

Bring in a import PF/C, Williamson for Holmes as happened,

Nothing against Holmes and Hill, Weigh is better than Hill so its an upgrade, Holmes to me seems to always want to start so bring an import who is happy to come off the bench and there is a fair chance you could find someone better the Holmes for possibly cheaper.

Not fussed if you bother replacing Dowdell with Helliwell, lets just say they do it, and use him properly in a Reesy type role.

Make a choice between Herbert and Ng, im 50/50, ill keep Ng, just as he is a SA local

So here is my roster, with a wopping 4 changes, Clarke made 7.

So that gives me a team of

C Johnson/Helliwell
PF Williamson/Ballinger
SF Weigh/Creek
SG DeVries/Ng
PG Carter/Bruce

7 returning players, so there is an established core.

Big guys, doesnt overly matter who starts, I just like the Johnson/Williamson combo and the Helliwell/Ballinger combo, so basically split the minutes between the combos.

If as happened Williamson gets injured, if as is believed he was a great guy, potential MVP level and keen to stick around, do as did last season with DeVries, keep him rehab and retain him for next season, and allow him to get fully fit and flourish, maybe bring in a short term import as an injury replacement or just give the spot to a Mottram type who would have been available to fill in until Williamson returns and play Ballinger more (around 30-35) minutes to cover, assuming he stays injury free, which he also didnt, so that makes this hard and would have been unpopular, but given this was year 2 of a 3 year plan and the team came last, what have we got to lose by taking this punt.

SFs- play them both around 20 mins each, do not over play Weigh and give Creek a chance to improve.

DeVries to me could have easily averaged 15-20 points at a high clip, as he is doing in spain, so worth keeping, and would have done well injury free.

PG's - as a rule split the mintues evenly, Carter brings Defense and solid offense, Bruce brings more offensive flair and still pretty solid defensively imo, just use them both to their strengths, let Bruce play with a little flair, and weight the minutes game to game based on form, momentum, etc. If Bruce does his knee as he did, then bring in Bartlett as happened.

So gives rotate like this, put injury replacements in brackets

C Johnson (25)/Helliwell (15)
PF Ballinger (or replacement Simpson) (20)/Williamson (or replacement ie Mottram) (20)
SF Weigh (20)/Creek (20)
SG DeVries (25)/Ng (15)
PG Carter (20)/Bruce (or replacement Bartlett)(20)

I almost guarantee that team does better than what we ended up with, and playing Ballinger less and at PF in the 1st season and this season reduces injury risk imo.

Also has plenty of players the crowd is familiar with, and no one is going to blame the coach for injuries.

Year 3

Lets assume, for this the Blaze stay alive and we dont get Gibson and Petrie as that cant be in a 3 year plan, but if they do, they just replace my imports, so what ever you prefer.

My only changes are:

Helliwell and Ng our retired

Cadee and Schenscher in - would fit points wise, salary could be a stretch, if its an issue go with 1 import and go with Vasiljevic/Mottram type as the 4th big.

A wopping 2 (or 3) changes, increasing continuity.

This gives me a line up of

C Schenscher/Williamson (or Vasiljevic/Mottram if salary cap an issue)
PF Johnson/Ballinger
SF Weigh/Creek
SG DeVries/Bruce
PG Carter/Cadee

7 players returning from season 1 as apposed to 2 that Clarke has brought back, 6 if as happened the gold coast collapsed and you bring in say Gibson and Petrie for DeVries and Williamson, but im going to stick with the imports.

To me that team is the equal of our current roster, if not better, without Gold Coast collapsing,

Bringing 7 guys back from season 1 means the team can really hit the ground running, and also the fans can get behind them and i reckon guys like Carter and Devries could have been cult heros.

Not that our current roster is bad, i reckon this roster has the edge, just due to the continuity.

Lets compare

Schenscher v Schenscher - same

Williamson (or Vasiljevic) v Vasiljevic - upgrade if can fit Williamson or import in, same if its Vasiljevic

Johnson v Johnson - same

Ballinger v Petrie - debatable, for the role needed Petrie is probably better, but im saying was unavailable, so we will call it a very small down grade.

Weigh v Weigh - same, im playing him around 20 mins instead of 30, so ill call it an upgrade

Creek v Creek - same, im playing 20 mins, instead of 10-15 so potential upgrade

DeVries v Gibson, im saying Gibson is unavailable, but if available probably fairly even, DeVries a better shooter/scorer, Gibson a better defender. I'll give it to DeVries as he has been there since day 1.

Bruce v Massingale/replacement import - Bruce is the better as he is a better player than CJ, not a gamble and been with the team since the 1st season.

Carter v Crosswell - upgrade, Carter is younger and gives the team the defensive grunt needed not having Gibson.

Cadee v Cadee - same

Ive ended up with 5 guys the same as the current roster, with most other changes being pretty even overall imo, the big advantage though is 7 guys back from 1st season to allow the team to hit the ground running.

That to me is how a 3 year plan should look, obviously retaining guys you want isnt always that simple, but i got the impression guys like Bruce, Carter, DeVries would stick around if given decent offers so its not totally unrealistic either imo.

Reply #391944 | Report this post

Years ago

Crosswell replaced Carter. I'd rather have Carter back than Bruce.

In fact, given their respective shot attempts, Cadee is not far off Bruce's current stats. I prefer Petrie to Holmes also.

Reply #391945 | Report this post

Years ago

oops i meant year 3 Schenshcer in for Ballinger, as happened

Giving final roster of


Meaning its

Schenscher v Schenscher - same

Vasiljevic v Vasiljevic - same

Johnson v Johnson - same

Williamson v Petrie - potentially Williamson could be better, but Petrie is a great fit imo, so i'll call it even, but Williamson has the higher ceilling and if he reaches MVP type form then its an upgrade.

That is definately more realistic salary wise, and keeps a good core from year 1

Reply #391946 | Report this post

Years ago


Reply #391908

*notice the players that left were the older players. Younger ones stayed.

This says a lot about the last 3 years and the lack of success as an NBL contender. The first 2 years the younger players stayed because they were being developed. This year, the younger players are not development players anymore, on top of that he has kept a few more mature players from previous season and recruited a couple of good new players, yet he is not seeing the success that this roster should be bringing. Doesn't this prove that Clarke is only a development coach and nothing else.

Reply #391948 | Report this post

Years ago

But injuries happen,devries was out of action for almost a year, williamson didnt play a game and last looked still getting injured.Ballinger = over paid,which changed what you could offer other player.$100,000 x2 Bruce , carter + 200,000 for injured Balls.
What the rest of the team playing for $600,000 left. Import $100+ each, leaves say $350? For 5 players.
Couch coach get real!!!

Reply #391949 | Report this post

Years ago

I guess with injuries, i would rather NBL clubs be more like AFL, re hab them and get them back, even if that is next season, have a longer term view, had they done that we wouldnt have had the import merry go round, and what did replacing DeVries and Williamson and not bringing them back achieve, very little in the end, we were bottom 2 either way. Say we played with 1 import each of those seasons, wouldnt have been much worse, but had alot of potential to be very good in the future.

I would like to see guys, even imports rehabbed with a longer term view, obviously the player has to commit to the club, probably at a slight discount for the next season aswell, we could have potentially had DeVries a good import in our team for 3 seasons, playing 2 of them at a high level if we took that approach.

Re Ballinger overpaid in say year 2, sure, but my overall roster isnt that un realistic salary wise

say the went with salarys along the lines of

C Johnson (100k)/Helliwell (50k)
PF Ballinger (200k)/Williamson (100k)
SF Weigh (100k)/Creek (50k)
SG DeVries (150k)/Ng (50k)
PG Carter (100k)/Bruce (100k)

fits under the 1 mil cap

Dont know if thats even close to what they got/get, but not totally unrealistic imo.

Reply #391952 | Report this post

Camel 31  
Years ago

Last game against us Bruce seemed to go off the dribble . This fried Clarke's mind
20 & 5 against us average approximately.
Holmes the better rebounder even though Weigh is concentrating on that more , although 20 minutes weigh would be absolutely sweet.

Reply #391953 | Report this post

Years ago

Interesting side note that Camel would love. The original combination of Creek and Hill compared to current production of Weigh in over 35 mpg.
Weigh 9.9 6.3 and 1.6 at 44%
Creek in 15 min 5.3 2.5 and .5 63%
Hill in 20 min 8.9 6 and 1.7 42%
Weigh's production falls weigh short of what you would expect from a 35 mpg player. Better this season though. Solid but not great defender. Shooting the ball consistently for first time in career. Major investment by club and coaches, hope it pays off.
Could cost club a player of huge potential in Creek.
Fourth seson next year does he want to stay in Weigh's shadow again. Both genuine threes. Weigh can shift to 4 a bit Creek to 2 a bit, but not ideal.
Need to share the three and play other spots a bit to put them both around 25 min.
Would make the team better. Weigh's numbers probably stay the same and Creeks will explode.

Reply #391954 | Report this post

Years ago

Yea Bruce can flat out play, can be erratic i know, but still one of the better all round aussie guards in the league, definatly good enough to split minutes with Carter at PG, to me that would have been one of the better PG rotations in the league, Bruce or Carter would be the best back up pg by a fair bit, with the other being a decent starter,

why didnt Clarke keep him? Always got the impression Clarke showed no interest in keeping him, if he had he may have stayed. Is it because Bruce isnt robotic enough for Clarke?

or did Bruce want out and decide Sydney would be better for him?

Reply #391955 | Report this post

Years ago

excactly, thats why i would always basically have Creek and Weigh split the minutes, right now id weight them towards Creek, as he does more in less time imo.

Next season, i wouldnt be too upset to see Weigh go, keep Creek and upgrade him to starter and maybe have an import sg/sf backing up sf.

Reply #391956 | Report this post

Years ago

Adelaide never got in contact with Bruce after his fill in stint, Sydney pursued him strongly and got there man. If I were a coach I would have Bruce ahead of carter because he is simply a better basketball player offensively and defensively. In saying that carter does get a lot of steals from mirroring the ball but I think Bruce has proved this season especially that he is a superb defender. Bruce is a better shooter and passer and this year he has hardly been erratic averaging just over 2 t.o's a game which is pretty good since he averages around 30 mins a game

Reply #391959 | Report this post

Years ago

I'd take Carter over Bruce anyday of the week.

Reply #391960 | Report this post

Years ago

This is, what, the fourth straight season we're having the "it's not to late to turn it around" conversations in here.

It all seems a little pointless. Management won't sack Marty, no matter how many times he finishes last or how inept he is. The roster is one of the best in the league, regardless of how many players have been retained.

We're going nowhere with no plan to change direction.

We can kick and scream all we want, but Sixers admin rarely if ever make any adjustments in situations like this.

And now we get around 4,000 people to a game.

Reply #391979 | Report this post

Years ago

I like Carter and Bruce, which is why in my plan i keep them both if possible, both should have got good offers by the club before the season finished. I guess the problem was that Clarke thought he could get a star import pg or a Gibson, of which until the Gold Coast collapsed he didnt really get either.

I think in hindsight we would have been better off just locking in Bruce and Carter, there still could have been room for Cadee imo, and Gibson could take the import spot as he has done still,

imagine a team of (with approx salaries)

C Schenscher (120)/Vasilljevic (40)
PF Johnson (150)/Petrie (80)
SF Weigh (100)/Creek (80)
Sg Bruce (100)/Carter (90)
PG Gibson (150)/Cadee (90)

The fwd/ctr rotation is the same as we have, but the guards is a fair bit better imo, you could basically start which 2 you want.

Obviously probably very hard to actually get as some teams would out bid us for say Bruce or Cadee, but not impossible either, especially keeping Bruce and Carter from season 1, on longish term deals, adding in Cadee at year 3, then Gibson just takes the import (DeVries's spot) if as happened he becomes available.

But year more than likely we would miss out on say Cadee, as Carter and Bruce, Petrie likely demand more than i have listed there and have a cheaper import in his place, say with 40k salary which would give us a team of

C Schenscher (120)/Vasilljevic (40)
PF Johnson (150)/Petrie (100)
SF Weigh (100)/Creek (80)
SG Bruce (120)/Import (40)
PG Gibson (150)/Carter (100)

(4 players from season 1, 5 if you dont get Gibson and keep DeVries)

NBL clubs should keep top imports around through injuries on longer term contracts imo, much better than going on the merry go round, even if it hurts you for 1 season out of the 3 (in which we were bottom 2 anyway) bit more like AFL clubs do, and i dare say the Wildcats would do something like this if Lisch were to have suffered a long term injury, they would have kept him around and just got a short term injury replacement import, all clubs should do that imo.

To me thats still a better guard line up than we have now, with Bruce better than Cadee, and Carter better than Crosswell.

Just needed a few things done differently from the 1st season and could have happened.

But even still,as people say our roster isnt the issue, the coach is the issue, until that change is made it probably doesnt matter who plays for us. Just had a lot of talent at our disposal that hasnt been used properly or locked in for the long term which is many peoples issue.

Reply #391982 | Report this post

Going back  
Years ago

as OP my point was that the player turnover is a negative on the coaches and also negative for supporters who can't keep up with the changes to the team:

Point in case is Isaac saying he prefers Petrie to Holmes......maybe but not a big difference and if the coach was able to get the best out of Holmes like Townsville did then he becomes a better player over 3 years with his home club and with players he has played with for a while (see Perth)

Same with Carter & Bruce - both great guards who if they were with the club for all three years would be playing well together

My point is mainly that fans used to relate to the 36ers because if you went to a game you knew you would see Maher,Rees,Sapwell,Cat,Brooks,Mee,Rilie etc then they recruited Stiff but he stayed for some time

Fans could get used to the team because they signed players for 3 years

Reply #391991 | Report this post

Years ago

Exactly, and recruit and retain is the point of a 3 year plan.

Clarke is definatly too stubborn and in dream world at times.

I can get a Ervin level import or Gibson so wont bother talking to Burce and Carter, WRONG, we would have done much better if we had just kept them imo.

Cant blame him for import injuries to DeVries and Williamson, maybe we would have been better off keeping them and rehabbing them and keeping them on the roster for 3 years, but can see why they didnt, selection hasnt been too bad they have all been good players, just not always suited to what Clarke wanted to do, if he put guys like Winder, Howard,Warren, Massingale in roles they can use there natural skills he would have got a lot more out of them imo and the team would have had more success, ie free all 3 of them up to play as scoring sgs with a bit of flair instead of either trying to turn them into pgs or tell them to just wait in the corner. So Clarke has to either get a guy proven in the role he wants or adapt his game plan to the player he ends up with, but is too stubborn.

Imo his overall game plan hasnt fitted the players we have had in his time here, and he has been too stubborn to change. Alot like Craig and the Crows. But atleast Craig made finals most of the time so had atleast proven his game plan some what, Clarkes game plan has been bottom 2.

Reply #391997 | Report this post


Reply to this topic

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Deimos 73

Rules:You must read the Terms of Use. No spam, no offensive material, no sniping at other clubs, no 'who cares?'-type comments, no naming or bashing under 18 players. Learn how to embed YouTube videos or tweets

Please proof-read your post before submitting as you will not be able to edit it afterwards.

Close ads
Serio - aerial photography
Dunk.com.au - Custom basketball uniforms
Punch - insightful time tracking

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 3:08 am, Fri 25 May 2018 | Posts: 715,601 | Last 7 days: 883