Earlier this year
36ers first half, second half scoring disparity
Adelaide Now has an article in the usual section about the scoring disparity between halves by the 36ers at Adelaide Arena:
"In 13 home games Adelaide is averaging 40.1 points in the first half but just 34.5 points in the second."
Clarke and DJ both discount the rings themselves being an issue, noting they train equally on both. Also, fatigue is unlikely as the 36ers average more in second halves on the road.
Something the article doesn't raise and that immediately occurred to me is that in first halves in Adelaide, the team play in close proximity to the coaches. That is, it's quite possible that with a complex system, players are more likely to be in the right spots if the coaches can remind them firsthand by calling out and directing traffic. Across 20 minutes of play, that could potentially mean 2-3 more buckets and the difference in close games.
Down the other end, and with less influence from courtside, complex plays might unravel and look disorganised? Just from personal viewing, most of the horrible passages certainly seem to occur down "the other end." Massingale has acknowledged there's a lot to learn of the Adelaide system. Many suspected that Simpson struggled with it a bit. I've wondered about Creek (for all his intensity and efforts) and a couple of others who get pointed around by teammates when they out of position.
However, the away team always plays the second half away from their bench and Adelaide are, according to the article, better in this situation on the road - 7.8 points better in second halves.
That's quite a curious disparity. While the home scores alone push my theory, do the road numbers completely discount it?
Is it worth looking at opposition numbers too in case second halves see improved team defensive rotations in front of the coaches?
If the theory has legs, two things the coaches could try are:
- simplify the system
- make sure all players continually talk and direct teammates to position to keep things on track