I think Randle will be back, whether on full minutes or something less.

Adelaide v Illawarra will be line-ball if he is, the Hawks aren't in great form. Melbourne v NZ is a great match-up and the Breakers have size to trouble them, especially with Cedric Jackson firing.

If Melbourne seal top spot Perth haven't got a heap to play for a few days out from their first playoff game and may rest a couple v Adelaide so that would give the 36ers a real chance.

I guess the answer to your question is no.

Perth might rest players in the final game if their own position cannot change. Nothing wrong with that.

And hey, if that results in a team they'd prefer not to play missing out, best of luck to them.

The current 4 and positions are the most likely outcome. But none of the 5 spots are actually set.

Currently: Melbourne are a win and the split above Perth.
Perth have the split and a win over Illawarra (Illawarra only have 1 game left).
Adelaide have the 2-1 split over Illawarra (so if we beat them, we win that split).
Illawarra have the split and 2 wins over NZ.
NZ have the split over Adelaide.

So, the top 2 teams are locked in, but Perth can catch take top spot if NZ beats Melbourne both times and Perth beat Sydney and Adelaide.

Adelaide can come 3rd, if we beat Illawarra and Perth, and NZ loses at least 1 game.

There can be a 3 way tie for 3rd. Each of the 3 teams will hold one split, so it comes down to season percentage. Illawarra probably have enough percentage to finish 3rd in that outcome. Adelaide currently trails NZ by 0.72%. So it will depend on who wins by more this round.

Only way NZ can finish 3rd would be with a 3 way tie and they beat Melbourne comfortably both times and we beat Illawarra comfortably (catch up 4.2%).

It seems almost definite that the top 3 will be 1 Melbourne, 2 Perth, 3 Illawarra. And NZ have the box seat for 4th. But nothing is set in stone. Only things set in stone are Perth and Melbourne get the home final and Adelaide or NZ will miss Playoffs.

There's a 0.0001% chance that Illawarra finishes 5th. Only way that happens is if both Adelaide and Melbourne win the round by like 60+ points each.

If there's a three-way tie for 3rd, 4th and 5th I believe it goes to W/L in those season series, meaning:

Adelaide 5-3
Illawarra 5-3 (3rd then goes to points diff)
New Zealand 2-6

If Adelaide win both they are in by my calculations and Illawarra can't miss out.

Time for a reality check ADL fans:

It is much more likely that NZ will win their home game vs MU than ADL beating Hawks or Perth at home.

Lets say NZ beat UTD twice and Perth win against Sydney and are up against Adelaide.

Do they allow the Sixers to win to have a potentially weaker opponent in the playoffs? Or do they play the game to win and have New Zealand come up against UTD?

2 Schools of Thought.

1) ADL could be weaker opponents.

2) NZ could be a bigger threat in the playoffs BUT they will play and potentially beat UTD, and could meet Perth in the GF with Perth having Home Ground?

After losing to both, NZ have managed narrow wins against Townsville & Cairns. I'm not convinced (and not interested in arguing the toss) that Cairns had anything to play for, and I know for certain that Townsville didn't. They also beat Adelaide with Randle, which is to say that they turned up for the game and he didn't. Anyone who thinks they have the slightest chance of taking down MU twice needs a reality check.
MU have an iron grip on 1st place, and will absolutely lock it in with just one win over NZ. End of story.

Cats cannot be caught, they have locked in 2nd spot.

Hawks I reckon have locked in 3rd spot. They have 16 wins, and can put it beyond any doubt by beating Adelaide. There's no way NZ catch them, and it really hard to imagine Adelaide sans Randle beating both the Hawks and Cats.

So its down to 4th spot, and the tussle between NZ & 6's.
My money is on NZ because they can hold the spot by doing nothing if Adelaide can't scrape another win.
MU should be out to put NZ away, but stranger things have happened. If MU are complacent in the 1st game, NZ at home are a tough opponent. Or if MU take the first, then don't care about the 2nd. I'd be surprised, but its definitely possible. If NZ gets just one win then that really puts the hammer on Adelaide.
I reckon Hawks will account for Adelaide unless Randle makes a miraculous comeback.
Then their only hope is that MU rolls NZ twice, and Perth have nothing to play for in that final game.

Dazz I think you'll find NZ were robbed in the first game they played against United in Melbourne and then beat them up here in Auckland.
NZ are more than capable of beating Melbourne when on song. The Hawks are the only team NZ have been unable to put away.

If Townsville had nothing to play for, how did they take the Hawks to OT in Wollongong? They were up by 9 with a couple of minutes to go!

I don't see MU as a lock to grab top spot at all.

Melbourne won a nail biter at Hisense against an NZ team that was missing Vukona and Wesley, and then in the return matchup NZ won comfortably

I don't see MU as a lock to grab top spot at all.

Melbourne won a nail biter at Hisense against an NZ team that was missing Vukona and Wesley, and then in the return matchup NZ won comfortably.

It's a very interesting dynamic now, because for the past fortnight everybody’s been thinking that the championship was pretty much down to a 3 horse race. But NZ could well pinch 4th spot and if they do, they’ll get a semi final matchup against an opponent who they’ve done well against - either Perth or MU (pending this week’s results).

NZ went 2-2 vs Perth but won their matches more comfortably. And one of the losses was in Perth where they were missing Webster (and Pledger, perhaps?) and it went down to the final play.

"Lets say NZ beat UTD twice and Perth win against Sydney and are up against Adelaide.

Do they allow the Sixers to win to have a potentially weaker opponent in the playoffs? Or do they play the game to win and have New Zealand come up against UTD?"

You don't give up Grand Final home court because you're scared of NZ in the Semis.

This has been a great season of teams having stretches of briliance.
First it was Melbourne who looked unbeatable - and they were for 9 games. Then they went a bit cold especially when they went someone warmer than Melbourne.
Then it was NZ for while once Webster got really hot.
Then Perth stateed looking really good once Prather found his groove and everyone wanted to know if anyone could stop the Hawks form hitting the 100 point mark with Ogilvy supporting Lisch and Penny.
Then NZ went real cold and everyone wondered why.
Then the Sixers started asking if anyone could stop Randle as they beat the High scoring Hawks and United is short time.
Then Penny got injured and the Hawks got the shakes, then Randle got injured and the 6ers went ice cold as NZ started to get a bit of swagger back.
So who has real momentum now?

5 games of note this round, so 32 combinations of results are available;

18 have MEL1 v NZE4 / PER2 v ILL3
6 have MEL1 v ADE4 / PER2 v ILL3
6 have MEL1 v ILL4 / PER2 v ADE3
2 have PER1 v NZE4 / MEL2 v ILL3

I don't see MU as a lock to grab top spot at all.

Lets say NZ beat UTD twice and Perth win against Sydney and are up against Adelaide.

Do they allow the Sixers to win to have a potentially weaker opponent in the playoffs? Or do they play the game to win and have New Zealand come up against UTD?

Dazz- I wasn't aware that Perth had 4 players missing the Kings game.

I don't believe they are "resting" them- it makes no sense for Perth to sabotage their own chances of finishing on top. It makes more sense to believe that those guys have legit injuries.

"This has been a great season of teams having stretches of briliance.
First it was Melbourne who looked unbeatable - and they were for 9 games. Then they went a bit cold especially when they went someone warmer than Melbourne.
Then it was NZ for while once Webster got really hot.
Then Perth stateed looking really good once Prather found his groove and everyone wanted to know if anyone could stop the Hawks form hitting the 100 point mark with Ogilvy supporting Lisch and Penny.
Then NZ went real cold and everyone wondered why.
Then the Sixers started asking if anyone could stop Randle as they beat the High scoring Hawks and United is short time.
Then Penny got injured and the Hawks got the shakes, then Randle got injured and the 6ers went ice cold as NZ started to get a bit of swagger back.
So who has real momentum now?"


Exactly!

Melbourne are on a roll at the momentum but is their run about to come to an end? Is NZ's run a return to their best or has it been helped by the level of oppo? Will Adelaide step back into previous form with Randle back in the line-up? Same with Illawarra with Penny back to full minutes?

You couldn't have scripted this season much better if you tried.

Totally agree Paul.

Epic season so far. If all teams can keep going/get going for the playoffs and we get some great playoff games, that'll put the icing on the cake.

I’m expecting all the finals series to go to 3 games.

"You couldn't have scripted this season much better if you tried."

I'm sure we'll soon learn that Larry has scripted this exactly how he wanted it.

Chalmers.

Did Larry script...

A. Matt Knight shoving Warrick in the back, pushing him into a Perth player and causing him to foul out?
B. The referees spending two minutes reviewing an out of bounds decision, with the replay showing it was off Martin, before giving the ball back to Perth anyway?

In other words, did Larry tell those refs to get Perth into overtime with those calls in the last minute?

No.

As you know, it's the NBL. The 50/50 calls often go to the home team late in games.

Which makes Perth’s decision to rest 4 players this week very bizarre, since MU’s victories over NZ are far from assured, and the move puts Perth’s chances of retaining home court through the playoffs in jeopardy. Did Larry script that one too?

I didn't think anyone would take that seriously but anyway...

50/50 calls are on thing. There are three examples, in three separate close Melbourne home games against other top teams (at the time), where the refs made either obvious blunders or just invented their own rules and/or interpreted actual rules in the most bizarre manner, all of which resulted in favourable outcomes for United. Two of those games resulted in refs being "stood down" supposedly.

So maybe scripted isn't the right word, I don't know what is, but for whatever reason, the refs blatantly determined the outcome for Melbourne. Take those results away and you'd be in a battle for 4th with the Breakers and 6ers right now. I don't think that is what Larry had in mind when he bought the league.

That's not a fair way of describing things Chalmers, because if those calls *hadn’t* been made the way they were, Melbourne could have won those games anyway.

If I remember correctly, in fact, at least as far as the Beal/Majok incident, the consensus on here (from Paul and knowledgeable parties) was that it was at least debatable. And- none of them were any worse than Knight’s two handed push in the back which resulted in Warrick fouling out last week.

And I have to say, the last time Melbourne got deep into the playoffs they got absolutely destroyed by the refs in Game 3 in Adelaide 2 years ago. They called some phantom fouls very early in the game (On Morrison and Walker, from memory), meanwhile at the other end guys were literally grabbing Goulding’s singlet as he made his cuts.

I don’t like it, and it makes the NBL a bit of a bush league in my eyes. But I’ll be honest enough to admit this: it’s a somewhat comforting thought that if it is going to happen, it might benefit my team for a change this year- since we’ll have home court advantage.

"And- none of them were any worse than Knight's two handed push in the back which resulted in Warrick fouling out last week. "

Really? You don't think the refs not only rewarding Goulding with the most obvious flop in the dying seconds against the Breakers, then deciding it was an USF because it was an out of bounds play, was on par or better than missing a push off the ball in the low post? Give me a break!

It was a while ago- can't really remember the technicalities of that decision.

Well anyway, be gracious enough to allow me to backpedal a bit, but yeah we can at least say that Knight non call was a disgrace.

And of course, the out of bounds fiasco with Martin a minute later shows that the Goulding/Webster incident wasn't the only time they went to a replay and still got it wrong!

Let me clarify though- the Goulding flop I'd say was actually on par with the Knight push in the back in terms of the initial call/non call.

But the ensuing, prolonged poor process and eventual bad decision does make the Goulding incident worse overall.

I just gave you the technicalities. Getting a call wrong is completely different to inventing rules, which they did on the Goulding flop. You can only wonder why.

"the Goulding flop I'd say was actually on par with the Knight push in the back in terms of the initial call/non call. "

Yeah, I guess in the past few years, the numerous articles, comments and decisions to crack down on pushes in the back because its a blight on the game makes Knight's foul just as bad as Goulding blatantly flopping at centre court on an out of bounds play.

Well you could interpret it as some kind of conspiracy from the top, or you could say that it was just a case of complete ineptitude from those two refs.

It's the NBL- so I'm going with the latter!

And as I said before, we don't know that Melbourne would have lost the game had that flop gone uncalled. So it's drawing a long bow to be making statements about "If..." ... "then...." Melbourne could be battling for 4th spot.

Flops are notoriously hard to pick, though, even When the best refs in the world from the NBA are trying to call it.

Whereas, Warrick clearly did not flop. He made an unnatural defensive movement by jumping forwards into the Perth player, and the ref didn't even question why- and neither did the other ref in the other position pick up on it. So I’d say it’s on par, yes. But we’re arguing technicalities now- my point is merely that in the NBL, home cooking happens. I don’t think you can just point to the Webster incident (and another one or two more debatable ones) as some kind of proof of conspiracy that Melbourne is rigging the competition or something.

I'm not saying its a conspiracy. I'm just wondering what has been going on with three very dubious results. It goes beyond "home cooking" but I don't know the reasons why.

And Goulding's flop was not hard to pick as a flop. At all. Particularly not when it was off the ball, in the middle of the court, with Webster barely moving, and with at least three years of flopping being a point of emphasis.

The New Zealand one was daylight robbery. The Perth one with Beal-Majok was controversial but not necessarily a bad call, what was the other one?

In return Melbourne have copped the wrong end of the stick in Adelaide and particularly Perth, where the final couple of minutes were nothing short of disgraceful.

Home cooking is nothing new, it's just that Melbourne are actually good enough this year to benefit from it.