I believe Brian drew the series 2 all
I saw a couple of SA games and they were very poor - no structure, no enthusiasm and very individual. No 11 needs to pull his head in and learn to go left

Brian lost the series on a points countback, and the games the Boomers won they probably should have lost. Three missed free throws with 4 seconds left - that's NZ losing, not the Boomers winning.

Boo Hoo! Anon#89208.Coaching at state level requires responsibility and accountability. If Players perform badly the coach is responsible.They are the people who most influence player selection, attitude and court time. To suggest that no one will rock up to coach a state side is farcical at best. Coaches are competitors too! to gong at u/18 nationals is a big get. Given the b'all culture in this state, S.A. are always a chance to medal.

Anon 89208

I agree senseless "knocking" of a coach doesnt do anyone any good, but I think its reasonable for those who went and watched the SA team play (and even train), have a reasonable understanding of the game (even experience at that level) and viewed other games at the U/18 championship to make constructive criticism on the flawed coaching performance of the Metro Boys coaching staff.

I would have thought some intellectual, basketball related debate could begin on the following erros made:
- Selecting a team without overall balance
- Selecting a team by putting greater weight on training performace than the players actual performance in their District games (not practice matches).
- Having an offensive and defensive structure that suited the coaches historical style instead of catering to the team that was actually selected
- Not coaching games out when both the immediate result and overall medal contention was out of reach

Only by identifying our flaws can we learn from these mistakes and make future groups stronger.

So this year's Metro team did poorly.....and two years ago they were just as bad.

The fault doesn't lie with a state coach who has the squad for 5 months.

The fault lies with:

1. SASI & Neil Glidden. No improvement over the two years

2. The players. very average skills, no stand out players at all with very little heart. No Brains.

3. The parents. Little Johnny isn't 'all that' after all. Don't ever expect a player to be selected who doesn't show up at training like Miss Hernandez' boy.

I feel sorry for Scott to have to coach such an average team of players that have NEVER shown heart or balls. I would have given up on them too (just like SASI has).
Maybe the boys should take up netball, you guys were pure marshmallow. Enjoy your social basketball life thats ahead of you.

Quick E Mart,

Firstly, by all means debate the basketball specific topics you don't agree with, but bringing this discussion down to "name calling" as you did in the last paragraph just shows you don't have the knowledge or maturity to be part of this discussion  move along thanks!

No one is saying that the players don't have some blame for the teams poor performance - I'm sure if you actually spoke to any of them they would say they are disappointed in the result and that they could have played better at times (thus accepting . To say that ALL of them have no heart is false  it's a sweeping generalisation based on a lack of first hand knowledge or a biased viewpoint.

There is no doubt that the coach will take some blame  to say he doesn't is just plain wrong and again shows a complete misunderstanding about team sports. The coach certainly doesn't shoot the ball for the players or pass the ball to the opposition. But he can reduce the probability of these things happening by putting a structure/systems in place that minimise them

Here are some specific examples:
- If the team struggled with 3pt shooting, decision making and on ball defence, why would you not select players who are strong in these areas? And yes there was players who were available for selection that did "fit the bill"
- Why play combination of players who are either playing out of position or given a role that they don't fulfil on a regular basis on Friday nights (four out of the five starters fit in this category)? Turnovers, missed shots and poor defence is a much higher chance of occurring  and it did against quality opposition.
- Why run defensive schemes that don't fit the personnel of the group? The amount of times bigger, slower players were driven by because the coach employed full court presses was amazing. Why not play a defensive scheme that would make your size and length a strength (half court man?) and mix defences up more sparingly.
- Following on, why run outdated plays that were easily scouted, did not have "counters", and did not put players in positions that again maximised your strengths and minimise your weaknesses?

Lastly, your opening line about this team doing poorly two years ago is somewhat "moot" when you see that only four players remain from that group two years ago. I think if you looked at the last "successful" U/18 teams (from a couple of years ago) under Paul Mesecke (won a silver and a bronze), they also did poorly in U16s but this was not used as an excuse for future performance. He improved them by selecting the right mix of players (after being heavily involved with them at SASI, scouting their Friday night games and playing a ton of practice matches to see what they were capable of against quality opposition) and putting in a better structure that was catered to them  in effect "learning from the mistakes of the past".

I was at the U18's and must say the whole coaching staff showed no emotion or excitement to be at an event like the nationals. Their team performed similarly.

There is a enormous gap between a kid playing Friday nights and national titles.

If I had to pick a team and there were 20 players to choose from, I would pick the best 10 players from the practice's that I am coaching.
Great if a kid can shoot 3 pointers but if he can't pass, dribble or play defense then see ya later. You don't seem to understand what makes a basketball player at national level.


Don't bring Mesecke into this, its not vaild to this debate.
Similarly Coach don't bring in the coach showing no emotion or excitement - if that is how you judge a coach then Phil Smyth wouldn't get a job coaching at Glenside.
Sorry about the marshmallow reference but you said that 'we had to identify flaws'. I wanted to say the boys needed a stick up them and burnt so instead I thought I would be nice and call them marshmellow's.
I'll move along now and leave this to you mature, knowledgable types.

Quick E Mart,

Yes there is a gap - however, wouldnt you say that a kid that hasnt displayed the skills AT ALL on Friday nights will struggle much more to apply them at a National Championship level, than another player who has quite successfully applied them in their district game? The former would have a greater "gap" to bridge than the latter.

You said - "If I had to pick a team and there were 20 players to choose from, I would pick the best 10 players from the practice's that I am coaching". The Nationals isnt a week full of "Shell" Drills, 3v2s, "7 mins of 3s" contests or "Piggy in the middle" passing games. Its fully timed, highly competitive games - not simulations. So picking the best 10 "drills boys" going around will certainly make your team look great executing their layup footwork in the warmup, but it wont translate to Medals at the end of the week.

Also, why isnt Mesecke's performance valid to the debate? Is it because it contradicts your argument that teams that fail in U/16s should logically fail in U/18s....and if they do, the coach is free from blame and the players should cop all the criticism. Ho about auguing the reasons why it isnt valid?

Until then thank you for leaving the thread.

Anon (#89400), I cant speak for the silver medal U/18 group because I didnt see them play first hand, however, the Bronze Medal group performed much higher than expected (they were a small group whos best player ended up being a kid that never made a state team in the past)and from the amount of times Mesecke has gotten more out of his groups than was exepected, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. But that's cool to have your opinion.

Completely agree with you on the second point though re "over scouting". However, I think that excuse gets used as a bit of a "cop out" from some coaches who are not comfortable with their scouting abilities and therefore do very little. I'll leave it up to you whether that applies to this case or not.

Anon 89441

Just because they were taping games, doesnt mean the coaches were actually watching them - I believe they actually watched one game for the week. I think the U/16s were watching 1-3 every night. Seems like too bigger discrepancy to me.