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

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

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.

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.

Holmes is the only Aussie you would have back.

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

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

Roster

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.

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

Giving final roster of

Schenscher/Vasiljevic
Johnson/Williamson
Weigh/Creek
DeVries/Bruce
Carter/Cadee

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

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!!!

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.