Hooping
Years ago

U14 Boys Nationals

Who are the three teams that are going, I know Norwood and Sturt are going through but I heard a rumor that the third team is going to be a composite team. Should this really happen when the nationals are called Club Championships. Also who will coach this team. I thought North qualified as they got into top 4 and where the best of the hosting clubs.

Topic #3368 | Report this topic


Anonymous  
Years ago

Initially (very early on)I heard it was suggested that a composite team be entered but this was quickly quashed for many reasons. I understand that North is in as they are best of the hosting clubs.

Reply #38800 | Report this post


Let It Fly  
Years ago

I've also heard that the composite team is back on the agenda. Very poor form by the clubs involved. Not only does it make the "Club" part of the Championships moot - but what about the poor 7-10 players at North (who legitimately won the host rights) who may now be discarded for Woodville or Centrals guys. How would they be feeling, watching teammates prepare for a tournament that they desevedly qualified for but have been told "thanks but no thanks"? Having seen North play recently, they have made HUGE strides to bridge the gap between themselves and the "big 3" (in this age group) of West, Norwood and Sturt, and I feel would be fairly competitive come Nationals - not winning or anything like that - but also not being in the bottom 4 like I was thinking at the start of the year.
Let North compete with their players that won the right to represent THEIR club!!!

Reply #38813 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Both Norwood and Sturt qualified by finishing first and second in the State championships
The third spot is for the host club, this year the championships are being jointly hosted by North Woodville and Centrals.
In the interest of unity, Nathan Durant ( North Coach ) has agreed to have a look at both Centrals and Woodville boys to see if they can add anything to his team

Reply #38814 | Report this post


In the Know  
Years ago

Just proves why 1 club should only run the Championships.

Reply #38818 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I wonder if Basketball Australia know yet and whether they will be allowed to enter a "State" team into a Club Nationals.

Reply #38820 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

anyone else see some of the West boys rocking up to the training....

Reply #38823 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I agree with let it fly. I have seen North a couple of times during the season and they have improved significantly which was reflected in their position on the ladder after one round (3rd 7w,2l). From my observations they have achieved this with solid teamwork and game plan. I wonder how successful they would be if this was dismantled by splitting the team.

Reply #38824 | Report this post


The Journo  
Years ago

The organisers should actually get their basketball minds into gear and think that West should be the third team in.

They are the only legitimate chance of winning any medal.

I know people will say they didnt qualify but neither did Ian Thorpe for the 400m freestyle in Athens and he won gold.

Reply #38841 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

West Adelaide U14 boys aren't Ian Thorpe and they didn't miss out because of a technical rule that most don't agree with. Nice try Journo but your Bearcats missed out because they got beat. Simple as that. They needed to come top two to qualify and they didn't. Time to accept it.

North as host should be there.

BUT to those that question a composite team then you'll also enjoy seeing Canberra, NT Southern, NT Northern and two composite Tasmanian sides competing.

Reply #38843 | Report this post


Let It Fly  
Years ago

Sorry Journo - can't agree with you there. The 'third' SA team in is the host - the "big 3" all knew this prior to State Champs and knew that they had to come top 2 (apart from North, Woodville and Centrals) to qualify. I sympathize for them - they are dead-set stiff missing out and I believe would be our BEST chance for a medal if they were there (don't think they would be the ONLY chance, I think Sturt could medal based on their Classics results) - but they didn't do enough to qualify. They lost the only game they had to win to be ranked 1 or 2 in SA. Trying to oust the legit host team is poor form.

Anon - the composite teams you mention regularly fill out the bottom 4 (NT and Tas) and Canberra usually isn't much either. Do the Canberra boys play as a team in their NSW league (that's a question, I don't know?)? If so, then I guess that could be considered a "club" side.

Reply #38848 | Report this post


The Journo  
Years ago

I just thought that we would be trying to win rather than sticking by rules.

As the old saying goes: "rules are made to be broken"

I personally aren't fussed either which way, just was thinking of the good for SA basketball.

Reply #38849 | Report this post


The Journo  
Years ago

PLUS, i remember in 2000 when Forestville hosted the Under 14 Girls championship, the host gave up their spot for a team that were clearly better and had a chance of winning.

So I have a precedent as well for my case!

Reply #38850 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Journo,

So where do we draw the line at breaking the rules v trying to win. Remember these are 12/13 year old kids not professional athletes. Sorry rules are rules. If they have shortcomings address that when no party has any vested interest; not late in the process.

And on the Forestville issue: you used the words "gave up" not "taken away". In that circumstance there is no precedent.

Reply #38851 | Report this post


The Journo  
Years ago

But, it was for the same circumstances wasn't it?

Reply #38855 | Report this post


TR  
Years ago

Canberra Juniors pretty much run the same way as SA juniors (we have all the same issues here that you guys in Adelaide have with management). Just with a hell of a lot smaller talent pool to choose players from.

Most juniors play school, and we also have a club level. To be honest, what we call our Div 1's over here would probably be on the bottom end of Div 2 / top end of Div 3 calibre in SA

Reply #38856 | Report this post


TR  
Years ago

The Journo, so I gather that you would also say the 'your not breaking the law until your caught' also applies.

Reply #38857 | Report this post


The Journo  
Years ago

No, I'm saying that rules have been bent/broken before so its not all black and white.

The grey area is very very grey!

Every association has a different way of picking the teams to go to the National Championships, so it's not really a black and white law is it?

In the end, as an onlooker i think its common sense.

Where is Craig Stevens when you need him?

Reply #38864 | Report this post


Let It Fly  
Years ago

Journo, they are not alike for mine - I don't see North saying they are CHOOSING to give up their spot. I think Forestville were either winless/bottom or fairly close to it in that year (perhaps one of the Eagles boys could confirm??), so they would have struggled big-time, North are currently 3rd with a win v Sturt under their belt. Are they as good as West? No. Are they competitive enough for this tournament? From what I've seen, yes.

Reply #38867 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

The Forestville girls team 'The Journo' mentions were winless and bottom. From memory the girls in the team didn't want to play and get thumped every game. They gave up their spot to the next best S.A. team.

Reply #38886 | Report this post


Trex  
Years ago

So if I follow somes thinking, the top 8 sides in Vic (top 4 from each conference, they all played off for spots) all get together and pick 3 teams between them, add the country team and there you have vics "Club" championship teams...

Now, lets hear the absolute deafening roar from everyone outside vic who says that that is cheating and yes IT IS...

Some of you need to step back and remeber what "Club" means....and all that goes with the word as well...

Sheeesshhh

Reply #38891 | Report this post


Pegs  
Years ago

This issue was created about a year ago when BASA decided to give the hosting rights to North / Central / Woodville, without thought for the situation of the teams.

This group in U/12s were dominated by Sturt and West for the entire year, with Norwood the next best team and daylight in between the rest. One or a combination of these teams should have been given the hosting rights in this situation.

Some may say that North have bridged that gap, and to an extent they have. They have beaten Sturt, but wasn't that an injury riddled Sturt team?

Were North / Central / Woodville the only submission? No! Other submissions were received. Why were they not accepted.

Not taking anything away from the great strides that North have made, but it is a great tragedy that West are not playing when this could have been avoided by a little forethought...

Reply #38897 | Report this post


In the Know  
Years ago

I agree that West should be going but they lost the wrong game. There is too much emphasis on State Championships and pressure to make one weekend the selection process. The best way to even up the competition is to make Nationals selection at end of the first round of the Winter season. Everybody has played everybody and it doesn't just come down to one weekend.

Reply #38899 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

The nationals are a BA not a BASA sanctioned tournament. Each state has a number of picks and nominates teams. SA has 2 picks and they have chosen the method of selection to be the top 2 from state champs. The final spot that is being talked about is not controlled by BASA but by BA (to a certain extent) where BA dictates that the hosting club gets a spot. If you want to get West in then you should look at the BASA selction criteria and not BA rules.

I have made enquiries and Pegs I think you are exagerating the situation to say that Sturt were injury riddled. They were basically the same team that finished second in the state champs the week earlier.

Reply #38904 | Report this post


Pegs  
Years ago

Anonymous #38904,

If you were responding to my post then I think you missed my point. BA rules give the host an extra spot - in this case giving SA three spots. There were three very strong SA teams in U/12 (two went to Classics and finished top 5).

If some forethought was done then three and three could have been put together, and this situation avoided.

With respect to the Sturt V North game, that is why I put the question mark (the squiggle with the dot underneath), I wasn't there so wasn't sure. I assume they didn't play with the big stick figure, who can blocks shots from half a mile away though...

Reply #38914 | Report this post


On the outer  
Years ago

So Pegs you are suggesting that the tournament should have been run by either Sturt, West or Norwood to ensure that the three got to compete?

In other words lets forget which proposal was best ...

Reply #38922 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Pegs,

Yes they didn't have the "big stick figure" but neither did they have him the week earlier when they came 2nd in the state champs and from recollection actually beat Norwood (state champs) in the preliminary round.

I fully understand the point to which you were alluding. Look at the results from 2 years ago and manipulate the host team selction to ensure the the "big 3" get in. I guess you are discounting the ability for teams to either improve or deteriorate over a two year period. If you believe this then why should any clubs with teams lower down in premiership table worry about spending any of their scarce resources in working on those teams for later on. Just forget about them because they will always be the same and work on the next batch???

At that age group in particular team performances ebb and flo. Significant different rates of development, both skill and physical, occur at this age.

Secondly, I don't believe any of these three clubs between them have a home stadium capable of holding this tournament. Pasadena has an issue with roof height on the last two courts, West - no, Norwood?.

West is very stiff in not winning the one game which dictated whether or not they would qualify. This is not the first time, nor the last time when something like this will happen. It is simply bad luck. When Essendon were virtually unbeatable in the mid 90's they lost a preliminary final by one point in a game where they were red hot favourites. Everyone new they were the best team that year but could not participate in the ultimate game because they came up one point short. Is it fair: I think so. They knew what they had to do and were unsuccessful. Do you feel sorry for them: Certainly, months perhaps years of effort perhaps wasted due to a solitary point. But what came out of it. Essendon won next year and while West won't be able to participate in this competition again let them use this as a difficult lesson to spur them on to greater heights in the years to come.

Reply #38924 | Report this post


Pegs  
Years ago

Yes, I am suggesting that the tournament should have been run by Sturt, West or Norwood. Or combination of some or all of these.

The U/14 girls in 2003 was run successfully by North and Norwood at Wayville and DHD. Therefore stadium is not a problem.

Sturt and Norwood have a large number of teams and therefore volunteers would not be a problem. Norwood have recent experience and have run the Easter Carnival for years. Therefore ability is not a problem

I was under the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the reason that North / Central / Woodville was considered "best" got is because it was three clubs and therefore three times more volunteers and therefore easier to run!

In this case the top three teams were far more advanced than the other teams. The jump between U/12s and U/14s is not that great such that huge changes are likely to occur - so once again I say "yes".

Not that it matters because the decision can not be changed!

Reply #38938 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Get your facts right pegs. If you actually look at this age group at u12s the mavericks group also beat everyone except sturt throughout the year.

Reply #38952 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Also Im pretty sure South played in a final that year, might have been the Summer final from memory.

Reply #38958 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

You're wrong about Eastern though, that was last year; next years U/14 group.

Reply #38959 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

gees Pegs why don't you do it all on your bloody own.

you seem to know everything and don't think other clubs have the right to have the opportunity to run a tournament

just give it to the same club time and time and time again, wear out their organisation, their volunteers and when it becomes to hard let the state miss out because nobody else has had the chance to run a tournment.

do you wish to bring back hanging and the stocks or stoning the unclean as well?

Reply #38963 | Report this post


AsIseeIt  
Years ago

Why not have a playoff between the Compositrs and West?
Best team goes on.
My money says it won't happen, but if it did, put it all on West

Reply #38964 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I agree with an earlier poster who said that too much rides on the state champs. West have one game where they played below their best, the opposition jags a couple of shots in the dying moments and, bingo, they are out of the nationals. I believe a fairer way of selecting this is standings after one round of the winter season.

State champs can be impacted by draws, short term unavailabilty of players etc. The alternative minimises the impact of these problems.

On that basis West, Norwood & North are 1,2,3. Perhaps the debate should be about West and Sturt and not West and North/Centrals/Woodville. If you want to fight a battle it is too late this time around. Change the rules re: basis of selection from state champs to premiership standings for future comps.

Reply #38998 | Report this post


Let It Fly  
Years ago

The debate isn't between West and Sturt because Sturt legitimately qualified for the Nationals, West didn't!!! Sturt are ranked SA #2, West #3!!
Let's face it, the only reason this is even being debated is because West missed out - they are clearly the best overall SA team, whereas I'd say Norwood and Sturt are about even (I believe they are 1-1 this season and went 1-1 at State Champs).
No matter how the teams are selected, there will always be conjecture - remember, some Vic teams had a one-game playoff the night before Classics to qualify! The 3rd NSW spot is a one game playoff. There will always be issues. Our teams all knew long ago how qualification was determined, and all knew that whoever missed out would be extremely unlucky.

Reply #39007 | Report this post


Pegs  
Years ago

No matter what criteria you set for getting into the champs, there will always be controversy. At least with State Champs you know that is it, no questions. Every child is made available for the weekend, no school camps etc. Umpiring is not so dependent on which stadium you are in for the round. There is much less contention.

With respect to post #38963 and above. This is a unique situation in which there is obviously three teams above the rest. Take this years U/12s for example, Sturt and Forestville are way ahead in the girls - with noone else even close. The boys have Sturt way ahead with about six teams jockeying for position below them. My suggestion would not be appropriate for these groups.

Let us not bring back "hanging and the stocks or stoning the unclean"
- but a Dictatorship sounds good :-)

How about "All hail Emperor Pegs ..."

Reply #39010 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

i'm too polite to say on here what i really think Pegs

besides if i did it would be moderated

all teams play under the same criteria

west missed out under that criteria pure and simple

woodville men swept the league last year but lost one game the grand final they didn't offer to have a rematch against eastern to go to the SEABL playoffs because they played below their best for one game.

it is the format that has been in place for years it has its plus's it has its minus's

and remember dictators are rarely good and often lose their heads

Reply #39018 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

The "theme" of the under 14 nationals is "play by the Rules"

Food for thought

Reply #39020 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Are you sure it's not "Whinge about the Rules".....

Reply #39022 | Report this post


Let them play  
Years ago

WOW
Sit back all, and have a think about how old these kids are, West are a good team, just like the rest.
Have a think of some reasons why West didnt make it in State Champs, way too much pressure on Kids that are too young. I am not saying this is the case with the west team, but in my experiance with 14,s teams in this competition there is usually nothing but greif, between parents, parents and coaches and clubs.
The kids and parents are not ready for the pressure, the Coaches have to apply procedures for the level of competition that the age group is not ready for.
Drop the competitition at 14's I say.Bring it on in 16,s

Reply #39078 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Message 38959
The Mavericks U12s in 2003 beat Norwood at least 3 times I can remember, West in a qualifying game of the State Champ and never lost to South. In 2004 half that team remained and won the Winter Final. FACT. Sturt was the only team they could not beat.

Reply #39102 | Report this post


n  
Years ago

west beat north by 49pts

Reply #39105 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

coule be wrong but from what i saw the North boys were nowhere near in the same league as the West boys tonight anyway

Reply #39108 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Still goes back to who really cares

point is under the criteria for this year like past years the criteria to reach the nationals is to finish top two at the state championships

did west finish 1 or 2 NO
end of story

Reply #39110 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

If West are such a great team then why did they lose in the SEmi's at State Champs.

The reason State Champs is used as Qualifyers to Nationals is that they are both tournaments where teams that aren't able to handle backing up and winning don't get through. Just like at Natioanls. West provedf that they aren't able to win when it matters so they don't get to go!

Reply #39125 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

while i completely agree the rules are the rules and yes they do miss out because of one loss, (btw they are not the first favourite to miss out due to an upset loss at state champs or an injury), but your argument that they can't win in tournaments or when it matters would defy their 3rd place at the Classics.....

Reply #39177 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

so poor west didnt get in,quick lets change the rules.

Reply #50084 | Report this post




 

Reply to this topic

Random name suggestion for anonymous posters: Red 91

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
Dunk.com.au - Custom basketball uniforms
PickStar - The best place to book sports stars
Punch - insightful time tracking

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

Recent Posts



Invoicing clients? Stay productive with Punch, the insightful time tracker that earns you more.

Special offer: $30/month Pay $100 for lifetime access. Sign up now!

.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 12:50 pm, Mon 6 Jul 2020 | Posts: 838,005 | Last 7 days: 748