No.

What?

After the first seven Sydney points, Gleeson told either Hire or Kenny to check. After the next bucket, they were both sitting at the scorers table. After the next one, he spagged it and ripped the five out.

I dont know where you got that info about Beal but at one point during the game he was getting his back worked on by the trainers on the bench.

Why would any of what transpired be deliberate?

Take it easy Dazz, that's some pretty odd stuff to think, let alone put out there! They were simply jumped a little bit and like true title contenders do, locked in real quick and it was over.

SC, it was Kenny first followed by Jervis.

Ah ok, thanks for clarifying.

Either way, I still don't know why any of it would be premeditated.

Dazz,
This has to be the stupidest (serious) thread I've seen on Hoops Forum in a while. Why would the Cats give Sydney a head start?
Why would Gleeson tell Beal not to shoot?
He wouldn't.....

As I said:::
"I know it sounds crazy to suggest that they planned to give the Kings a head-start, but if not they were unbelievably bad."

I just can't figure out what was happening.

Can someone please explain the following:

How the Sydney Kings (not just any team, but the spooners, minus key players, and a team that apart from this was crap all night) went on an 11-zip run in the opening two minutes. Whilst the best defensive team in the league, on their home court, shuffled around like zombies.
(When I ask "planned" in some way, what I'm asking is whether there was some form of consensus to just not try very hard, or maybe just a shared opinion that the game would be easy? Either way, not impressed.)

Why did Gleeson bench his entire starting 5 after 2 minutes, put on his bench and run predominately with them for the rest of the game. Was it just him giving his starters a kick in the ass? Or did he realise that it was a great opportunity to get some minutes & form into the bench?

WTF is up with Beal? As I said, he took only one shot all night, and that was forced.
The biggest fear (and most obvious explanation) is that he is injured.
But then why not bench him completely?

He only played twelve minutes.

Gleeson played his best five on the night. It's not complicated.

The starters sucked, the bench came on and played well, some starters came back on and continued to suck, while the bench continued to play well, so they got the minutes they deserved. Really not that hard to grasp.

Great, here comes a "What Issues does Beal have to Worry About?" thread from Dazz.

Jawai also got his back rubbed on the bench whilst Beal was being worked on.

Hard to believe that it was planned as the 5 bench players got 10 straight minutes of game time .

Agree that if they don't lift they will get a spanking but let's call a spade a spade, we are such a different team when Prather isn't available

As Gleeson said on the radio to ABC Perth 'If they arnt performing, they sit down and we bring the other guys on'

Ive no problem with that. If the player you have on is cold, you bring on a warmer player and hope that the guy sitting on the pine sees this as a challenge and warms up quickly.

Dazz is an idiot.

It is certainly an unusual and unexpected event when three of your starters, who usually play good minutes, only see 12 minutes or less of court time each.

But a win is a win. If it worked, more power to the coach.

I think its one of the better coaching displays from Gleeson, to be honest. He played the guys that deserved to be out there and benched those that didn't.