I don't reckon it's a complete failure if they don't win bronze.
It would be disappointing given the way they played early in the tournament, but the fact still remains we've actually over-achieved based purely on our world ranking (11). We beat France (5), Lithuania (3) and Serbia (6) in pool play/quarters.
So not a complete failure in my eyes.
I wouldn't see the campaign as a failure if the team misses the medal. It'd be a disappointment but not a failure.
This is the most impressive Boomers team I can recall for a long time. Watching them has reminded me of the air that the Adrian Hurley coached teams had about them. i.e., a cohesive unit with a lot of self-belief, in themselves individually, in each other and collectively as a group. I haven't felt that way watching a Boomers team for a long while.
However, I suspect the players will feel a sense of failure if they don't win the medal.
Couldn't disagree more. This team has over achieved. This team at worst will have th equal best result ever and have beaten some genuine beast teams. Including the eventual silver medalist. Can't see them beating Spain but that doesn't mean much, when the future is still very bright!
Serbia executed a remarkable shift in strategy, and showed the Boomers they had what it took to win. Having lost to Australia 80-95 in the Group A tourney, they readjusted and secured a decisive 87-61 victory in the semi-finals.
So how did they do it? Their strategies are also likely to be adopted by Spain.
How Serbia adjusted and dominated the Boomers
the fact still remains we've actually over-achieved based purely on our world ranking (11).But that's the collective ranking for our past teams. That's not the ranking for this team. This team is ranked second. Finishing fourth would clearly be a failure.
Find 4 more and our 2020 team should almost certainly medal"
Why do people continue to think that a team of mostly international rookies *should* be able to medal? This tournament has highlighted the importance of having an experienced core who know the international game well. By 2020, Simmons and Maker will have, at most, one tournament experience, the 2019 World Cup. That's it. One campaign together. Likely no qualification games experience. Bear in mind, we need a strong showing in the World Cup to qualify for the Tokyo Games. These promising young guys whose names keep being mentioned might be able to complement our experienced core, but don't expect them all to suddenly be major impact starters that can handle the pressure of big international knockout games.
Even now, they are just young guys with potential. Maker has never played for Australia, Simmons sat out the juniors (last time he played for Australia he was 15), and Exum hardly impressed when he suited up for the Boomers in 2014.
By 2020, we might even be in a situation where none of the young NBA guys have any playoff experience, let alone one-off elimination games. I really hope players our starters can keep their bodies in good condition through to 2020, because their experience will be invaluable. By 2020, Ingles will be 32, Baynes 33, Delly should still be in his prime at 29 and Mills will be 32. Bogut will be Pau Gasol's age in 2020, age 36, so fingers crossed he will still be able to contribute as much as Gasol is for Spain this Olympics.
These 2016 Games have all these guys in their prime. The time is now. It is a great opportunity to grab a medal. They are definitely underdogs for outside observers in this one, but that perception might suit them better than the semis where they were favourites.
"This team is ranked second. Finishing fourth would clearly be a failure."
Perhaps I have been too pessimistic, but pre-game I had the Boomers as favourites only against China and Venezuala. IMO, wins against Serbia, France, and Lithuania were upsets. Perhaps they deserved to go in as favourites against Serbia in the semis, based on their previous performances in this tournament, but I had $200 on Serbia because I thought they were more dangerous (although I regarded it as a profitable insurance policy). Prior to this tournament, based on talent, I don't think anyone who follows international ball, apart from the team themselves, really believed they were genuinely medal material and should go top 4 at least. So a top 4 result surely has to be a success.
Given their form throughout the tournament, though, it must be regarded as a disappointment to walk away with no medal.
"They are definitely underdogs for outside observers in this one, but that perception might suit them better than the semis where they were favourites.
I think you're right there. When Australia thought of themselves as the favourites they didn't come out with an edge to them. But every time it's been a game they weren't expected to win they've been pests on defense. It also helps if Spain comes in underestimating Australia. The best thing we can hope for is a fast start where we never take the foot of the pedal, and coming in as favourites rarely inspires that kind of play.
So Koberulz, at the risk of indulging in dialogue with you, you're basically saying that a bronze would be a clear failure for the Boomers. Because they were ranked second. Just stop dude, to finish fourth at worst, looking at the talent of the other 3 teams left, and unlike other fourth place finishes in the past, where the future wasnt as bright as this one for this group of guys, this has been a success. The Boomers are rising and a Bronze would be a magnificent achievement, not a failure.
The Serbia game was, admittedly, an embarassment. But the tournament has been anything but a failure.
Aussie hoops says they've had massive amount of kids sign up during the Olympics and Channel 7 says the basketball has been a massive ratings winner. We've also knocked a few Euro powers out and our international ranking should rise from 11th to somewhere between 7-10 apparently after tonights match depending on result.
To expand on the second-ranked thing, now that I'm not trying to fire off messages while watching the bronze medal game:
Yes, it's an incredibly small sample and totally meaningless, but it's the only sample we've got with this team. It's certainly a better indicator than the country's rank of 11th, which has only increased to 10th even after this and nobody could argue with a straight face that the team that competed at the Olympics this year was the 10th-best in the world.
In fact, they were clearly better than China, Venezuala and Nigeria coming in, even to the most pessimistic of people, which ranks them ninth. Still higher than the nation's overall ranking now.
So to trot out 'we're ranked 11th, therefore a fourth-placed finish is a huge achievement' is silly.
Pool play doesn't give you rankings as each pool is different, it is just about getting to the QFs, the knockout rounds are about determining who is best.
The only time Australia has ever been ranked second in men's basketball in anything was in 2001 when we were ranked second in Oceania!
Pool play doesn't give you rankings as each pool is different, it is just about getting to the QFs, the knockout rounds are about determining who is best.But it's an assessment of the actual team that's competing, which the overall world ranking isn't.
Both numbers are pretty meaningless, but the overall world ranking is the more meaningless of the two.
We're going to have to medal a few times in a row to make it into the top three overall; after our third consecutive medal would it make any sense to say 'hey, we're only fifth in the world, we're overachieving'?
"In fact, they were clearly better than China, Venezuala and Nigeria coming in, even to the most pessimistic of people, which ranks them ninth. Still higher than the nation's overall ranking now.
So to trot out 'we're ranked 11th, therefore a fourth-placed finish is a huge achievement' is silly."
Don't forget how many good teams aren't even competing in the Olympics- all of whom would beat China, and I'm pretty sure most would beat Nigeria and Venezuela too (I have no idea how Venezuela won the Fiba Americas).
Canada, Greece, Italy, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, Turkey...most of the European countries who competed in Eurobasket 2015 (24 teams, most didn't play Olympics).
Koberulz you implied that anything less than second would be a failure, and yes a bronze is higher than fourth but lower than second... So a failure no mater what before last nights game? You talk too much my man. That campaign was one of the best if not best we have seen and the world saw it, knows it and respects it.
I am pretty sure the world respects Australian basketball after this Olympics. We were the talk of the town right up until the Serbia loss, and we pushed an inform Spain right to the brink and lost on a questionable call. I think the world knows Australia can play the game and they'd rate us. No failure here in my eyes.
Not in mine either.
Purely in terms of results, ask me before Rio and I'd have happily taken a 4th placed finish.
In terms of the way we played, I'm even more pleased.
I think this is now the undisputed best Boomers team ever, and as disappointing as it was to go out of the tournament like that, in the big picture it doesn't make sense to be anything but pleased that we're trending upward and the team is at its highest ever point.
In regards to how we play I thought at times we still tried too much to run an offense to the ground, rather than take the next best option to score.
Maybe it was having NBL players who didn't have confidence to play their usual game, maybe it was something else?
We ran the shot clock down on key occasions against Spain and Serbia by taking too long to score and that is partly due to our love of the system and team play, partially tight defense and partially our confidence level or decision making.
When we get it right, yes it looks great and we can play well, even against the best defense, but at times we lapse into a 'ring-around-the-rosie' offense and it is frustrating.
Not going to engage in the current debate, but I am surprised at how the world rankings don't rate making it to the medal rounds. The points allocations are:
I would have thought that 20 points for 4th would be more appropriate given you have to win a quarter final for that and 5th doesn't.
No bikkies for the best of the losers?
Once the dust settles I would love to know what lemanis had drawn up for that last attempt. Also an explanation of why Bogut stayed in. Perhaps he said 'my knee is shot just keep me in'. But he needs to explain some of that for the average passionate bball fan.
Lisch just completely lost his offensive confidence after a good first game. His D and rebounding were good in the bronze game, but he missed two bunnies he would have eaten for breakfast the rest of his career. It was all mental for mine, which is odd because he seems like a mentally tough bugger.
Koberulz you implied that anything less than second would be a failureWhen?
Purely in terms of results, ask me before Rio and I'd have happily taken a 4th placed finish.Sure. But that ignores how well they played in the pool rounds, which should have converted to a medal. That they didn't win a medal is a result of total incompetence, pure and simply.
As for whether or not I'm disappointed...I'd actually be less disappointed if it was our incompetence that cost us a medal and not somebody else's.
Also looking back, lisch completey out of his depth MartinFixed that for you.
hardly playedwas a huge key against Lithuania in the quarters
As for needing an extra big, and thus those spots being wasted...Bairstow was the extra big. Can't blame Lemanis for not planning around that.
Andersen was also sitting at the scorer's table for quite a while before Bogut fouled out, so in answer to the question of why he was out there, there simply wasn't a sub opportunity.
I agree with paul about Lisch. Lack of effectiveness was mostly in his head IMO. That's the down side of the biggest stage being his first real Boomers campaign. Baptism of fire. I thought he looked ok in the early games.
(No question he is on the small side for an international 2 though. Not ideal, but that's the depth of talent we're working with right now)
Does anyone think not playing Goulding against Spain was an error, let's face it he is likely our best exponent of flopping and we could have used that in the dying seconds.
The Boomers generally don't flop much and Mills could have chosen to flop when contact was made instead of trying to avoid contact (which he in fact did), but the official decided to make a call against him for essentially not flopping!
And, no I don't want us to start to learn how to play that way, it's just a tongue in cheek suggestion...
Koberulz you are such an arrogant jerk. You didnt fix shit, you just changed my opinion to fit your own. You really do make this place unenjoyable for the masses, you sad oddity. I think in hindsight, Lisch was a waste, and although Martin had spurts, Ogilvy as an EXRA big Euro type body was more important. Im sure the Boomers wouldve beaten Lithuania without Martin. Go ahead and change that suit to suit your own little opinion. Weak effort net warrior.
And when you referred that by finishing the pool stages ranked second, and that anything thing below that would be a failure, as you dissect everyones words, your indirectly implying that third place would then be a failure, as it is indeed a lower finish than the pool and of second.
You didnt fix shit, you just changed my opinion to fit your own.http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fixed-that-for-you-ftfy
And when you referred that by finishing the pool stages ranked second, and that anything thing below that would be a failureI never said anything below that would be a failure.
Hell, I never seriously said we were ranked second, I was deliberately using a bad metric to illustrate how bad the 11th-placed metric was.
I think in hindsight, Lisch was a waste, and although Martin had spurts, Ogilvy as an EXRA big Euro type body was more important.
You don't see a problem with that lineup?
Goulding being listed as a 3 is one obvious problem with it. What the?In terms of what he gives you on the court, it makes more sense a) to have him in the third string and b) to have him in the Broekhoff slot. I'd be worried about a lineup that had him as a ball carrier.
Regardless, even if you put him at the two it realistically becomes:
Because if Goulding is your primary/only backup at the two spot, you're in trouble. It's still top-heavy.
If Bairstow was healthy our big rotation would have been fine. Yes, Lisch was a non-factor but even if you insist on replacing him Newley makes more sense.
Lemanis didn't pick that squad, so I'm not really sure why he'd stand corrected.
Two and three are more similar to each other than three is to four, really, if you're intent on slotting each player into exactly one of the five positions. Goulding isn't really a ball-carrier or a play-maker, nor can he provide the defensive pressure the Boomers thrive on, so I threw him in at the three. It's not really a big deal.
We can sit here and argue all day about the finer points, but at the end of the day bringing Ogilvy in for Lisch leaves you very weak in the backcourt in exchange for...not really very much at all. If Bairstow weren't injured I doubt we'd be having this discussion. He'd be largely irrelevant, with Bogut and Baynes taking most of the minutes at the 5, or Baynes has to play more 4 and push Andersen out of the rotation. I'm not seeing the benefits.
We took enough bigs, we just got caught a little short once one of them went down (and even then, Motum played tremendously). Imagine if we'd taken the lineup anon is suggesting and an injury occurred to a backcourt player. We would have been well and truly screwed.
No big deal yet you write essays defending taking CG at forward. Ogilvy up against Reyes and radijca would've been 'not much at all' that's where we were beaten. Reyes especially as a bench player came in and kept it ticking over for the spaniards. Barstow although a big was not that type of bang down low big. So the point is valid, a risk was taken, they just risked having less bugs than guards. And it caught us. Mills and delly are used to the 48minute format, they are young and could've played extra minutes if needed. Plus with big wins over China and Venezuela there was opportunity for rest there. It's probably not a massive deal all around, probably more to the point you fee the need to copy paste and shut very one down. So they respond, human nature and all. Tou're approach to this forum and the other people who posts is really kind of rude and arrogant a sometimes koberulz, try it in the real world.
"It's probably not a massive deal all around, probably more to the point you fee the need to copy paste and shut very one down. So they respond, human nature and all. Tou're approach to this forum and the other people who posts is really kind of rude and arrogant a sometimes koberulz, try it in the real world."
And all you're doing is personally attacking him for having a different opinion than yours.
kr, Lemanis played Goulding at the 2. That's why I mentioned Lemanis.
"We can sit here and argue all day about the finer points"
Feel free. But my sole issue was your use of Goulding as an international 3 whilst have only a single 2 in the team you listed. My initial "What the?" is really all I can contribute to any argument about that.
"That's the down side of the biggest stage being his first real Boomers campaign. Baptism of fire."
That's it. Rare to take a guy to an Olympics who has never tasted international ball before and I guess it showed after that promising start against France.
For an international rookie I thought Lisch was really solid defensively, save for the occasional breakdown, but just lost all confidence in his shot which was odd.
I wouldn't write him off completely though, Leilani Mitchell was a much better international player at the Olympics than she was at the 2014 WCs once she had adjusted.
Lisch is getting on a little bit at 30, but he could be important for the Asia Cup and WC qualifiers coming up.
As for the discussion about the team, this was clearly the best performing Boomers team ever, what Lemanis did in terms of style, offence, defence and selections worked incredibly well.
There should be nothing more than minor adjustments going forward (and taking six bigs when you want to play aggressive basketball isn't one of them).
Given it looks most of the key guys are keen on 2019 and 2020, and our exciting young guys to come in are suited to the Boomers style, we should be building on what we've done and aiming for gold.
Comparing Martin with Lisch is comparing entirely different skill sets. Martin is the undisputed champion of defense in our NBL + reliable handles and leader at the Point.
Lisch proved a consistent match winner when playing for Perth, great defender, also good with the ball and a clutch shooter always in the top 10 in the NBL. With R. Martin absent for the first 6 weeks last season The Hawks struggled in the back court when Lisch played point.
Martin is probably better in the 1 but Lisch is far more productive at the scoring end. Both were Olympic Rookies and both deserved to be there.
On the other hand Goulding is a confidence based super shooter but at Olympic level you get judged on your first 2 or 3 shots, You need to have no nerves and incredible confidence when you get the call.
Thank you Andre for a great role as Aussie Coach
Have to agree with Paul. There should only be minor adjustments to the program and personnel. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
I'd be inclined to take most of the guys from this Olympics to the next Olympic cycle, just add Exum, Maker and Simmons. The offensive emphasis might change with those three being in, but defensively it should stay exacrly the same except it will have more length and speed - which is scary to consider.
I'd like to see Lemanis stay as head coach and maybe have his assistants pick up the slack during his NBL season duties.
Feel free. But my sole issue was your use of Goulding as an international 3 whilst have only a single 2 in the team you listed.It felt equally silly to list him as the primary backup for Mills; I flicked him between the two spots a couple of times before posting.
Ogilvy up against Reyes and radijca would've been 'not much at all' that's where we were beaten.What does Ogilvy give you that Bogut and Baynes don't?
a risk was taken, they just risked having less bugs than guards.You want to have fewer bigs than guards, because there are fewer big positions.
Look at the actual rotations:
Even with this lineup that you say is too small, the four is the deepest position and the rest are roughly equal (some guys are less likely than others to play the positions listed, but they're all capable in various situations).
So let's drop Lisch, and bring in Ogilvy:
That's an incredibly weak back court, particularly when the gameplan emphasises defensive pressure by the guards. Ogilvy's stuck behind two and a half guys anyway, so how much court time would he even get?
Mills and delly are used to the 48minute format, they are young and could've played extra minutes if needed.But what happens if there's an injury in the back court, instead of the front court? You've gone from having a weak back court to almost no back court; if anyone other than Goulding goes down you're screwed. Not to mention potential foul trouble - Delly had plenty of his own against Spain. Now imagine Martin's injured and Lisch isn't there. We'd have been in exactly the same position as we were with Bogut.
Yeah sorry that didnt make much sense, was distracted watching a movie at the time. Basically you're a complete twat that debates for the sake of it. The amount of times you copy and paste to try and rebut with minimal substance, but just for the sake of it is just really annoying. So yeah, your a twat KRZ, hope that makes sense.
Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.
- Updated every 15 minutes
Thu 2:36- re: Any Philos in Kansas?
Thu 2:27- re: Any Philos in Kansas?
Thu 1:46- re: NBL LIVE STREAMS
Thu 1:44- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Thu 1:30- re: Any Philos in Kansas?
Thu 1:27- re: U14 club champs
Thu 0:46- re: Any Philos in Kansas?
Thu 0:10- re: SCC Results
Thu 0:01- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 23:51- re: Any Philos in Kansas?
Wed 23:46- re: WNBL Round 15
Wed 23:19- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 22:49- re: Any Philos in Kansas?
Wed 22:16- re: Zion mania begins tomorr...
Wed 22:04- re: VJBL South East Clubs
Wed 21:48- re: Roll out the Pork Barrel
Wed 21:37- re: SCC Results
Wed 21:31- re: SCC Results
Wed 21:27- re: AJC U18 team lists
Wed 21:18- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 21:17- re: AJC U18 team lists
Wed 21:15- re: U14 club champs
Wed 21:13- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 21:10- re: AJC U18 team lists
Wed 21:01- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 20:55- re: Roll out the Pork Barrel
Wed 20:52- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 20:50- re: U14 club champs
Wed 20:48- re: Roll out the Pork Barrel
Wed 20:47- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 20:45- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 20:42- re: Snakes v Sixers Jan 18
Wed 20:36- re: SCC Results
Wed 20:26- re: SCC Results
Wed 20:26- re: NBL LIVE STREAMS
Wed 20:20- re: U14 club champs
Wed 20:10- re: SCC Results
Wed 20:02- re: Snakes v Sixers Jan 18
Wed 19:44- re: Zion mania begins tomorr...
Wed 19:36- re: Zion mania begins tomorr...
Wed 19:25- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 19:24- re: Roll out the Pork Barrel
Wed 19:13- re: Roll out the Pork Barrel
Wed 19:11- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 19:04- re: SCC Results
Wed 19:01- re: Roll out the Pork Barrel
Wed 18:59- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 18:58- re: 36ers players caught in ...
Wed 18:54- re: Roll out the Pork Barrel
Every day is SU...,
Wed 18:48- re: Any Philos in Kansas?
Invoicing clients? Stay productive with Punch, the insightful time tracker that earns you more.
$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: 2:49 am, Thu 23 Jan 2020 | Posts: 815,745 | Last 7 days: 1,499