Actually, do they have to play 7 or just be registered?I thought they had to play eight. Given Perth have a double-header next weekend it's unlikely to make much of a difference, especially since they seem unlikely to make a move at all.
Suck it up. Beaten by a better team and a better coach.Derek Cooke is a player, not a ref.
Unless you're saying "we need to improve the team" is an invalid response to being beaten by a better team?
Would anyone be happy if Jeremy Tyler was suiting for the Wildcats? You can imagine that he'd be read the riot act before he signed, if he was planning on not training or being disharmonious to the team but he is quality offensively and something that's needed.
I don't mind seeing Perth lose home games but that game was boring for a lot of it and we need some extra excitement.
I thought Alan Wiggins broke his arm, is that all fully healed now has it?
This thread is essentially:
ATTN: Wildcats HQ We are struggling to buy the championship this year, buy harder
I get that teams chop and change imports, but we need to have the cutoff point WAY earlier in the season to avoid this kind of BS.
It's a cop-out and generally boring if the championship just goes to the most resourced team who chop and changes throughout the season until they've found the stud import combo to win it all. *Especially* if we don't have a hardcap and even more *especially* if those spending way more don't put into the equalisation pool.
I don't spend money on NBL tickets to play along with a tilted league with a predisposition of Perth and Melbourne winning the championship every year.
As an NBL fan, I demand there's a reasonable chance that over time all teams are able to compete and are legitimate championship prospects during periods.
Otherwise, what's the point? If the league is going to be predisposed to resourced teams buying during the season until they've got the best sides, why don't we just have the grand final between the most resourced and be done with it?
This leads me to the provocative nature of this thread:
At this point in the year, a 36ers or Cairns or Brisbane fan etc. would go "these players need to get it together".
This thread in a very Perth fan way says "I don't think these guys can win it all, let's buy a new guy so that we will".
Let's kill Perth/Melbourne fans dreams of buying championships and move the import cutoff date far earlier so that if they screw up in recruitment or team chemistry, they just gotta deal like everyone else.
That dilemma exists currently anyway. If an import goes down after the cutoff point then they're done for the season and even if they made the playoffs, an injured team would be undermanned and essentially screwed.
When a team gets injuries, it does affect them, that's kind of how sports work.
In the AFL [or any other sport] if you're gutted by injuries you either have depth or you take the hit for the year.
Maybe NBL teams will start recruiting for more depth, planning better rotations and perhaps selecting younger players to avoid injury dilemmas [which they should be trying to do anyway as a risk mitigation/limit future lawsuits/player welfare approach].
Teams can adapt to conditions such as injury risk, so moving the cutoff date forward a month or two would be significantly more beneficial in avoiding Perth & Melbourne's yearly blatant "buy the championship attempt" than damaging to a side with injuries.
Cats should of seen scoring issues last year which took them to the bottom of the ladder. Cotton was on fire to the grand final which masked this but the problems were there.
I kept saying the off season should of seen some effort to clear out some of the bench to match the talent the other big teams have.
In the end Cats forgot the problems they had last year and kept most of their nucleus. We saw it in the last few games come back to bite.
They better open their checkbook and recruit the next young players like Beverage did in 2010. Cant leave all these 30 year olds (or near 30) on the roster next year.
"And if a team gets an injury, they're screwed."
Only if you don't adjust the rules to allow for that, which would be very easy to do.
Re scorers, they got Cotton so didn't need Webster anymore. Cats just lacked composure against Melbourne's pressure, plenty of scoring opportunities but couldn't generate the ball movement to find them.
"In the AFL [or any other sport] if you're gutted by injuries...you take the hit for the year."
Why would we want to do that? That's a fast way to turn supporters away, by letting them know their season is over because they just have to take the hit with injuries.
You keep mentioning the idea of Melbourne buying a championship every year....that hasn’t happened once. The past eight title winners are Perth and NZ and the one thing they’ve had in the past decade that sets them apart from the rest is stability, not chopping and changing all season until they can buy the title.
Yes, last season Perth’s import revolving door was a little farcical but that was the exception to the norm for them.
You conveniently removed "have depth".
You know what may also become a fast way to turn supporters? If it becomes a league where you know who will win each year.
The past 8 title winners have been Perth and NZ because they've been the resourced clubs aside from Melbourne [who spent the time pulling NYKnicks incompetence].
You don't change a good thing when it's going well. When it isn't going well? You switch things up. That's what they did last year, aka, bought the championship. That's exactly what this thread is asking to do this year.
You don't have a league if it's only 2-3 teams who ever have a real shot at it. If the system is so heavily weighted in favour of the resourced, the entertainment value goes out the door. In a period of 8-10 years you need more than 2-3 teams being successful, it's just not good enough of a league/system otherwise. The NBL needs to satisfy 5+ markets, not 2 or 3.
This isn't Perth, NZ or Melbourne's issue, this is the NBL's issue. There will always be lesser resourced clubs, it's important the league is structured in a way that they aren't perpetually fodder or "doomed" to lose, otherwise where's the entertainment and what's the point. Even more importantly, why would I bother spending money if it's going to be so designed and predisposed towards a couple of clubs?
It's all well and good if you're a Perth fan or a NZ fan etc. to love the current system because you're always winning. When it boils down to it though, that can't be the case every year for the forseeable existence, it just won't work.
Can't say I agree with you on this one. KET.
It's a tradeoff between giving too much flexibility to clubs with extra money, and killing the chances of a team that cops an injury to a key player in the latter part of the season.
Personally I think they've got it about right. It's pretty unusual for a team that's had an import for this long into a season to swap them out for purely performance reasons. Even if the Cats do it, it would still be an outlier situation IMO and not worth changing the rule over. Especially considering what a risk it would be if they did pull the trigger now. They'd want to absolutely certain about what they were signing up, considering the established chemistry that they'd kill & need to rebuild in a short time with such a move.
Meanwhile, losing a star right now and being unable to replace them is pretty much fatal to a team in the finals equation. That's something we want to avoid until as late in the season as is practical.
Ket perth and nz have had some of the best local cores in basketball. Even afl as you keep making reference to has had hawks swans cats at the top for as long as i can remember say 8 or so years. It cycles, evwey time perth lose someone calls for cooke jrs head, frabjly if our big nen could avoid foul trouble i think we look way better. Last year wasnt fun for any cats fan with the import rollercoaster, i purchased a johnshon jersey the first time....
KET, I didn't conveniently leave it out. I purposely left it out to focus on your point that clubs should be forced to just suck it up if they have season-defining injuries. That’s a recipe for disaster. The import rule as it stands allows some flexibility so all teams remain can competitive all season, which is essentially what you’re angling for.
Perth didn’t buy a championship last year. They replaced an import which happens all the time (five clubs have done it mid-season since the three import rule came in), then got Martin, Knight and Prather back from injury in the last parts of the season.
Didn’t Cairns replace an import with just 7 games to go last year? Imagine if they weren’t allowed due to the "Perth rule" you’re suggesting. Or what about a few years ago when Sydney had injury issues and the league held fast that the replacements didn’t qualify and couldn’t play. Everyone was saying they should be making exceptions to the rule!
And when it comes to crowd figures, by all accounts they are on the rise despite only two teams winning the last eight titles.
Hogwash: That's a little like saying tax benefits for owning multiple homes is "available for everyone", well yeah, with the major caveat being those who can afford it.
Simply put, most teams can't afford to to manipulate their lineup like that. "Tough luck" doesn't really cut it as an answer when the whole point is to be a league, not just a couple of teams with moola.
#665967: It's not ideal for major injuries to occur. We have a deadline in place - Injuries don't just decide to take place prior to that, they can very well occur after and decimate the team anyway. That would then be an argument to abolish the deadline at all. But we wouldn't for many of the reasons which support narrowing chances of teams manipulating squads far into the season to win a championship.
I think the NBL is performing incredibly strongly, i'm not supposing the rules have weakened the league yet - what I am supposing is it very well could in the future. If we have say, ten years, of three teams dominating because they either a] have the resources to make a side that crushes the rest in the offseason or b] keep trying until they buy someone who destroys the rest of the league when it counts at the end of the season, then that does become an issue.
Perth have been a little bit of a and a little bit of b. We can't have that continuing every year for the next decade. It's not an anti-Perth sentiment, it's an "I want the NBL to succeed and thrive" sentiment. 2-3 teams dominating over 10 years simply does not cut it if you're selling to 5+ markets. It won't hold water over a long period like it does now.
#665957 Since 98, every team in the AFL with exception of the newly Giants/GC, have made the grand-final. That's a pretty good cycle for a league of 16-18.
Luuuc: I agree, it is a trade-off.
I would propose exceptions for injury, but that would make for a spike of "injuries" late in the season.
Obviously i'm a big fan of Cottons, and I think it's good to be able to attract that kind of talent at anytime as the league grows. Where the trade-off needs to be considered, is a few years down the line where a) the wide gap between resourced and non-resourced will be exposed if the same few consistently make playoffs a decade in a row and b) we have higher standards for the NBL generally.
I do think it will be an issue if the same 2-3 teams [and I think that'll include Sydney when they stop doing a NYKnicks/MelbUtd] find a way to use their resources to be playoffs every year, including buying a stud last minute. There has to be something to equalise the situation, otherwise it's the same story each year and that's not entertaining to anyone outside of the markets with resourced teams. I just don't see that as a sustainable concept for the league.
"In the AFL [or any other sport] if you're gutted by injuries...you take the hit for the year."
Difference is though in the AFL (plus NBA and or other sports) when it gets to that stage and you decide to take a hit for a year you have the incentive of better draft picks at the end of the year which the NBL doesn't. When taking the hit for the year AFL clubs usually start to debut a bunch of their recent draft picks to develop. In the NBL there's not too many young players on teams to do this with, and players come and go from the league way too often to try invest a huge amount of time to make them a long term project over multiple years (yes there are a few exceptions though). Younger imports don't stick around too often, and young guys like McDowell-White show some promise in the NBL then move on to a bigger contracts overseas. Kings are claiming they cut Tyler to give Humphries more opportunity to develop, but a similar thing might happen and he leaves too.
There's basically no intensives at all to not making finals or finishing last in the NBL, which can be a good thing because it motivates teams to always try to win no matter what.
The 25% rule is a hangover from the era of 2 imports per team, Asian players being imports, a hard salary cap and a player points system. There's now no hard salary cap, no player points system, teams can have 3 imports and they get one Asian player deemed not to be an import.
So do 3 imports and the extra Asian player reduce the risk that losing one player is 'season-defining'?
Should the 25% threshold be increased for teams who spend over the soft salary cap? Should it be tied to a hard salary cap by not allowing a change in imports that would send a team over that hard cap?
And the end of the day, Perth didn't buy a championship. They did the same thing almost every other club has done, it just so happens their change was ultimately the most successful.
They might have more resources at their disposal but changing the rule to stop import changes due to their success is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm not entirely sure about all the talk regarding poor bench performance; Wildcats had 28 points off the bench last night compared to Melbourne's 11.
Can someone provide bench points for each team for the season if possible?
Unfortunately last night saw Walker being fouled early in the third compromise the rotations and to further complicate matters foul trouble to Brandt and Cooke Jnr did not help the cause.
Highly unlikely this will happen on a consistent basis - as poor as the Wildcats played for them to have a opportunity to win does not provide me alarm bells, in saying that Melbourne were dominant all night and thoroughly deserved the win
One would suggest allowing resourced teams to have such a competitive advantage would be to shoot the league in the foot.
Let's not pretend that save for New York Knicks/Real Madrid style incompetence, the most resourced teams over a long term in this system will perpetually succeed. That will shutout the rest of the markets, effectively ruining the league.
The same teams succeeding every year won't work after a decade or two. Other markets will diminish and die or go bankrupt trying to keep up.
Every team except Brisbane, Sydney (a complete basket case) and Melbourne (arguably the most resourced club) has been in the grand final in the last four years. The league is competitive. The crowds in Cairns and Illawarra aren't suffering. Yes, only two clubs have won in that time but that is largely due to the stability of their core from one season to the next.
Sorry KET but you are arguing against a problem that doesn’t exist.
"I would propose exceptions for injury, but that would make for a spike of "injuries" late in the season."
You would have to put in a clause that any injury being claimed as season-ending to replace an injury is checked by an independent medical source. Wouldn't be hard to do.
I think the recent years of Sydney & Melbourne are proof enough that throwing money at a revolving door of imports is not the guarantee of dominance that some people paint it as. NZ & Perth eras of sustained success were due to a stable core of quality locals.
It wasn't asinine at all. The lowest-spending clubs have been more successful than the highest-spending clubs. Perth and NZ have been successful retaining and building a core, not throwing money at different players until they find something that works.
So you're saying NZ and Perth aren't high-spending clubs?
That must be a joke, right?
You're like the Chelsea/Man U/Man City fan who goes "Leicester City won it so it's not all about the money".
When you've got 8 championships the last decade between 2 sides, the point really makes itself.
In the NBL, resources = wins; therefore more resourced teams = win; less resourced teams = lose. Answer to that equation is if you're a less resourced team, why bother competing?
Lower resourced teams can't just go "this player sucks, lets get an amazing one" towards the end of the season when they're losing. Higher resourced teams can. That's an anti-competitive/inequality issue in a league which thrives on entertainment through competition. You take out the competition, you take out the entertainment, you take out the league.
...and the NBL can't just survive on "I'm a Perth/NZ fan and I am entertained by my team winning all the time, so the NBL is fine there's no issue here."
We might see things this year and last year in terms of competitiveness and say "everythings great!" but the system can be easily manipulated exactly like this thread suggests, manipulated by a significantly advantage to resourced teams - so who's to say that won't happen in the future? Who's to say the resourced clubs won't take advantage of an opportunity to create a clear discrepancy?
If you're doing not so well - why wouldn't you pay up big last minute to get a better player if you can afford it? The system literally invites the resource gap to affect results.
Perth and nz succes is/was based on extremely good local cores. Players possibly not taking more elsewhere to be part of what was being built, i think its called culture. Yes funds help, but i dont think you cam say perth or nz went a purchased the biggest well known imports with big names or nba experience. Prather, beal, mckay hadnt made nba, cotton had 20 odd games.
What perth did dobis succesfully market their product and move from a 3000 seat stadium to a 13000 seat stadium. Their marketing is excellent,thier game night entertainment possibly league leading.
To say the only reason perth and nz are successful is the embarassment of riches is understating the importance of a well run club and the local foundation of players.
Koberulz, I don't think we want our system being subject to that by any team.
In this case, Perth did it last year with Cotton, and this thread was started on the premise of doing the same thing again.
So that's not to say Perth have done it for a decade, they've mostly/almost entirely got it right at the start of the season [hence my little bit of a, little bit of b comment].
Some people just don't get it.
Replacing Hire (who was injured anyway, plus isn't going anywhere), Kenny, DKD, etc, mya sound great in theory,
but firstly there isn't that much NBL quality Aussie talent just sitting around,
and secondly trying to swap out your bottom-dollar bench-warmers isn't going to make much difference yesterday.
Last night we actually saw what should be happening. In an effort to curb Boone's influence, we started with our Stud Import Centre, with Brandt tag-teaming off the bench.
Unfortunately, our import stud is a dud.
Realistically, the only options teams have to improve their roster mid-season is to find a new import.
If DCJ was an aussie, teams would have been fighting for his services, but he's not. Abd the Cats need more from their import. Simples.
Tire of people defending him whenever he pads his stats in junk-time against undermanned teams. Champions step up in touch games like last night.
JP put in an MVP worthy performance, Cotton (whilst inaccurate) never gave up trying, Damo was flying everywhere, even Kenny was throwing himself in (to not great effect but he was having a crack).
Even before he fell on his arse, DCJ was MIA, he just looked lost, constantly out of position. He's clearly a good athlete, but should go back to playing Football because he knows sod all about basketball.
Also, not sure where the confusion is, its there in the rules:
66. Player Eligibility for NBL Finals
No player may play in the NBL Finals without having been on the Active Player List for at least or more than 25% of regular season games for his then registered NBL Club in that season.
So its 25%, ie 7 games, and they only have to be on the active player list.
I'm happy that it's 25 per cent for that particular club. Was thinking that if Perth were desperate they could get Jeremy Tyler 2 days before the playoffs because he was registered with the Kings for more than 25 per cent
Where'd you find the written rule?
I get that Tyler is undesirable, but my thought was that if Perth missed out on getting a new guy before the 25% threshold, and found that they desperately needed an import a couple games before playoffs then they could look for guys who have already played NBL this season. But seeing as the rule applies to players playing 25% for that club, Perth doesn't qualify as Tyler played in Sydney
"They didn't choose to sack Johnson, they had to. Why shouldn't they be allowed to replace him?"
Why did they have to? I understand there was an indiscretion with marijuana but I wasn't aware that translated to an immediate sacking? It still would've been a decision to be made.
In my opinion, Cooke, whilst inconsistent, has been showing some good signs of late and was arguably Perth's best player in the Bullets win today. Perth are 13-7 and have two games coming up against Sydney next week. If they get both of those, they'll be 15-7 and looking pretty good for another crack at the title. It's not panic stations/sacking players time.
"Tyler can play ball and score, I wouldn't get a import to play a role. Need the imports to be impact player's.
I would give a Aussie a chance to be a role player."
This is a myth. In fact, Melbourne United's hot run of form has coincided with replacing a superstar import with a role playing one. It is all about team balance. The main thing Perth needs from Cooke is interior paint presence, particularly on defence. He does it inconsistently now, but is showing good signs as the season progresses such that we can be hopeful that he can deliver come the big games.
Sort of, the difference is though they wouldn't have gone into the season thinking there is a solid chance they'll sack/upgrade Cooke.
This year they would have (hopefully) gone in thinking if just past the half way mark of the year things are looking rough they can use that 3rd import spot.
Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.
- Updated every 15 minutes
Tue 19:10- re: Best S.A Player ever
Tue 19:08- re: Best S.A Player ever
Tue 19:00- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 18:54- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 18:44- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 18:42- re: Young Aussie big in Euro...
Tue 18:38- re: Best S.A Player ever
Tue 18:08- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 18:00- re: WNBL 2019 Off-Season New...
Tue 18:00- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 17:47- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 17:44- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 17:24- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 17:21- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 17:21- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 16:42- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 16:35- re: State Champs 2019
Tue 16:32- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 16:31- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 16:30- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 16:30- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 16:28- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 16:26- re: State Champs 2019
Tue 15:55- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 15:54- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 15:51- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 15:46- re: Best S.A Player ever
Tue 15:39- re: Best S.A Player ever
Food for though...,
Tue 15:37- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 15:31- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 15:23- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 15:21- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 15:18- re: Josh Boone is a Hawk
Tue 15:09- re: Best S.A Player ever
Tue 15:09- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Food for though...,
Tue 15:02- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 14:59- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 14:54- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 14:44- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 14:35- re: State Champs 2019
Tue 14:34- re: Big V 2019
Tue 14:34- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 13:44- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 13:37- re: Best S.A Player ever
Tue 13:36- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 13:09- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
Tue 13:08- re: Best S.A Player ever
Tue 13:06- re: WNBL 2019 Off-Season New...
Tue 12:38- re: South East Melbourne Pho...
Tue 12:30- re: Adelaide sign Obi Kyei
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: 7:16 pm, Tue 21 May 2019 | Posts: 771,519 | Last 7 days: 893