Winston does his Olympic bit...

After reading countless posts on the Boomers loss to the USA containing cheap shots at the usual suspects, I thought it was time to brush off the cobwebs and say my bit.

I'm afraid that not many people will be able to take SA Ball very seriously if the crux of arguments are based on Goorjian being a 'Tosser', Sydney jealousy and 'Lovechild' remarks. This doesn't mean that I disagree with all of them; it's just that few have bothered to explain in any more detail than schoolyard lingo.

Firstly, it was an entertaining game of basketball and the Boomers gave it a good crack. Without stating the obvious, it is universally agreed that our fourth quarter effort was lacking and got what it deserved ('our' meaning the whole team, including coach).

While Team USA are not the strongest team to represent America at the Olympics, player for player they still are an impressive assortment; A fact I believe many have forgotten. Their indifferent attitude is perplexing but it was always inevitable that at sometime they would focus long enough to make a run. As it turned out all they needed was 4 minutes.

The player rotations were a concern (and have been for ALL the games) to say the least. When Nielsen was in foul trouble, what better time than to go big with Rogers, Bogut (he is a gun  that left handed hook is beautiful to watch) and Anderson to clog up the middle? Rogers is one of the more experienced European campaigners and unlike some have suggested, played very well at Sydney 2000.

Team USA haven't shot jumpers well so it would have been a better time to test this part of their game rather than their transition game - which was working just fine.

Of course transition is created from defense and our shot selection made that pretty easy. Now in general, I have little time for Heal but against my better judgment can't blame him entirely. He is a 3 point shooter, and he was left on court. Our offence structure was so one dimensional and stagnant that his shots were sometimes the only option.

He did shoot some shockers but think of the scenario if he didn't. Someone has to assume leadership and take charge. If Heal didn't take the shots, who was on the court that could have shot better - in the offensive structure we were running? Worse still, if he had not shot how many shot clock violations would we have had? Even with Brett in his place, it would not make up for the shamble of an offence we were running.

Now we come to the real problem - the coach. To qualify: Brian Goorjian is one of my least favorite basketball identities in this country for a myriad of reasons (but I won't elaborate as many are probably the same as all of you). He did have moments of brilliance early however. Mixing up our offence and defense was done at just the right time and some early substitutions worked well. He also kept faith in his players and game plan long enough to make adjustments and get it right.

What was unforgivable was re-injecting Nielsen into an unchanged defense late in the fourth that was starting to see the US attack and get to the charity line. It was no surprise when he fouled out immediately. Why not go big - make them earn it with a few pointy elbows from fresh legs (ie Rogers) and inject Nielsen back in as a scoring threat once the US had retreated back to first quarter uncertainty?

Why not try a combo of Saville and Cat as a taller 3 point option? They can both swing the ball quickly and have quick release shots. I won't go on as there are many other 'what if' scenarios but the point is what we had, and continued to go with was not working and needed to be changed.

It reminded me of a super structured magic outfit that didn't know what hit them when their plan wasn't working against the Sixers in '98. Yes, that was the same Goorjian and a strikingly similar result.

Now comes the point I found most disheartening (this has been mentioned in other posts) - the final 2 minutes. I believe that we resigned ourselves to defeat when Nielsen was fouled out (The significance of that play cannot be underestimated). Our body language showed the world with 2 minutes to go that we were happy with 'a pretty good' effort against a mightier foe.

This is not the Australian spirit I remember, but more amazing is that the game was still there to be won. The last play was not the problem (the game WAS really over by then, we may have been practicing a last shot play in case we need it again?) but it was the minute beforehand. I will never forget watching Denver win an NBA game after being down by 9 points with 8 seconds to play - it's called the will to win. If the players were tired it's a coaching responsibility.

I believe the heavy criticism of Saville and Bruton is harsh and that they played the role they were required to. Remember LeBron, and Jefferson (among others) also looked a shadow of their regular club form - the Olympics is a different ball game. Brett and Cat do deserve a better run but we can only hope that our esteemed coach can learn from his mistakes - again.

To bring the tone back to a more positive note - nothing still should cloud the fact that the Boomers played one of their most memorable games. Not even the Sydney-biased team, the 'lovechild' or that tosser Goorjian.

Note: The 92 USA team was officially dubbed the Dream team. The subsequent teams have tried to shed that title.

ps Isaac - great site.

Topic #475 | Report this topic