I also forgot to ask about coaching representation as in my opinion I think we should have a range of coaches from different leagues and yes just as anon said I understand if we have talented people whether it be coaching or playing then obviously it makes selection for both harder, but was more referencing an ideal scenario

Anon 070, if it was so stupid you could've just ignored it mate,

Anon 071, yes because it is, I didn’t want to act as if it were gospel, but also I did so because I was addressing another topic

Anon 076, too* :)

"Hi all, apologies if this is a dumb question"

Well I am glad you acknowledge it

"The reason I ask is that in my opinion I believe that there have been too many nbl players being picked in the last few boomer sides"

Define 'too many'? NBL players were chosen for the world cup but the only NBA guys who missed out were Deng Adel and Mitch Creek (from initial selection anyway) , who went on to play NBL the next season and weren't exactly a cut above the guys who were selected.

Bolden bolted - enough said.

In short, no, there would be absolutely no hard and fast NBL rule. It just so happens that, more often than not, the rigours of an NBA season and contractual constraints knocks a few NBA guys out of contention.

@ME

I wasn't only referencing the previous world cup so apologies if there was any confusion as I more mean over the last couple of world cups + olympics and fyi Adel wasn’t in the NBL the following season and your kidding yourself if you didn’t think Creek was better then just about all the NBL guys in that following season

And yeah the bolden situation was pretty shitty it appears and thank you

"Rules"?
No, not as such, but availability is key.
Generally for qualifying games, NBA players just won't be available, but the NBL will cooperate to ensure its players are.
We usually don't need NBA players to beat the rubbish teams we have to qualify against, so you'll see High NBL representation regardless.

Even for WC and Olympics, having NBA players generally available doesn't guarantee individual players. Who may be missing for personal reasons, injury, risk of injury, NBA development needs, because they don't like the Coach, or just CBF.

There are also micro-timing issues. For example for the last WC team, Motum did not make the initial team. Injuries and/or withdrawals later opened up a possible spot, but he had already informed his Euro team that he was returning. NBL players will generally be available at short notice, so Barlow got a call up.

One final point. Given they take a 12 man squad, it can be that for the last couple of slots the coach will look for guys who can play a particular, limited, specialised role. eg at the last Olympics Damian Martin was selected, presumably not primarily as 3rd string PG, but as a defensive pest.

There's also the fact that having filled those roles in the NBL-heavy qualifiers is a massive help.

Cheers D2.0, i agree with most that you said and personally I don't think we needed to bring both damo and lisch to the last olympics and I thought we could’ve brought Simmons as we tend to always only end up playing 8-9 guys anyway so I don’t see any harm in bringing 1 young guy just to give experience to , so they can be ready for the next go round. However I get your point about the last WC as with bolden leaving and cooks going down that sent everything into a bit of spiral and I thought it was fine then to bring an extra big as bogut insurance so yeah it does depend on the situation ultimately

@anon109 agree but I also think it depends, I recall disapproval over Goulding being selected last wc but like you said he was able to fill a role better then someone like a green perhaps would’ve at the time

@anon111, like I said to d2.0 I don’t think there’s any harm in picking 1 young guy

@koberulz could further elaborate please, are you more referring to understanding the Lemanis system?

I think the point we're getting at is that when the coach has already selected his 8-9 player rota, or even an even 5:5, he may look for specialist niche role players.
And then, you have somebody like Martin who has played most of his career as a defensive specialist, honing his skills against the best PGs and SGs that have visited our league. He's a surer bet that grabbing someone who's a 3rd string "shoot first" PG in the NBA (maybe having only recently arrived from college), and saying "ok for this tournie I just want you to play D."

I'm not 100% sure on Lisch. He could have a little of this, and a little of the other. A guy picked for the end of the bench because he can pinch hit in a variety of roles. When on fire he was an exceptional outside shooter. Keep in mind that at that time he'd recently won his 2nd MVP, and a DPOTY, and had solid international experience.
He did have a very ordinary Olympics, just wasn't on song, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

As for taking a young guy to get experience, that's something you do in qualifying, not the Olympics. Besides, a guy like Simmons was always going to get plenty of courttime in the NBA.

"on't think we needed to bring both damo and lisch to the last olympics and I thought we could've brought Simmons as we tend to always only end up playing 8-9 guys anyway so I don’t see any harm in bringing 1 young guy just to give experience to , so they can be ready for the next go round. H"

Simmons turned down the team because he wanted to concentrate on the NBA. And even then if he put his hand up, he's a special situation with his physical gifts. I don't generally agree with blooding kids in major tournaments but I think Simmons upside and ability to contribute from the get go would have overwhelmed Lisch or Damo.

"Isn't the modus operandi to pick the best 12 players available, it just so happens that personal, injury and NBA commitments can hinder player availability.
This year with the timing of NBA playoffs expect to see more nbl players."

As Lemanis has said, and I agree with, this is not about putting together an all star team but putting together the unit that works the best together. Usually the best 8 or so players are picked, and then role players are picked to fill in the gaps. Put it this way, if your best 12 players all can't shoot a three point shot to save their lives, someone who isn't one of the best 12 players available and maybe plays in the NBL is going to take one of those spots. The same is true for any attribute. Team USA has shown that having the 12 best available players can work (The Dream Team) but can also fail miserably if not put together right (2004)

Very true D2.0, part of this is the benefit of hindsight but I guess we can agree to disagree on the young guy point, particularly when it comes to the previous wc as gliddon's role was already basically occupied by Goulding

@ME, weren’t there reports or rumours over Simmons not being pleased with being selected under a lemanis side at some point, and if not then I apologise, but if so I think it would’ve been worth bringing him to 2016 as his long term potential far out ways what lisch and Damo could’ve done in limited roles for just 1 olympic campaign. Also, to your point about Lemanis, while I agree for the most part, I think it’s a tad silly that both he, his staff, and the sometimes the people on this forum get carried away with his system as while it’s a joy to watch and we’ve done well under it, the great sign of a coach to me would be adapting to the players he has. This is why I had and issue with creek initially not being selected but ultimately jumped over sobey and gliddon in the tournament to be our 9th man. For example, with the spurs they had to change over time as Duncan got older and Parker and Ginobili got better and then again when those two got older. Now obviously we don’t have talents like that, but I think the point stands in regards to being adaptable to what you’re presented with.

Nobody is building a national program around Mitch Creek.

Never said he should but all the comments over how "this isn't an all-star team" and how it was fine he didn’t make it because he couldn’t shoot and hence didn’t fit the system where all thrown to the wayside once he entered the rotation and proved he could contribute, and credit to lemanis for recognising that but he should’ve done so sooner

So, we picked Cooks and Bolden over Creek because they filled the same role but better, then those two went down, Creek replaced them and filled that role, and this proves...what, exactly?

We didn't pick bolden because he fit the same role as creek but better as bolden was positioned as the 5th big, and again I said previously I didn’t have an issue with that as I saw that more as bogut insurance. In regards to Cooks, it’s pretty evident just through nbl play creek is definitely better and if we’re talking fit then it’s not like cooks is great shooter so I fail to see how he would’ve fit in better there, not to mention creek obviously had a good g league experience and even got game time in the nba so without a doubt he was and still is better. So, in regards to what this proves is that lemanis made a mistake in not selecting him, especially over gliddon as his role of shooter off the bench who can come in and get hot was already occupied by Goulding and if he (gliddon) in particular was good enough then he would’ve been the 9th man over a guy who lemanis thought wasn’t good enough of a fit, when he clearly was. I know this may sound like a shock but yes it’s possible for human beings to make a mistake, just as lemanis and the rest of the coaching staff did with creek. And if want to say Gliddon did well in 2 days of a training camp, then maybe lemanis shouldn’t have put all his eggs in the basket of 2 days worth of training when it’s pretty evident based of prior performance that creek was better

Great to see you carrying on the tradition of just shitting on the person or topic instead of either actually contributing the conversation or ignoring it anon

Well I was actually inquiring over a 'rule' anon so yes this did get off topic a tad but once again good to see you further continuing the tradition you twat

Love your work anons, maybe use a name before you want to chirp in the meantime enjoy getting fire breathing dragoned on, for showing that apparently god has a sense of humour and who knows maybe I would agree with you all, but that'd mean I’d be wrong too

Considering it's actual name on this forum as opposed to anon you muppet, and point to where I stated a name needed meaning?

And ha even if I did, that would further illustrated how clueless you lot are as none of you have been able to show that even a child is wrong on this matter, but hey I guess it’s slightly less embarrassing being proven wrong by an adult

Again I’m happy to do some name calling, but in the meantime why don’t you all try and prove that I am wrong, or you could keep being blind witnesses and keep worshiping everything lemanis does and keep on convincing yourself the nbl is the greatest

particularly when it comes to the previous wc as gliddon's role was already basically occupied by Goulding

Well it's more then you’ve got atm #549, and yep those issues were such large ones that when cooks went down he was the first person to be called upon. Not to mention you must be clueless to think that creek wouldn’t have adjusted to any role, or adjust his behaviour when surrounded by nba vets for an extended period of time. Furthermore, if you read what I said, even pop has had to adjust over the years, that’s why he’s great, so you must be the clueless one here. And yes that should be the rule, but clearly you’re such a blind witness that you can’t even admit that Lemanis made a mistake when not picking creek.

Very true again D2.0 with the hindsight note, the point I was trying to make was (and this doesn’t just refer to lemanis) is that we always end up going with 8-10 guys to play, so yeah Lemanis basically tried to blood gliddon and sobey for the nbl season and we saw how that turned out. Plus, considering that neither of those two will likely make another wc or Olympic side, I think it’d be better to pick a younger guy to take so he can then be useful for the next 10-15 years, as opposed to picking some random nbl player who won’t get any burn again at that level

9-12 are injury cover, not sit-on-the-bench-and-learn guys. You need someone you can trust to jump in at a moment's notice if there's foul trouble or injuries, and fill a role.

Again Kobe never said 9-12, simply no.12 and considering that typically 11 and 12 don't get on, then there’d be nothing wrong with a grand total of 1 young guy being picked, and if you’re picking a team and giving that much thought to what the 12th man will do, then maybe you should pick 1-10 correctly in the first place