What's wrong with what Smyth said? What else could he say?

I actually agree with Smyth. They lost four games on the road they will get better.

Dana, surely even you have to admit that saying all this 'Once we get going' and 'Losing to Sydney isn't that bad' stuff is getting ridiculous? Basically Smyth is trying to put forwrad that losing is OK, as long as it is to a decent team.

Plus all this crap about still needing time to get it together is old, boring and, as I said, crap. If Smyth can't put everything together by now, then he really isn't doing his job. 10 games he has had to put what he wants to in place. Injuries or no injuries, it shouldn't be taking a third of the season to get it all together.

Dana, the fact is when you have been at the helm for as long as smyth and for the past few yrs every yr seems to get worse and worse not only in wins and losses but in other areas like recruiting then owners, administrators, sponsors and fans want someone to blame. They dont want someone passing the buck or making excuses year after year. The best thing for Smyth would be to admit where they have gone wrong and explain what he is doing to solve it, almost like a job interview, well actually exactly like a job interview!

We had four pre-season games (not three), and six regular season games leading into that match-up. How could that preparation be an excuse when they were playing an import in his first NBL game, and barely played either import for that long at all?

I do agree that Davidson would've helped maybe halve the deficit, but some of the threes we were giving up were amazing - no one even close to the shooter.

No one realistically expected us to win, but surely there's no need to keep pushing excuses. Just say "we need to play harder and tougher than that if we're going to challenge the top bracket of teams". Comment on the strategy a bit or something.

It's obvious that what's being said isn't resonating well with a lot of fans.

"Losing can become a habit, we don't sense that it is with this group at any stage at this moment but Saturday it has to stop."

How are you going to stop it, Phil? What are you doing to make sure that it stops? Have you conveyed the importance of this to the team or only the media? and what exactly will happen if it doesn't stop?

They're the questions I'd be asking.

I even caught myself telling the guys on the TV to 'get your hands up!' into their faces when they were taking those 3 pointers. They definitely had too many 'open looks'
I think Phil saying

"....Saturday it has to stop."

is definitely NOT

"Smyth is trying to put forwrad that losing is OK, as long as it is to a decent team."

I take it as his way of saying to the guys that they need to win. I reckon he may just have said it a bit more forcefully to the players....and I'll bet you Brett would be geeing them up too.
I'm hopeful that they will 'pleasantly surprise' fans on Saturday.

Can't get worse Dana.

*fingers crossed*

Really should win this one. Next six games they should win in fact, no excuses: Blaze at home, Breakers at home, Slingers on the road, Dragons at home, Crocs at home, Blaze on the road. If they aren't improving their position on the ladder against these lesser teams, then they are really hurting their chances.

The Blaze have only beaten the Slingers and Hawks and neither are good sides this year at all.

My concern is that each of those teams is going to approach those games thinking they have a definite chance - especially the Breakers and Crocs having already gone 1-0 in their series.

I think the Crocs smelt fear and lethargy in that loss up there and took full advantage and Adelaide need to reverse that before it becomes more of an issue.

Dana, I think we all love the 6'ers and we all want them to succeed, but how long do we have to put up with the same results, and when will it change.

The natives are getting restless, the drums are beating, and if things don't change really quickly (in which I hope they do, but doubt) Flipint Phil is going to have to go.

One of the important ingredients to being a top 4 team is little change to your core group from one season to another. Adelaide has not had this for 2 seasons now. We were much better 2 seasons ago because the group had been together for several years. We were still not the best because the group at the time was young and mostly still developing. I don't know why people have a problem with a 6-8 week jelling period when comparing to top teams that have been together for years. If the team we have now is the right one and the coach gets the best out of them, we may not be a force this season but perhaps the next. I would go as far as to say that a whole season is not unreasonable for a team to jell.

Compared to the AFL season, where both the Adelaide teams start preseason VERY early and play intra club trial matches, the sixers are behind the ball.

They also play other trial matches in country areas then the AFL have a preseason comp. Once teams are out they still continue playing. Before the proper AFL season starts clubs would have been training for 3 months and have playing competitively for 6 or so games.

You would never hear an AFL coach say things like "we need time to gel", granted its a completly different game. But at the end of the day, they are both national competition sports that are considered professional. AFL teams are ready to go by season start, it is unacceptable for NBL clubs such as Adelaide to declare themselves unprepared for the beginning of an NBL season that leads to the possibility of a championship.

Thoughts?

That's where development comes in EC. If youngsters were being developed so they could slip into these positions the 36ers wouldn't have to be recruiting
5-6 high priced players each year.

Sturty - I think the local ABL competition and especially the Academy are excellent development grounds for youngsters - in respect to the Academy it is probably one of the best of its type in the country. And when it comes to a youngsters development nothing helps more than the kid just getting out and shooting 500 shots a day on top of their team's training sessions where they can pick up the finer details of basketball.

By the time they get to Phil they should be ready to go, and their further development will come from playing with and against guys like Maher, Chappell, Ballinger, Copeland etc each day at training.

Exactly EC - that's why the losses of Forman and Holmes will haunt the Sixers for years. They were the building blocks. Even Brad Hill to an extent.

They would be half-priced in tyerms of points ratings, and would now be 7 (I think?) year veterans of the Sixers at age 25.

And before anyone says "they would have left anyway", we all know had the Sixers inked them BEFORE their contracts expired, no team could have approached them to leave.

EC, would you seriously look to retain much of this year's team for next? Someone posted on OzHoops asking, out of the current 36ers, who you would still have there in three years time if you wanted a championship.

Maher and Copeland will have retired. The only one I'd lock in was Davidson, and then perhaps Ng and Sutton (as much as I like them) as cheaper insurance for final bench spots. I wouldn't be as confident or sure about the rest I don't think.

Yep, I I have said for years that when a certain coach finally leaves the club will be left as a basket case. Well on the way.

I don't know EC, the number of changes to personnel is comparable to between 2001 and 2002 and we won in 2002, so I don't think that is any excuse.

loackstock,

Who was the last player to be a significant NBL player to come out of ABA and the Academy? Ninnis and Brett Wheller are the last that I can remember. That was back in those days teams had imports and all the 36ers played.

Our best have gone throught the AIS and then quit the 36ers because of the coach.

Ng and Sutton and 9th/10th or development players at best.

Realistically, the best are always going to go through the AIS and/or college systems and not leave many others that will go on to become stars - Burdon, Zorich, etc.

Pimpalena 69,

Well I don't think the Academy has been running long enough to produce any "significant players" yet... give it time and we might add Burdon, Ng, Dodman etc to that list..

As for ABA players you're right, not a lot out of SA, but heaps across Australia. Maher in SA for one, plus probably Forman, Holmes, Hill, Bauer, J Williams (I know I know, but he was a decent part of a championship team), Sutton...

lockstock

Maher, Forman, Holmes and Hill all went to the AIS. They were not developed by the ABA and Academy.

Bauer, Williams and Sutton were/are 9th/10th or development players at best.

Keep trying. I love it when the ignorant try and argue and end up arguing the wrong side.

Re the three years time debate, I don't know why we'd definitely have Davidson pencilled in as a 36 year old, either?

I don't know that there's anyone currently on the roster I'd be dead keen to have running around for us 3 years from now. If guys like Ng & Sutton are major pieces in our rotation by then, I'd expect we'd still be mediocre.

I'd be happy to keep Ballinger (though I'd like for us to pass him the ball, too) & probably no one else. Maher will be gone by then, I'm not convinced Chappell is a quality import at this point, Davidson will be 36, Cooper, Dench, Ng, Sutton, Mottram etc. are all limited role players.

The time for a complete roster overhaul & youth movement was probably 2-3 years ago. Instead we went the path of picking up veterans, who will be of no use to us 2, 3, 5, 10 years down the track.

Very short sighted recruiting, IMO.

3 weeks ago I was on the replace Chappell band wagon. 3 weeks ago is the timing of the last home game. The way he is playing now, he has made a highly measurable improvement. If the measure of improvement in the next 3 weeks equals that of the last, then he is a quality import. On the other hand, this give Ballinger the ball nonsense is the same nonsense doing the rounds last season with Horvath. If these players are not getting the ball, its because they are not worthy of the ball. I was never impressed with Horvath last season, I am not impressed with Ballinger this season. We never had a problem with giving Farley or Rychart the ball because these players were consistent in doing something with it. It was not unusual for either players to come away with a 30 or 40 point game. If Horvath or Ballinger proved they could have a 30 or 40 point game, I doubt they would have been denied the ball.

Ballinger is averaging 17.3 PPG, similar to that averaged by Rychart and Horvath. In his last game, he was double teamed by the Kings which makes it a bit hard for him to score.

Are plays actually being run for him? I didn't notice him getting the ball much in the two televised road games.