Agreed , rotations & combinations were garbage .
Timeouts way too late on almost all occasions .
Did communicate with some gusto , but i don't think it is received with belief .
Probably best thing for the future of our club was tonights performance .

no freakin sh!t, he was terrible. and also very lucky that Ballinger and Hodge didnt pick up their third fouls when he left them both on with 2 in the first, and what's with Burdon playing so many minutes at a time when we needed Davidson on the floor the most.
And another thing, i know he's done this for quite a while now but tonight was as bad as any, why the hell does he waste half of his timeouts talking to Breheny when hes got plenty of time to discuss his options while the boys are playing.

He's absolutely lost the plot, hes gotta go.

Oh and Voldemort mate... see how this petty little act has failed to stop yourself from being criticised! youre a terrible coach in the public eye, this is what u get!

tonights game was Utter SHIT pure and in its un-refined form.

more energy shown by the sprint auto cleaners

couldnt organise a root in a brothel let alone a offensive play or a pro active time out

Yeah well....we shot ourselves in the foot really. Couldn't buy a bucket, Rogers had his way with us in the low post, and more turnovers than a country bakehouse.

when we took the lead 34 to 32 we had them on the ropes defensively, they couldn't get a shot off...but for some reason, everything fell to pieces.

watching on FOX I got bored. I split screened and at least got to look at Sharapova for a while whilst keeping one eye on the game.

wasn't impressed at all..... seems last week against the Kings it was one of those games where the sun shines on a dogs ar$e and makes it looks good.

Tonights game was the return to the normal dogs ar$e I've been watching all season.

I'm now not really looking forward to the trip to the Gong on Friday.

And also give credit to Scott Fisher, he was outstanding and IMO the best coach in the league right now.

Sad and embarrassing performance. EVERYONE was so far below there best.

51% from the stripe and 11% from outside are damaging stats.

Ballinger payed well but he was well guarded by Loughton and Redhage.

36ers were down by 6-8 in the last quarter and he brings on Sutton. Sutton hadn't played all game. He could of brought back Burdon. Lead then blew out to 15.

I'm sure he had money on the Cats.......

I think everyone knows who were talking about anyway, if not... it's that bald guy that lays back on the Adelaide bench with his arms crossed and 'coaches' lol 'sort of coaches'.

To be honest, fisher did not impress me at all, his timeouts did not inspire or seem to have a great idea in them.

and yes the stats are appalling, but there was no change or plan that i could see (on fox) to change what was happening.

Lets wait to hear what his (the coach formerly known as)dummy spit and blame will be this time.

'sort of coaches' is too generous.......

'masquerades as a coach' would be better.

if he was coaching tonight i was running the 100meters in 9sec flat

Critical Errors by Baldy

- Stayed in Zone for too long
- Gave up a 10 point run just before half time.
- Used cooper against rogers for too long
- During the rung to get within 5 points subs out Burdon and Mottram for Cooper and Copeland. Score goes back out 16
- Puts sutton in the game (what the)

Things Baldy can't control
- Woeful foul shooting %
- Field Goal %

No technical coach this week. Look what happens. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall during the half time break. Good to see dodman get some time. Also great to see burdon competing and contributing. Just wish Mottram and Burdon were left on to see what they could have done

from what Carfino said at the end of the telecast, this was the biggest home loss we have had to the Wildcats at home in the past 27 games played.

Any idea on what 27 games equates to in years????

Funny how everyone praised him last week, shutup and get over yourselves. Players didnt shoot for shit, didnt create their own opportunities. Davidson hurt his knee, hence why Burdon had so many minutes and Sutton came on. If you watched saturdays game you would have noticed Davidson flexing his knee also.

oh wait, according to you the coach must have kicked him their, since everything else is their fault.

10?

Ohh on the sacking, rumours are that ballinger walks nder a diff coach.

Yeah Skud well done now come up with excuses for the other mistakes he made tonight...

and i for one certainly never praised him after last game, i praised the team, theres a difference.

interesting quote from Boti when asked about the state of basketball in Adelaide...


"As for the Adelaide situation, as much as I've enjoyed most of the past 10 years it may be that we need a change of direction"


seems his opinion may be similar to a lot here


for what its worth I didnt think the coach had much to do with us losing - rather we were outplayed by a better team in all areas of the game. Sure some things could have been done differently by the coaching staff but I doubt it would have changed the result

It may not have changed things statman...but damn..dont you try something??

CAREFUL boti, only make statements like that if you dont use anyones name

I agree, we were beaten by a better team and were out played in every single area of the contest, but at least if your going down, go down swinging. Tonights home loss was unacceptable. If things aren't working you makes some changes, try different things, none of that happened tonight.

It was the same old routine tonight...

I see your point me - but we had mo than enough chances....I cant remember when the sixers only hit 1 3 pointer in a game - and they shot under 34% overall. the number of layups and crap lobs that were missed was just shocking and one wonders what the guys on teh floor were thinking at times. Im not saying the coaching was great - far from it - just think that due to the issues during the past few days teh opinion on the coaching staff is possibly more nagative than tonights display deserves.


BUT in saying that I think it s now very obvious taht the message has gone somewhat stale and there needs to be more than a few changes made at seasons end


Also Skud - If what your alluding too is true that Ballinger has said "if the coach goes then ill walk" then let him walk! Noone is bigger than the team and that sort of threat should not be tolerated.

If Ballinger is playing that petty game then for the sake of the franchise and so that the franchise can move forward (and I'm sad to say this) then goodbye Mr Ballinger.

No one player is bigger than the Adelaide 36ers franchise.

Agreed statman, anger and frustration with a healthy dose of disapointment are certainly driving factors in my posts.

The fact that he made the demand to remove his name is, i believe, because he is looking for other work and wants to protect his name.

He is stale,
His team is stale
His methods are stale
His messages are stale


What do you mean, due to issues?

Also agree, IF Balls said that..then let him walk, but i need to be convinced that he did

Me - The issues I was referring too are the censorship crap on here his week. ie due to the foolish decision made by the coach I feel that he will be judged even harder on tonights performance than normal. Again - Im not saying he was good - just that there were many factors that caused the loss and not just some coaching decisions.

and agree with you on Balls - a lot more than skuds throwaway comment above would be needed to convince me that Ballingr would throw that sort of threat around.

and Baldy could've had Paul Rogers 3 years ago

yet another Bald Blunder

Baldy wouldn't have had Rogers he doesn't have a inside game plan! but wait he doesn't have a game plan then you don't need a whiteboard.

Even with Ballinger, Cooper, Mottram and Dench we still live and die by the 3point line.

Was Mottram our best option against Rogers? Him on court seemed to coincide with Rogers' quiet patch.

I'm liking Burdon. Doesn't seem to rely on confidence level to contribute something. Not sure that you can throw him in the deep end on a winning team, but he's definitely worth a spot on the bench. Hasn't even really demonstrated his scoring ability to a great extent yet either.

Disappointing loss. Having Maher out and Davidson playing somewhat injured was always going to be a challenge.

Burdon definitely moves well all over the court , doesn't look overly quick but covers ground and seems to be able to stay in front of his man on D whilst maintaining good pressure .
Think when confidence grows the offense will come .
Also seems to have a real passion for the game and am sure he will work tirelessly to improve .

Everyone was saying earlier this week that the timing was bad for the censorship of his name due to the positive attitude of the fans after the King's game. Maybe he knew something 2 days ago that we had to wait until tonight to find out.

Best 8 players? Well that already rules out Dench and Sutton. With Maher and Davidson injured there is no way we can choose 8 players that are up to NBL standard.

I agree with everything Statman said. The criticism is overly harsh by way of 'fallout' because this game, whilst uninspiring, would have been close if the Sixers could hit some open shots and could get it done at the free throw line. Hell, if Balls alone played half the game he did on Saturday (after taking the same number of shots - 19) then we could have won the game.

Dench was atrocious in 15 minutes. Camped at the three point line and the two triples he put up were not even close. Useless. Copeland (in one of his 1/8 moods) was also useless at both ends. Balls just couldn't get it done. Ng was once again isolated and terrorized in defence. Davo seemed out of it but even *injured* better than most. Hodge's stats look better than he was. He really is not a finisher, but I expect games like last night from him.

All in all, Coops was good, and Motts in unbelievably few minutes was at least solid. But you aint going to win a game when you are relying on them to get it done.

But that said and done, the direction and structure and organisation of this team are appalling. It aint all coach, but it is some of the coach.

HOOPSA mentioned in the Advertiser,

"IT appears J.K Rowling does not have exlusve rights to the Voldermort name, it now being used as a regular euphemism for Sixers coach ------ on the Hoops SA website. Word is ---- demanded his name to be taken off the popular forum but, as might be expected, the posters now are simply using pseudonyms. What was the point then?"

Hodge just strikes me as a dumb player. The classic moment was when he faced the ball on a baseline inbounds pass allowing the lob to his man for a layup. That's under 12s stuff. Also the number of times he didn't box out or forgot about his man were too numerous to count. His shot wasn't dropping and that happens. Not an issue there but just not doing the basics really hurt when the team was struggling.

Why Mottram doesn't get more time i'll never know. Does all the little things (boxing out, playing great help d, hitting people) that precious few others are interested in doing. Taking him out killed that run. Bad coaching decision.

Gold - I was hoping something would be mentioned in the paper!

I wonder if said coach (if he has been told of the reference above) is now feeling a bit foolish at listening to whoever it was that told him that the entire HoopSA site was evil and alligning against him - and that he should get something done about it?


just shows again how some people are focussing on petty insignificant issues when they should be focussing on the big picture of moving the club forward

HEY......Shouldn't I get some sort of credit for coming up with the nickname?

BOTI?!?!?!?!?!?!?

PS....Is the article on the internet somewhere?

I don't know why there is all the Sutton hate. Sutts is a PG, a pass first, very rarely look for your shot PG. He rebounds well and is an excellent ball defender.

Eze is a similar player just with a more offensive game.

I don't know why when Brown hit 4 shots in a row and was killing us he didn't bring on Sutts (who is bigger than Eze) and let him guard Brown. Instead Sutts gets brought on and has to guard Redhage while Copes guards, well no-one really.

You didnt spell it right Dicko - so no prize for you :)

DICKO...you should get a percentage of next years 36ers paycheck to voldemort.

lets see, what 10% of NOTHING!!!

OOooooooooohhh......Me?

I wouldn't get too comfortable with the idea that he's leaving.

Last night was the second game I've been to this year. Based on last night's game, I'd be hard pressed to blame the coach for the loss. Perth played really well and had more good players to call on. The Sixers' players shot poorly from early in teh game and their poor foul shooting in teh fourth quarter killed any chance they had when teh game was still there to be won. Toooften, good defensive efforts were punished by missed shots and offensive turnovers.

The Sixers clearly had a game plan early that involved getting the ball to Ballinger, which was beaten by the good defence that Perth played on him. After that, getting Hodge to penetrate was tried but Perth denied him the lanes really well. Beyond that, the plays that could be run were limited by the abilities of the players on the court. Davidson did really well but was not on the court enough (I believe he was injured) and Cooper did some really good things but was not a consistent option. Darren Ng also made some impressive drives and baskets. Hodge did well with some good assists and lifted when he finally got back on, after half time (if only he had finished better).

Meanwhile, Perth had consistent options inside and outside, with Crawford hitting at a good rate and all of the Perth big men providing options inside (except perhaps Dowdell). The Sixers could not defend their inside game when Perth had Redhage, Loughton and Rogers on together. Too big, too strong, too organised.

When Davidson was off the floor, the Sixers looked lost in offence. Others have said they thought Burdon played really well in limited minutes and were bemused by his being taken off for other players. I thought he was a disaster offensively and threw at least three passes that led straight to turnovers, resulting in easy transition baskets for Perth. There was a fourth pass that nearly resulted in a turnover but the Perth player knocked it out of bounds.

I have no particular opinion of the coach's general game day coaching abilities. Like most people, I'm not qualified enough to comment in that regard. However, on last night's performance I think no coach could have gotten that Sixers team to beat that Perth team.

I wonder how many of the Sixers' starters would get picked as a starter in any of the top eight teams? Maybe three? Before the game, how many Sixers' starters would Perth have picked ahead of their five starters last night? One? How many of Perth's starters would the Sixers have picked ahead of their own?

All of that said, I enjoyed the game, as I thought the Sixers' effort was really good. High work rates on and off the ball (with one exception). They never looked like taking the game over but never gave up either, until the game was beyond reach.

Maybe a different coaching staff would get better performances out of last night's playing group, but I still don't see that group as a top 4 contender now or in the future, even adding Maher (should he decide to continue beyond this year). Regardless of coaching staff, the team will need new players recruited.

Thanks Peter! You have posted one of the most sensible posts in here for ages!
THANKS.

I am still so angry about last night...that was at the dome!

Peter i appreciate you analysis and agree with some of your points, however...

1) "perth played really well...we shot poorly" I dont think Perth played that well, we LET them. Often the amount of time/open shots we allowed them was incredible.

2)"The sixers had an early game plan that was beaten"
so, what was the alternative? i didnt see a huge change just more of the same.

3)"Limited by the abilities of the players on court" these are the same players who were on court on saturday werent they? (and if they arent good enough who the hell recruited them?)

4) "no coach wouldve beaten that Perth team" Thats subjective i guess...but some wouldve had a different plan to go with.

Maybe if the coach spent more time on plannng, making use of the team he has, and offering alternative ideas, and less time bitching about "bad calls", cheerleaders and what is written on forums...just maybe we would not have been thoroughly thumped in our house!

I find it hard to blame the coach for all the blown layups and missed free throws, particularly the 0/4 coming from a certain player with NBA aspirations whose poor shooting form was set long before he got here. He clearly can't shoot from more than 5 feet, and last night struggled even within his range. However, he wasn't on his own with these faults last night, so it's not fair to single him out. Plenty of other players struggled to put up shots that went higher than the rim last night. If we'd hit only half of these missed lay-ups and free-throws we'd be talking about what a great win that was and what a great coach NudeNut has been over the past two games.

Credit to the Wildcats, though, who had a defensive scheme that was all about guarding the rim, whether that's their normal scheme or not it was well executed, and solid gold against us with Maher out - a reliable jump-shooter who you could kick it out to would have torn that scheme up.

"certain player with NBA aspirations"

I though Ninja was going to quit and become a doctor?

Not Ninja, Dicko - 0/4 Free Throws, not 0/4 three-pointers.

Having said that, I just noticed on the box score that we shot better from the stripe than the Wildcats - 16/31 vs 10/20. Give us half of those misses and our half-dozen bricked lay-ups, or if we'd shot a decent 33% from deep instead of 11%...

me

I don't disagree with your points. I didn't see Saturday's game (sadly), so missed the opportunity to see what the playing group is capable of.

Just a couple of counter points:

"I dont think Perth played that well, we LET them"
Paul Rogers played extremely well and they got the ball to him very effectively. When our defender fronted him, they still got the ball to him and he scored. When our defender played between him and teh basket, he still got good shots off and he scored. It was a game plan that worked for them. We weren't able to defend him effectively and they used it. I suspect that's what usually happens with Ballinger for us but they were able to defend that.

That said, they did get a lot of time to shoot, with feet set, especially outside the 3 point line. However, they passed the ball well to the open man. I didn't notice us use swing passes at all but they used them to open things up, several times.

"So what was the alternative"
Like you, I'm not sure there was one. As I said, it seemed like giving Hodge the ball and letting him try to penetrate was a tactic but that didn't work either. (BTW - after he came off, half or 3/4 of the way into the first quarter, I'm not sure I saw him again in the first half?) After that, it looked like the players were trying to make up their own stuff. So yes, no apparent game plan from the coaching staff.
That said, at half time, the difference between the two teams was only shooting percentage and almost 3 point percentage at that. So we were creating the shots but they weren't going in. Maybe the playing group would have played like Saturday night in the second half if they had been ahead rather than behind.

"and if they arent good enough who the hell recruited them?"
I agree entirely. That's the question that I think carries the most weight in these discussions. The most important building block in a championship is playing personnel.

"Thats subjective i guess...but some wouldve had a different plan to go with."
Yep - it's my opinion only and yep again, they would have had a different plan. Also, they probably would have developed a different playing style over the course of the season, which could have laid the basis for a more effective game plan. However, I doubt anyone would get that playing group playing consistently well enough to be a top four side. I would be ecstatic to be proven wrong and still hold a flickering hope that the current coaching staff (and playing group) will prove me wrong!

Cheers

Well in my opinion, Perth did not play well at all and that is the real scary part!

Yep, if Perth were playing at all well (and didn't throw the ball directly to a Sixers player about 10 times in the first half), the game should have been over at half time (a.k.a the first Sydney game here).

Just to add to my previous posts, I believe the Sixers still hold their playoff chances in their own hands. They play Cairns twice. If they are able to beat them in both games, the two teams will have the same W-L records (on current ladder, after last night) and the Sixers will hold the season series over Cairns. Then it comes down to performances of the two in their other, remaining games.

The Sixers have a very tough run home but, if they are able to consistently perform as they did last Saturday, they can get into the playoffs on their own performances and not have to rely on other teams losing.

I really hope we can recapture the spark from that game and do it. Go Sixers!

We have all saw our current team, less ofcourse Brett. You would have to stretch the imagination to see it perform well in the finals. How many finals games could it win if it were to reach the final 8, one or maybe two would be great.

So what are our illustrious leaders aiming for with a team structure. From where I sit it appears to be a team capable of making the final 8, to hell with aiming for the final 4. The top teams are madly compiling balanced lists, with strong inside and outside offences and good defence as well. They all have large big men, even their guards are solid. Our team is a mosquito fleet in comparison. Our inside game is non existant when we face these teams, and offensive boards, well look at the stats.

You should not only question the coaching decisions at key points, ie when we were closing on the Wildcats in the last quarter, but the make up of the team itself.

Peter, I'm going to play the ball and not the man here, so please don't get offended, but your contention that no coach could have got a win for Adelaide last night and defending of Voldermort is absolute rubbish in my opinion, and here's why..

Firstly Voldermort made the decision to come out into a zone. Starting in a zone to begin a game is a passive move, instantly putting your own team onto the back-foot to begin with by giving up easy looks to the opponent because you don't believe in your player's ability to contain the ball. It's hard to understand the philosophy of such a move, but it would be a flow-on effect of last week's win, which relied upon getting Sydney to do two things. Firstly, making sure they don't get up a shot within the first 8 seconds of the offence, (Brian is a convert to the best shot you can get is the first open shot philosophy which why it now pains me to see people falsely accuse him of coaching a boring style) which is Sydney's strength and then making sure ball reversal doesn't occur. If you can't stop the Sydney players from getting to their spots in their sets, the longer the shot clock winds down the more likely they are to put up a poor shot, but this doesn't work against Perth, as it is too hard to stop ball reversal sitting in that 2-3 zone and it gave Peter Crawford, a streak shooter, plenty of open looks to get hot. It also allowed the wings to hit the bigs on the high or low blocks on ball reversals and meant everyone on the Perth roster saw plenty of the ball in the 1st quarter. As everyone knows, the more your bigs see of the ball, the harder they play on defense, the easier it makes it for the guards, just lets a team feel comfortable in an otherwise hostile gym.

Voldermort needed to let Perth score 29 points in the first before he realized what everyone else in the gym did from the tip, and that was that a 2-3 zone wasn't going to do it against Perth. Now I must admit, Perth are a tough team to match-up with, they have depth with their bigs, they have a big back-court who can post up our smalls and to top that off Voldermort has recruited some terrible defensive players. But saying that, if you were concerned about match-ups you could have maybe run Hodge at the 2 and Ballinger at the 3, with Mottram and Cooper starting at the 4 and 5. Obviously Voldermort isn't concerned about defensive ability anyway, as displayed by his refusal to take Copeland out of the rotation, who refuses to even attempt to contain the ball, any contribution he makes offensively is negated by his defensive lapses, (how would guys like Cooper feel, knowing they are going to get into foul trouble each time Copeland comes on because he will allow dribble penetration forcing the bigs into some tough help positions every possession). Copeland only makes his contribution to the team even more negative when he gives up soft fouls in the bonus at the half-way line. This sort of activity should see a rookie warming the bench, let alone a 40 plus year old veteran who is apparently there to show some kind of leadership.

Now when it comes to your dim view of Burdon, I can't understand it at all. He got one assist and dump the ball off to Ballinger under the rim only for Ballinger to miss a 2 foot hook, as good a drive and dish opportunity as you can get (much better option than the constant flood of 3-balls other line-ups where putting up). He was unlucky to get that blocking call on the on-ball play against Brown, where he moved laterally to get Brown to move thru his chest (and denying the ball from moving across split-line as talked about earlier) and was actually able to contain his man. It's not his fault that Dench had a brain explosion and decided to come and help when he was doing a fine job of containing Brown allowing Garlepp to hit a crucial jump-shot in the fourth or also the time when Mottram helped unnecessarily. The other options at point at that time was Matt Sutton, who is another good containment defender but isn't a offensive threat in a system where you need to shoot, or playing Darren Ng at the point which is always a bad option. Darren has too high a dribble and is sometimes a little loose, and isn't a good decision making off on-balls. This leads to two things, either Darren needs all 8 seconds to get the ball into the half, and then by the time he sets up an on-ball, gets double off it and missing the big slipping the screen he has no time left but to jack up a 3 well outside the arc which is usually highly contested. I think Burdon did well, he just needed to make his foul shots (which he usually does) and not been knocked off his cuts so easily so he can get open more often. To top it all off, he had zero turnovers in fifth teen minutes.

Here's something I don't think Voldermort understands either. Perth is deep, because their young guys like Dowdell and Garlepp get to play. They may only play five minutes a game but you learn so much in that time and it allows a gradual improvement. Screwing players like Sutton around, making him a starter and then throwing him in for 30 seconds at the end of a crucial match make it hard to become consistent, puts pressure to play the perfect game in the one opportunity you may have for the rest of the season from a player's point of view, especially when you are thrown on to play out of position.

You can't blame transition baskets on one player; it's a clear coaching failure to not have a team drilled on how to defend transition situations. On how many occasions where Perth players allowed to get into the lane uncontested. At least 20 points where scored uncontested in transition I would presume, and combine that with the awful zone decision and that's a good 50 points of Perth's score right there.

Now on the offensive end, when struggling in the second quarter, Hodge was riding the pine just when we couldn't get any penetration and were throwing up 3 ball after 3 ball at the end of the shot clock. This I couldn't understand at all.

While I think Voldermort has improved this season, he is still the second worst coach in the league this year, and will always find it hard to recruit talent with his current reputation. There was some clear areas of concern in defensive philosophy, and while we can never say that another coach would guarantee the win it would be nice to have a coach who has a aggressive defensive mindset of "we will stop this team" rather than a mindset of "who cares, let's just hope we out-score them." Additionally under the right coach, our recruiting prospects, or at least who we target (e.g. guys like Loughton with some potential rather than a washed up Dench) might see us with a roster where we won't have so many concerns with our match-ups in the first place. In basketball there are always alternatives in game-plans, and coaches have to adjust to their personal. Voldermort seems incapable of doing this, and now incapable of recruiting the team he needs. For the reasons above, there is no defending of his performance last night, and hopefully he will make it as painless for everyone as possible and stand-down end of the season.

(Mod: Little ball for effort if nothing else.)

" I didn't see Saturday's game (sadly), so missed the opportunity to see what the playing group is capable of."

Sydney were terrible. It was a great game to watch mostly because of the coaching antics but they really had their 2nd tier on the floor for a lot of the game. We got some nice favours from the refs too. Surprising Sydney werent aware that Julius could not shoot either but is one of the best in the league at getting to the rack. Wont take long for teams to figure that out then Phil will have no answers on how to get Julius isolated or get their poorer onball defenders players to switch onto him.

Double Clutch, post of the year, i know big call being the 17th of january.

well thought out and very objective.

deserving a ball :P

I have found Valdermort's Replacement

At least he will guarantee a sell out at the Dome!

www.slapcorey.com

DICKO just for you - AdelaideNow

Peter,
I value your comments.
It's such a shame that our beloved 36ers haven't seen the talented coaches that post on here continually and recruited them, because they are the only ones who know what's wrong with the team and how to fix it! And what's more, they do it for nothing. On here every day with all the answers.
I take comfort in knowing that posters on this forum DO NOT speak for the majority.
regards
Dana

I'd say the majority have been disappointed with the coaching for the last two seasons. It's the same old story - apparently commenting on coaching/game plan means the said commentator believes they are more qualified than the current coaching staff.

Not true, just as commenting on certain players (Sutton for example) does not mean posters believe they are a better player than him.

Why visit a forum if you don't want to see comment and criticism of the team and coaching staff? Unless you are a Sydney supporter, your team is deserving of criticism.

I concur 'Double Clutch' and the lack of defensive transition from the Sixers is not new just this year. It has been that way since day one from this coach. No co-ordinated way to attack the O glass thus leading to no co-ordinated way of stopping the opposing teams O transition. They have no defensive transition rules and it is a simple case of run back on defence and find your man. Junior stuff and that at this level will get you killed in todays game. I mean, people who understand this great game can see how inept and uneducated this coach is with the modern game. It's not 'over coaching', it's not violating the overused adage 'keeping it simple', these are aspects of the game which need a co-ordinated response. There are many coaches in this state, many of them junior coaches who have a game philosophy more complete than the head coach of our NBL team. That is a disgrace. Is it any wonder that 'Mort' has never given a coaching clinic in his time as head coach of the Sixers. Bullshit and 'smoke and mirrors' doesn't work on the coaches who know, the coaches he tries to avoid.
However, there are Universal forces in play which cannot be stopped. No amount of magicianship will allow him out of this. It will simply be a matter of how it is painted at the end game....over to you Boti.

Poor Dana.

"About this site
It's pretty simple. Hoops SA provides a place for players, coaches, fans** and managers to talk about the sport at all levels - juniors to international."

** hard to believe.......

I still like what my friends said after one game this year - and apparently this a regular event.

Watched a pathetic losing game, clapped the team off, walked out as soon as the game finished, drove to Glenelg, sat down in a restraunt, and lo and behold, there is Valdermort and family half way through there dinner - Great message Valdermort, don't stick around when the heat is on, dinner is more important than after match talks with team, management and the press?

Dana,

If you don't want to read a post with an open mind and judge arguments on their value rather than on who's mouth they come from why bother reading and replying at all. For all you know I could be Adrian Hurley.

I ask you, what qualifications did Valdemort have in 1998 when he was hired with no previous experience, over a state coach who may have had ten years of learning and coaching development? If Valdemort was to post constructive criticism of Dave Claxton back then, would you have also disregarded his opinion on the basis that he had no qualifications to speak, but then only 2 months later he would be in your eyes the lord of basketball knowledge?

While you may be glad the 36ers never have not appointed anyone from on here as head coach (yet) I am glad I have people around me who will take their time to listen to others opinions and reply with measured judgment, rather than disregard them with some justification for some form of prejudice. You know there was a time when people were dismissed based on sex or race.

Dana, play the ball, not the man.

Dana , are you reasonable side of DD fan ?

I don't know who Peter is, and I appreciate his comments. What's wrong with saying that? Which 'man' did I play?

We need a new voice and new direction.

The roster might need looking at again.

Give Burdon some more minutes to build his confidence at NBL level. He has talent, but must be given a chance at this level. I also think Jordy Doddman is ready for some NBL experience also.

Changes must be looked into and made.

Sack- Voldermort | Sign- Ninnis

Release- Dench
Don't Resign/Leaving- Ng, Sutton, Copeland, Hodge, Mottram

Resign- Ballinger, Cooper

Staying- Maher, Davidson, Dodman

Sign- Schenscher (if not, then keep Mottram), Holmes, Franklin and Tovey

C Shenscher/Cooper
F Ballinger/Dodman
F Holmes/Tovey
G Franklin/Maher
G Davidson/Burdon (if not, look for Boodnikoff/Corletto)

Capiche?

that's a real small backcourt 123, but I like your thinking. I'd like to try and fit a tall guard in the rotation somewhere.

DC = Harry potter?

Harry for coach!!

:)

123abc, i like your thinking!

Ninnis a big yes for the top job!

Like the line up...

The only thing i would change is release cooper and keep mottrom,

If used properly Motts will give the side more.

Franklin would be a great starting point id have Davidson backing him up and Burdon back up maher at the 2.

The rest is great i think.

Even better is if Newley lobs back then i hate to say it bring Maher off the bench, but him in that role would get you close to a championship and even better would ensure he stays healthy.

123, how can you not resign Motts? What is your reasoning behind this I am interested too know?

motts is a must, cooper love him or hate him gives you 100% id keep him as a purely back up role his defensinve presence is worth the spot and is it just me or his shooting last5-6 games is a hell of lot better consistently above 10pts

Bizzy, 123 said:

Sign- Schenscher (if not, then keep Mottram)

If Schenscher signs, then you can either have Mottram and no Dodman (not sure that the points cap will allow it though) or get a better backup point Guard.

I am basically subsituting Schenscher for Mottram, if the points cap allows it, i would definately look at resigning Neil.

"About this site
It's pretty simple. Hoops SA provides a place for players, coaches, fans** and managers to talk about the sport at all levels - juniors to international."

** hard to believe......."

Dana, it's that same attitude that anyone that critcises can't be a fan. It's ridiculous and makes no sense.

You make sarcastic comment about 'fans' who criticise thinking they are:

"talented coaches that post on here continually and recruited them, because they are the only ones who know what's wrong with the team and how to fix it! And what's more, they do it for nothing. On here every day with all the answers."

then expect to be believed that you were merely appreciating Peter's post.

Question - what is your view on Sutton being put into the game cold at a crucial stage? And please, no "If Phil did it it must be right." answers.

I would like to see Dench and Sutton given another chance under a different coach - bit of a gamble I know, but I believe they have potential not yet seen.

Get rid of NG, Copeland, Dodman - too inconsistent

Sign Balls, Mott's, Cooper, Davidson and Burdon

Give up on the bringing home SA talent gig (ie Holmes, Newley, Sensch etc. - just wastes time, they will not come home unless to play out a a season or two before retirement, or for top $$$ and conditions - people forget that Holmes is not just earning more over there, but more importantly they are coaching him for a corporate career after he retires - we haven't offered something like that in years, and people wonder why we lose players!)

The rest - well, see what they have to offer.

Then - recruit like mad -- find young, energetic, passionate players.

Interview Ninnis, but also keep an open mind for other potential coaches.

Actually, didn't realise, Mottram is 6 points (i thought 10 because of Europe)

That would make him affordable..

Isaac , i think that is pretty much the team you put out the other day .
I would leave Schenscher out and wait til Ballinger naturalises then plug in the gap .
Maybe a Rosell Ellis type , athletic , uncompromising , hustle up forward that fits our style , can guard above his height and score on scraps .
If Maher or Davidson were to go down we could bring in a slasher or PG .

Sorry with Franklin already there we would not need another small , just an athletic forward as said . long day .... frazzled and its only 3.30pm .

bozza,

Its a bit harsh to call Dodman inconsistent, the guy hardly gets any court time to prove whether he can be a consistent contributor.

Personally I think Dench should go, he is a perimeter big, we need someone with height and an interior presence.

bozza, Schenscher is close to the Adelaide squad and hasn't ruled out playing for the Sixers. He was actually interviewed lastnight on Fox...

BTW, If you added Motts and downgraded Coopers 7 rating to 6 that team would work within the 68 points cap.

If we can get Sensch - that would be awesome, don't get me wrong.

Just it still annoys me how the club worked so hard and ignored lots of players to get Newley to sign. It was a waste of time, because the reality was he was always going to Europe or America before playing for us - sure it was good to see Sixers work hard to get someone home, but what have we gained from it?

And Dodman - not convinced in the few Academy and NBL games I have seen him play - and going on the fact that no-one raves about him playing in the ABL ... but, as I think Bizzy mentioned the other day, if he could develop into a Jerry Denard\Rupert Sapwell\Paul Rees cult figure type player, whos job is more to fire up the crowd - well there should be a spot on everyones roster for that type of figure to get the crowd involved.

"Question - what is your view on Sutton being put into the game cold at a crucial stage? And please, no "If Phil did it it must be right." answers."
The only thing I can think of as to why other players were given a run is because Davidson was cramping so had to come off, Balls was very tightly defended and looked quite 'buggered', the rest of the guys couldn't sink the ball for love nor money....
........ they have a game tomorrow against the Hawks and then on Sunday against Brisbane, and then again on Wednesday against the Tigers, so maybe the idea might have been to accept that this game was lost and give the guys a rest? But maybe the coach should run them all into the ground and yell at them for not getting their shots in, no matter how well defended they are or how flat their foul shots are?
I'm sure I don't know the answer.

I know he is good mates with a lot who post here but Ninnis is definitely not the answer.

bozza, if Newley comes back next year, that effort will have paid off perhaps?

Dana, that doesn't wash, we were down by 5 I think, after a massive run to get back into it. Then the stupid subs happened!

I don't think the game would have been seen as "over" until after he put Sutton in, and Brown scored on him 2 or 3 times, and it blew out to double figures.

We needed a win to make the playoffs, not a game where we rest people to keep them fresh.

htgt, i can agree with your thought but after thinking about it in more depth i find it hard to find someone better, unless you go with someone like Stacker.
Not attacking but wondering who do you think would be better and why?

Sure it doesn't wash. That's why I'm not a coach.

How about the idea that the team on the floor were hot and on a run, and the line up should not have been tampered with by putting in Sutts who had not been on at all.

What's your comment on that idea, or should I email all NBL coaches and assistant coaches for a response worth considering?

Check Boti's article - it sums up the change when we just made a run perfectly..

Ballinger probably gave Mal his thoughts on coaching, rather than saying he would walk.
That would have been at that recent meeting with Mal and the three senior players.

OK, OK....practice what you preach please?
ie 'Play the ball'.
I don't intend to answer all of the 'How about' scenarios. A bit OTT for me thanks very much.

How bout getting all the guys into the game in the first half with some rotations so that when it is time to make a run players like Davidson , Ng and Ballinger are fresh .

The coaching or lack there of in the first 1/4 was appalling . We looked average off the bat , so what do you do about . Let the game roll on , let your 2 imports clock up 2 fouls in 5 minutes and even then leave em on . When we are finally down by 8 late in the first you call a timeout .

Does it take 7-8 minutes of game time to work out something to say to your players ? and that is not including the little conference away from the team pre address .

Also , if you are undermanned and playing somewhat risky , scrambling basketball then use the freakin time outs allocated to rest guys . Get Burdon in the game early , the confidence that will give a young player is immense . At very worst you buy Davidson 5 as to keep him fresh . What they asked of sutton was laughable . sheesh , Gotta go before i pop a gasket .

I popped both my gaskets last night, one watching the game the other watching Sharapova

Taking Burdon and Mottram off was a mistake. Playing Copeland for as long as he did was also a mistake. Squid is correct, you can tell from his first two shots what kind of night Copeland is going to have. He's not the kinda guy who works back into it after a slow start.

I thought Dench's body language was a disgrace. He looked quite disgusted at having to go back in for the last two minutes of garbage time. I can't understand how his road form can be so much better than it is here at the Dome, but I'd be happy to see him gone at season's end.

Cooper was great. Hodge forced the issue a couple of times, but when he played under control he was very useful. Isaac is right, 16/10/7 on an average night is not too bad. Ballinger had an extremely rare shocker offensively, and Loughton should get credit for some excellent defence.

Brown was a non-factor while Burdon was on him, but cut loose once Eze was subbed out. That was a mistake, plain and simple.

The worst part is Perth wasn't great. Our foul shooting was terrible (so was Perth's). Adelaide will never win a game shooting 2-18 from downtown, not with the style of ball we play.

Mottram is excellent defensively and good on the boards but is just such a passinger on offense.

A disappointing result for the 6100+ crowd.

Should we be so aggressive and say sack the coach or should we just let him go. What I mean, is let a coach that helped the club to some of the best times, leave with grace. And say thankyou. Perhaps he needs an exit plan aswell.

7 news sport said that -Voldermort- will need CONVINCING to continue coaching next year. That's right when interviewing this "death eater of basketball SA" he said that if this continues (losing) he will probably not continue!

Ninnis, get your résumé ready!

Mutley, check out Dench's stats home vs road:

Dench: Season Splits

Isaac, already aware of them. He's just a completely different player on the road.

Yes, he must definitely go for the following reasons:
* He has no effective game plan
* The other coaches work out what plans he has
* He doesn't DEVELOP players
* He plays favorites
* Others that can't be listed publically.....

Anyhow, the Denchmeister needs someone to work on his confidence. You can tell that there is too much going through his mind when he plays - he needs to have a brain dump so rather than thinking about the schoot, it just happens.

did you have to post it in a new topic aswell..? TWICE?!

Sutts was not on Redhage, he was on Brown. In fact Smyth said that's why he put him on, to put pressure up the floor. Last time I looked Redhage didn't run the point but I guess they do look similar.....not!

DB5, I agree with Dana. I know the team was desperate for a win last night in the quest to make the playoffs, but from start to finish, not a single player was able to shoot the ball well. The shooting percentage was so miserable, it was feasible to think lets write this game off and not run the players to the ground tiring them and risking further injury chasing a win. Tomorrow night is another night and hopefully not a repeat of last night's shooting. Its the poor shooting more than anything else that cost us the game. So why exhaust them out there on court when their shots were not going in. You need to score to win a game.

Yes EC, you do have to score to win games, but the other critical component is to stop the other team from scoring. Defence wins games - get a few stops and then the momentum will shift and eventually the shots will go in.

To make that happen it may have been a good idea to try a some full court defensive pressure, create a couple of turn overs and all of a sudden??

Would it be good if he at least tried that?

rumor i heard tonight at dinner was that Voldemort is looking to walk before seasons end now.
look for Melvounr game next wed to be his last.

#167604

His defence is terrific, that's why he became a Sixer, ability to defend, pass and push the ball up the floor.

His problem is that he doesn't get the ball match, and doesn't do anything to get the ball either, and when he has it, his shot selection isn't that great and misses them, quite badly too.

EC - they got back to within 5. Surely that's close enough to have a crack at winning the game? Shooting is something that can turn for better or worse in a matter of minutes. Take the Dragons game at the dome when they were down by over 25 and got it back to a basket on the back of Holmes/Heal shooting the lights out in the last quarter after being ice cold all game.

The Sixers can't afford to make a call that a game is "over" when we are down by 5. Not good enough. If it's like that, make a call on the season and play Dodman for 20 minutes a game.

Agreed thedoctor.

Dana, was not personal, just saying what I saw (with exception to the incorrect matchup I stated).

If we were struggling for a basket all game until our run to get back into it, why change the lineup??

It was working, those guys were finding a way to score. Sutton could not. Nothing against him, but why put a guy on in clutch time when he has sat all game?

Sutton needs to go. He's not NBL material.

I don't mind Doddman and believe he needs more minutes to impress.

Keep Burdon, Davidson and Maher.

Coops to stay please.

Get Balls to sign.

Copeland into retirement.

Get rid of Dench. He has not impressed me all season.

I don't mind Mottram and don't mind if he stays or goes.

Overall I want a new voice and new direction.

How about instead we keep Sutton & piss of chump supporters like The Champ33 instead...

Good idea.....who needs supporters?

Problem is that players like Dodman and Sutton is that Voldermort is not a development coach - these guys could flourish under a different coach.

Voldermort used to be a coach that could make great players exceptional - he never was a development coach.

If I was one of these young players that have basically been left to rot on the bench for 1-2 seasons and only getting chump minutes randomly, I would not be hanging around - either go to another NBL team or Europe League, or switch to AFL where there is more money.


It pains me to watch other teams that rotate there whole bench and everyone is given an oppurtunity - Voldermort, if you are not confident in putting your second tier payers on the court, why bother having them sit on the bench.