Didn't want to leave the Country Boys out of this. Their stats are after 6 games & appear to be a bit better % wise than the Metro Boys.

(anonymous) - 2/10 (20%)
(anonymous) - 7/24 (29%)
(anonymous) - 10/29 (34%)
(anonymous) - 14/42 (33%)
(anonymous) - 8/30 (27%)

What would be considered a satisfactory % for U16 Boys, anything above 30%? If so, 4 of the Country boys are about the mark, but none of the Metro Boys are even close.

I'm not having a personal go at anyone, as I said I don't know them at all, so I'm not all bitter about who got left home. Its just that when the team is shooting at about 10% from the 3pt line (7/73 for the mist frequent shooters) is it time to get the ball inside.

I'm not sure after all that has gone on with this (and the previous) forum that we should really be discussing the performance of U16 boys?

Here, here. Let the boys do their best without putting them down.

Was not my intention of putting any one down and realise now that my post does look that way.

I have asked Moderator to remove any names from this post.

I was really just wondering if the teams were relying too much on 3pt shots.

For example, the Metro boys are in fact shooting over 50% as a team on 2pt shots (166/331) but less than 10% on 3pt shots. The Country Boys are shooting 37% (91/247) form the 2pts & 28% on 3pt's.

I'll say it now - the reason is this years U16 comp doesnt have a big 'name' standout player who you can say in a couple of years will go to the AIS or be a regular at All-Aus camps. There aren't, to be honest, any 3pt shooters in the comp (except for anonymous country boy from Fville).

Although, I thought the TEAM Paul Arnott picked was arguably the best he could have, obviously talented players in the same spots as others will miss out. I guess this SA Metro team just doesn't match up with the other states.

Just in realtion to my previous comment - that's what makes this comp more even and exciting then other comps of previous years where teams had THE standout player and would win every game comfortably...though it may also be detrimental, too.

We seem to have a trend of our U18s doing better than they did in U16s. Does anyone have any idea why this is?

Not that it's a bad thing, our boys program has produced plenty of AIS kids the past 3 years (Florence, Newley, Kies, Hill, Kersten, Wood... probably Ingles this year).

Our girls program continues to be strong anyhow, with 3rd in U16s for Metro and Country coming 7th. The 18 Metro girls came 3rd (Damo gets another medal after 3 straight years coming 4th) and the Country girls fined a highly credible 6th after coming 12th with this age group in U16s. So our girls are 3rd, 3rd, 6th & 7th. Not a bad result.

While I have nothing to do with the U16 State program or any U16 district team I would be interested to read a summary from the coaching staff on how the team/coaches went etc. and what areas our players need to work on to compete better at National level.

The last time I was involved with an U16 program was in the Richard Orlick era and I agree with Paul and Jeremy that if youre not involved directly then this is not the forum to make comments. Accountability was mentioned for the players and coaches, I would say fair enough but where is the accountability for some of the annonymous posters that question team selections and / or performance of these kids and young coaches. Its easy to question things when your not involved and even easier to question things in a forum like this.

One of the bad things about sport is that you can get any schmo publicly questioning what happens, knocking others when they have not been in the position themselves and really are not in a position to make assessments other than having the benefit of hindsight!

Wow - with a name like 'Incognito' I'm surprised you don't want people knowing who you are :-P.

Unfortunately for you, with the info you divulged on the Forum in the past, I think you've already given it away!

If you are not going to be accountable in the public domain, then don't post in it.

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

People involved with sports should learn this. It amazes me the people most critical or opinionated of coaches, umpires, players, administrators etc. are generally the ones that have not been there in the same position themselves. Also, often the opinions are not directed to the people involved but to everyone else (so there is only one side discussed) or in an anonymous setting.

In a previous post someone mentioned the players should learn to take critcism. I hope that they learn what we all learn. 90% of the criticism you get is irrelevent because it comes from people that really dont matter.

What I am saying is not directed at any one poster because I would not have a clue who the anonnymous posters are, but is just a general observation of many involved with sport from the followers, parents to everyone, who voice their opinions from their glasshouse and it just does not make sense to me that how they dont realise that they just dont get it.

I still hope Arnott, Bretetic or Flynn posts a bit of report to this forum so we can see how the side went on / off the court, what areas players in the state need to work on to become more competitive at U16 level, what the coaches were looking for in players to be selected at this level and any outstanding performances of our players or those from other states.

"However, criticism of unpaid juniors on a public forum is not on in my opinion."

Fair enough too, maybe make it a mod rule and do evil stuff like bleeping and using power, Isaac?

Knowing some of those kids mentioned, some really good kids, I'm sure they are disappointed with their own performance enough and willing to work harder to imporve, and don't need to have anonymous idiots who don't know them or a thing about them looking at a bunch of box scores pass judgment on them.

Can someone who opposes naming players please tell me why a newspaper can have a write up on each player, but we can't on this forum. I don't know about anyone elses, but my Eastern Messenger has a full page devoted to the U16 state team with pictures of each player and write ups. Surely that is worse than naming and discussing a few players on here?

I briefly read this and I think the difference is that the write-ups were generally positive and not negative

Reporters put their name to the article and are accountable for what they write up. No comparison with this forum.

But surely there will be a player picked for that team who the football world doesn't think should be there, hence promoting discussion about him. I see at the top of the thread there is anonymous for the players stats, yet they are apparantly available elsewhere...

I just thought it was interesting to see 15 year olds named in the paper, yet apparantly we can't name players here.

A picture and write up of individual players by a journalist is one thing. Critical commentary on players weaknesses and team selections/non-selections is another.



Ask yourself these two questions:



How would you feel if you were one of the footy players written up in the Messenger?



How would you feel if you were the member of the SA Metro Under 16 Men's basketball team whose selection was queried in this thread, by an anonymous poster, who had seen none of the tournament, and while the tournament was still in progress?



I imagine the answers to these questions would differ substantially.



The reason that discussions on
indiviudal juniors is inappropriate in this forum is because it is, by its nature, a forum for discussion. I'm all for promoting players' achievements via the web (as happens to some extent on the BASA web page and club pages) or the print media (see the small article in the previous week's messenger re the U18 and U16 nationals), but posts on this forum encourage critical debate which, IMHO, is detrimental for juniors.

I'm with you Paul at least yourself, Liam and a few others have the gumption (a good southern word)to put your names to the posts.

The rest of us (Sammy included) hidden in anonymity should accept that it is not fair or ethical to critise our kids on this forum.

All positives and nothing more.

Sammy wont be bagging any Club for that matter either.

He will however challenge those varmints that don't keep the gunfighters creed and especially that rabbit and duck.

I agree somewhat, and have these comments to answer your questions:

1. I would be PUMPED if I was in the Messenger.

2. I would not know about it unless I read it / was told about it.

The big difference here is that more people read the Messenger than this forum, therefore the footy players have a bigger expectation to live up to (and fall from). U16 basketballers are relative unknowns in this state when compared to footy players, simply because of the media coverage. If I was an U16 player and was discredited on this forum, it would make me want to work harder to prove those knockers wrong. I know everyone is different, but I think the footy players would have to put up with the same shit as these young ballers would..

Why did the U16 Metro boys not finish in the top4? Answer: there were no Tiger boys in the team.

*Why did they not finish in the top4?* They weren't good enough in the week.

The argument about the Messenger is absolute bullshite. It was a complete done up page, with box-portrait photos, with a little under each name like "on-baller, good with both feet, excellent coverage". Nothing like "disgusting kick for goal, couldn't grab a mark if you paid him".

It was a publicity and encouragement stunt, much like the 16 Boys Metro articles (including the MASSIVE one in the Eastern Messenger about Owen Giovine). Publicity and encouragement is what these players should be getting at this age. They have enough coaches to talk to them about their shooting stats.

sa metro u/16 lost sa country u/16