Same can be said about Rugby in NZ.
Imagine what the TB's could be like if there was no Rugby in NZ.

I tend to agree. Personally, I think our shooting guard stocks are most affected as they have similar size and athleticism requirements to many footballers.

Well we're lacking a good shooting guard at the moment.
But seriously you could say that about a lot of sports and countries. You play what you love and what you are good at.

If your theory is correct then there should be a very large lack of European Point guards, because of soccer.

Soccer Gives you footwork, awareness. Eg. Steve Nash. Every sport relates to other sports in different ways.

Soccer is the dominant sport in Europe yet basketball still flourishes.
You could even say that baseball and NFL are equally if not more popular than basketball in USA yet they dominate.
If a player has the passion and skill for the game he will go down that path, meaning AFL would not change the strength of the boomers that much

A handful of junior basketballers of note have made the move to AFL. The better question probably is how many of those would really have genuinely gone on and played for the Boomers?

Jack Watts - maybe...
Pendlebury - maybe...
Ricky Henderson - no...
Ryan Bathie - no....
Kirk Tippett - no....

As opposed to a crop around the same generation..

Mills... certainly (everyone saw that coming)
Delly .... certainly

People forget that large numbers of current AFL players, certainly those coming out of Victoria, were multi sport athletes as juniors, footy/basketball, footy/cricket, etc. Many of those that did well at both basketball and football were simply not that great at basketball.

The bigger issue is the pain AFL causes basketball at second tier (guys not playing SEABL, ABL etc) in order to play football.

I would suggest that Europe loses people with similar body types and athleticism to that sort after for potential basketball players to Volleyball and Handball. Of course you loose potential players to every sport, but when you play a position other than point guard in basketball it is a pre-requisite for the player to be taller than the vast mojority of the population and so sports that draw players of similar height significantly impact on that (relatively)very small pool of available potential talent.

my Son was avery good basketballer and footballer and football was happy for him to do both. Basketball made him have to chose basketball only. Look at Coniglio number 1 or 2 draft afl chose he is a great footballer and cricketer and is still playing both. My Son was told by NG to do all the SASI and give up football. Not one of my Sons age group has or will make it in basketball. Basketball in this state has lost Day,Hombsch and next year Wingard due to its current policies basketballs lost unfortunately and basketball need promoting and better tv deals and a bigger salary.

SO if they weren't going to make it in basketball, what does it matter if they were expected to choose?

The only way anybody makes it any sport is for total commitment.

So putting kids in the position to choose is really showing them that they need to focus on 1 or the other. If they vhoose football, sobe it and wish them well.

HO has it about right. It is always going to be difficult for an individual to have the right body to be both an ELITE (I'm talking NBL level and up) basketballer AND AFL player.

To be an elite basketballer, you really want to be wiry and long-limbed. But players like that really aren't suited to the hard physical contest of football, where long and wiry = snapped in half or repeated knee recons!

I think the biggest single difference no AFL would make to the Boomers and NBL is simply MEDIA COVERAGE.
The amount of column inches and tv time devoted to football is completely ridiculous. No other sport gets a look in (apart from Rugby in the NE states).

Don't get me wrong. I would never say that AFL is shit. It's obviously a great game and a unique and important part of Australian culture.

But the undeniable downside of Aussie rules is that we have about 700 of our finest athletes devoting themselves to a sport that has no international outlet (apart from the International Rules Series, which is a travesty IMHO).

These 700 athletes would no doubt be playing another sport, such as Rugby, Soccer, Track and Field or indeed Basketball, for example, were there no AFL, significantly increasing our depth in sports which have significant international importance in the form of World Championships or Olympics.

In a country which is only the 51st most populous in the world, 700 athletes is a sizeable void in our athletic stocks which is impossible to fill.

And just relating back to my earlier comment about shooting guards, about 250 of the AFL's players are between 190cm to 200cm tall. I imagine that at least two or three of those could have developed into decent professional shooting guards given different circumstances.

im a massive fan of all team sports really. i see value to some degree in most of them. the only thing i dont understand is millions of dollars in sports like swimming ( where you watch water splashing up and down a pool??) and golf and single player sports like that. compared to many of what i actually call sportsmen most non-team sportsmen are prima donnas who retire at 23 and come back out at 25 and suck. dont get me wrong i actually see the fun in playing golf, or swimming or running laps but its nothing on the true sporting legends. as kenny powers said " i play real sports not try to be the best at exercising".

i like alot of the team sports but aussie rules and bball are my favourites as they have in common a fast pace, skills, athletic feats, shows of strength but most importantly are free flowing constant battles throughout the contest as opposed to soccer, gridiron, rugby, cricket and baseball where as entertaining as they are in patches if you fell asleep for 15 minutes chances are you would not have missed anything worth writing home about.

america has 3-4 major sports (baseball/ gridiron/ bball/ ice-hockey) that demand their talent pool but about 10 times ( or more im guessing) population size over australia. ( faint recollection of australia pop size 20ish mill, US more like 200+ mill)

most countries in europe would have a population many times greater than australia but would only have 2-3 major sports.

ie lithuania ( bball)

england ( soccer/ cricket/ rugby)

france ( as above) and so on

australia

aussie rules/ rugby/ cricket/ soccer

( also baseball we have many very good players and a top team)

and a much smaller population base than many of these countries.

we are among the very elite in many of those sports or considered good to decent in others. there is no nation that for population size would match us for elite talent across sports to be honest. every team above us at the olympics is ten times larger than us and many below us are ten times larger.

if like alot of other countries we were more focused on one sport i believe we could be much better at that sport.

afl does take alot of the best athletes away from other sports.

i dont believe that we would necessarily be the best basketball team in the world if bball was our number one sport ( im not sure we have the height that america and lithuania have although as has been pointed out its the gun sg's we lack) but i do believe we would be a top power at the sport. ( top 3 team in the world i believe).

i actually believe the real big winner in a theoretical world where footy didnt exist would be soccer, those indigenous kids would be great at the game and if more played would kill it. very well suited to the speed, footskills and flair of that sport. we would be an absolute super power of a huge world sport.

as to the arguments about body sizes being too different i dont agree. afl players are conditioned, as are soccer and bball players, you build to suit the sport you play. thats why bball players will be thinner ( so tall that a huge build would be alot of weight to move with agility being important and alot of stress on the knees), footy players must be good all-round and rugby players have no neck ( built for bursts of power). what ever sport a player goes into they will condition their body to suit. some will have obvious strengths or weaknesses that will help them become elite.

Phil, you are talking about building up your muscles and bulk to suit the sport you are in. I am talking about phyiscal attributes - length of arms and legs and whether you are naturally a lithe, quick athlete, or one whose frame can take on a lot of extra muscle mass without breaking down and getting injured all the time.

There might be a lot of AFL players out there who would be pretty good basketball players, but how many would have the elite height and length to put them in position to compete with Ingles, Newley, Barlow or even Dellavedova for a Boomers spot?

It would be good if someone had the stats on all AFL players and you could see how many are at least 6'3", with a decent wingspan and quick enough and manoeuvrable to play SG at international level. I think it would a pretty small number myself.

The physical tools to match Ingles, Newley or Barlow? Probably none. But Dellavedova? I'd say a fair few.

As I've already stated, there are about 250 guys with a height between 190cm to 200cm. I've no idea about their wingspan or their quickness or maneuverability, but even if only 10% have this combination of qualities, well obviously that's 25 guys. If only 10% of those made it to the NBL, that's two or three extra Peter Crawford's pushing for Boomers berths. Maybe our three point shooting would benefit from the extra competition?

I don't watch a heap of AFL, but would've said Chris Judd is a good example of a tall midfielder and he is 6'2 - P. Crawford's height.

Most of these guys taller than 6'2, in the AFL, they'd be key position players and ruckmen right? So what you are looking for is AFL key posn players and ruckmen who show high level agility, reaction time and skill level. (If they don't have high agility then they could only be a C or PF in elite basketball and then the min. height req is really 6'6").

Dean Brogan as an example, was always pretty mobile for an AFL big man, but he was never close to being mobile enough to be a decent NBL wing, let alone a Boomer. So you'd need to find key posn players and ruckmen MORE mobile than Dean Brogan was in his prime to even consider them as possible 'lost Boomers'.

I think we're agreed though, that at most you'd get 2-3 extra Peter Crawfords, who would be fringe Boomers at best, unless they are a freakish good shooter like Shane Heal or Brett Maher.

So I would still say no AFL would have minimal impact on Boomers stocks at best.

i said that in my post, that we could be very good but still would be held back because we dont have the height that countries like america or lithuania have.

as for 6'3 athletes that could match it with ingles and newley??? many, athletically and physically there are guys in afl that would match them. to be honest you could find some that would excel above them. obviously we could only guess at whether they could pick up the skills as well. we could take 50 of the best and who knows how many will pick up the bball skills and feel for the game that ingles etc have but it would be far from a high %. physically plenty of them would fit the requirements though. we wouldnt have alot of the 6'5' to 6'10 super athletes that america have though. funny enough we can produce a great talent like bogut who can match it with the best without having the athletic gifts of many centres in the states.

thats why i said in a theoretical world where footy didnt exist ( would be a sad world for me) we would be a stronger bball team very close to top in the world but not quite.

i said that in my post, that we could be very good but still would be held back because we dont have the height that countries like america or lithuania have.

as for 6'3 athletes that could match it with ingles and newley??? many, athletically and physically there are guys in afl that would match them. to be honest you could find some that would excel above them. obviously we could only guess at whether they could pick up the skills as well. we could take 50 of the best and who knows how many will pick up the bball skills and feel for the game that ingles etc have but it would be far from a high %. physically plenty of them would fit the requirements though. we wouldnt have alot of the 6'5' to 6'10 super athletes that america have though. funny enough we can produce a great talent like bogut who can match it with the best without having the athletic gifts of many centres in the states.

thats why i said in a theoretical world where footy didnt exist ( would be a sad world for me) we would be a stronger bball team very close to top in the world but not quite.

Phil, I disagree that Australia is held back because of height in basketball. We produce a lot of big men -Bogut, Longley, Bradtke, Dorge, Anstey, Jawai, Andersen, Khazzouh, Ogilvy, Nevill, Schenscher, Helliwell.

I also disagree that Bogut does not have a high level of athletic ability compared to most centres in the US. There are almost none with his bulk and height who can explode to the basket and dunk like he can.

Our problem is athleticism in the wing positions. We just don't produce the athletes at these positions that the US does and to a lesser extent, some Euro nations and Argentina in the last decade.

I just don't think there are many AFL players who would have the right physique to be better than the existing, core Boomers.

Alot of posters here are forgetting just how much skill basketball requires.
Sure alot of AFL players would have the strength, speed and physical tools to be a good SG.

But if you don't have skill, those athletic abilities won't be maximised.
You may be able to run fast, but can you run fast whilst dribbling, stop on a dime, and elevate and successfully make a jump shot.

An action like that takes years to perfect. However, Israel Folau is living proof that kicking the ball and handballing can be learnt in the space of one year.

Basketball players and Rugby players (to a lesser extent) can go to AFL. But it doesn't work the other way and it never could.
Basketball requires much more skill IMO.

When people always talk about Basketball, they talk about the ability to shoot, pass, play defence (all skill-based).
When people talk about AFL, they talk about the strength of a player and/or the speed of a player or the fitness of him (based on athletic abilites).

And I agree with the earlier poster--AFL lacks the international component to garner my interest and alot of other peoples interest.
NZ (which usually has a close association with Oz in terms of playing and following similar sports) doesn't care one bit about AFL.(we get an hour of AFL highlights a week on CABLE tv!)

MACDUB, I think the reason people on this thread aren't talking so much about skill level is because we are talking about a world in which AFL doesn't exist. So all those who would have been learning AFL skills, would actually have been learning basketball skills from an early age. Hence they would have the same chance as current basketballers to reach high skill levels.

I also think you underestimate the ability it takes to not just kick and handpass, but to do it consistently well under constant pressure. I particularly admire the ability of AFL rovers to gather the ball in very tight spaces and find an open man through a tiny gap in a fraction of a second. That takes reaction time and a lot of skill!

AFL players also have to pass, shoot and defend. Its different to basketball, but it still requires a lot of skill and experience.

I still think it comes back to the type of athlete you are. The combination of physical traits you need to have a good chance at being a dominant basketballer are just so much rarer than those required to be an elite AFL player.

Ie, you can be a great AFL midfielder at average height (about 5'9) and weight and with average wingspan. The only outstanding attributes for me are stamina, reaction time and to a lesser extent, sprinting speed (nice to have but some under the pack guys aren't that quick).

Contrast this with an elite basketballer and you not only need reaction time and speed, you also need to be able to jump high, and have unusual height and reach. Stamina is the one area I think AFL players need to be better athletes than basketballers.

Butterfly Effect- try this concept for size.

AFL never exits, but we are very good at both rugby codes, cricket and tennis and improving on the world stage in soccer. Basketball sits with baseball, ice hockey and gridiron as one of those American sports.

We should not dismiss the fact that the core philosophies that underpin both Aussie Rules and basketball are very similar, therefore basketball in this country benefits from the presence of Aussie rules.

Perhaps the question should be "how much better would the AFL be if no one in Australia gave a rats toss bag about basketball.

im not saying we are held back by a lack of height, just that having access to all the best aussie athletes if aussie rules didnt exist would help us become a huge force but not the ultimate force as we wouldnt suddenly be blessed with those 6'5 - 6'10 super athletes as they are not hiding already in afl. afl has alot of great 6'0 to 6'7 athletes so thats where the big rise would be.


interesting enough afl midfielders are between 182-193 cm's nowadays. kids that are 177cms are getting passed in recent drafts and the perfect height of midfielders is more about 186ish+.

frementle have

barlow 191, pavlich plays mid/forward 193, mundy 192, fyfe 187, hill 184, pitt 189, morabito 191, lower 187, deboer 189, crowley 189, palmer 182, walters 177,ballyntyne 174. those last 2 are probably more small forward pocket crumbing/ pressure type players but yeah that is pretty much their entire midfield rotation and that is pretty much the trend in football. their key position players are taller than that.

yeah there is no telling how many could pick up the skills or what i call the feel/ bball iq side but they definately have alot of very good tall athletic guys in footy.

im not saying we are held back by a lack of height, just that having access to all the best aussie athletes if aussie rules didnt exist would help us become a huge force but not the ultimate force as we wouldnt suddenly be blessed with those 6'5 - 6'10 super athletes as they are not hiding already in afl. afl has alot of great 6'0 to 6'7 athletes so thats where the big rise would be.


interesting enough afl midfielders are between 182-193 cm's nowadays. kids that are 177cms are getting passed in recent drafts and the perfect height of midfielders is more about 186ish+.

frementle have

barlow 191, pavlich plays mid/forward 193, mundy 192, fyfe 187, hill 184, pitt 189, morabito 191, lower 187, deboer 189, crowley 189, palmer 182, walters 177,ballyntyne 174. those last 2 are probably more small forward pocket crumbing/ pressure type players but yeah that is pretty much their entire midfield rotation and that is pretty much the trend in football. their key position players are taller than that.

yeah there is no telling how many could pick up the skills or what i call the feel/ bball iq side but they definately have alot of very good tall athletic guys in footy.

Imagine the Opals without netball existing as a sport,now that would be something.

Surely Sandilands could fill the paint. Pendlebury was on right path to becoming a Boomer and Luke Russell (Gold Coast) was All Australian junior.

Interesting thread this one.

A world without AFL in Australia and trying to work out where Aussie basketball would sit.

Out of all the discussions, one things sticks out for me that that is MEDIA EXPOSURE - especially in the southern and western states.

AFL dominates media coverage everywhere except NSW, ACT & QLD. Take AFL out, other sports have a chance to get a crack. However would the NRL have taken their place instead? Who's to know.

I reckon a few more SG's maybe, might have been on the radar, but maybe that's it?

If there was no netball, I totally agree that our Opals would be even better too!

No rights or wrongs in this argument in any case...all hypotheses...

This is a great conversation.

One thing that struck out is that the extra SG's would make everyone else better shooters due to the extra competition.

This is one area that has always puzzled me. Look at the amount of guys who go a play basketball at the AIS in their formative teenage years, but still do not shoot the ball with correct fundamentals when they graduate, which leads onto them being poor shooters in actual game play.

One of the areas that hurt the Boomers the most in Turkey last year was their poor outside shooting.

In one of the games vs Spain we shot 1-of-24 from the three-point line.

I think its time the AIS had a full-time shooting coach on board.