Before everyone gets on you for starting this thread, another thread haha, I would love if Boti had the balls to ask Marty on the record his reasoning for all the subs. My main frustrtation at this point is the not knowing Marty Clarke direct reasons for allowing 30 point home deficits in favour of playing everyone evenish minutes, besides his bff Weigh.

its like trying to figure out what came first, the chicken or the egg? my point being we never truly will know why Marty does what he does. Its like finding the truth in the bible, its all fiction, your looking for something that doesnt exist.

Actually, SRT070, just to be contrary, there is (historically at least), quite a bit of truth in the bible.

Does that confound you marty theory?

no because there is no truth in the bible, well not in what it tries to get people to do, but i think that should be reserved for a different forum.

Hmm... Must have been another day past.
Another Clark bashing thread.
There's plenty of them out there, take your pick and use that one.

SRT070- we aren't meant to take the bible literally, we should live it out in our actions not our words- plenty of truth in the bible- but like you say, for another forum!

I wonder if Marty sit's at home (or when on the road- in the hotel room) the night before a game and comes up with a spreadsheet for his substitution rotation:)

Perth play a high intensity, full court man to man defence + they have the skill level across the board.

I think these two factors are why regular subbing works for Perth.

Adelaide clearly do not play the same level of defence as Perth nor do we have the personnel. We have guys who need the ball constantly to be effective(Johnson)and guys who need alot of shots to be effective (Weigh, Ballinger). Without the minutes, Johnson is not going to get the looks on offence he needs (and deserves!) and Ballinger is not going to get the shots or the opportunity to be a leader!

As mentioned previously, Adelaide are essentially a team of role players who at most other clubs would be playing much less minutes.

In a 40 minute game our depth chart should look much like this:

C Johnson (30)/Helliwell (5)/Ballinger (5)
PF Ballinger (25)/ Simpson (15)
SF Weigh (30)/ Creek (5)/ Simpson (5)
SG Herbert (10)/ Creek (15)/ Ng (10)/ Warren (5)
PG Warren (30)/ Crosswell (10)

Johnson, Ballinger, Weigh and Warren all play 30-35 minutes out of the 40. Creek and Simpson come off the bench to play 20 minutes a piece. Herbert still starts but plays only 10 minutes a game. Make him earn an extra minutes. Crosswell plays 10 minutes as a back up to Warren and Ng depending on performance (which has been good as of late) gets 10 minutes to come in and light up. Helliwell manages 5 minutes pending foul trouble.

I honestly don't think that it's a case of "We can't play the same level of defence that Perth can", because I've seen numerous times, even against Perth that we were able to play hard D equal to the caliber that they did. That was one of the key points to beating them 3/4 times last season.

I think the issue is that the team doesn't have it in them to play that style of game at all. Face it, we have Balls, DJ, Weigh, Ng, and Warren who; if you actually strip everything back, are all primarily offensive players. They play an offensive role normally and defence is a secondary thought.

Perth has a good combination of players, specifically that in Martin, Robbins and Wagstaff. I would consider them defensive players but "opportunistic" offensive players. They take defence or setting up offense as their preference but will score if the situation arises.

Just an opinion.

Isn't the issue the combinations?

The on court chemistry seems to be all over the place with a lot of the rotations and that seems the real issue.

Adelaide vs Perth. Adelaide 14 subs vs Perth 23.
Adelaide vs Wollongong. Adelaide 30 vs Wollongong 24.
Adelaide vs Sydney. Adelaide 26 vs Sydney 25.

Subs at quarter breaks were not counted.

So Marty has actually subbed LESS than his opposite number. Either way the numbers are not statistically significant.

Ariel - you spoilt a good argument with a few facts

Why didn't Ariel prove that he Subs more?

As said before Perth have a team that is able to go with the continuous subs system.

In the Sixers Hawks game the Hawks made NO Subs in the last quarter until the last 30 seconds and won that quarter and ultimately the game, 29-17.

Against Sydney
2 subs in the first quarter with us being down by 4 (we made a few silly turnovers and while we weren't playing that great at least we had some sort of Cohesion)
8 subs in the second quarter with us being down by 16 (-12 for quarter. All momentum lost. No composure)
6 subs in the third quarter with us being down by 16 (a desperation fight back)
7 subs in the final quarter with us being down by 23 (-7 for quarter. Closed the game out with a few free buckets)

Regardless of the subsitutions, the idea is to find the best 5 to play as well as continue with momentuem. Last season Clarke continued to play random combinations and this season continues to do the same. For a coach that is meant to be a very good one he struggles to find the best combination or even a competitive one.

I can reverse the argument and have the stats back it up.

In the quarters we did best we subbed less and vice versa. So Clarke actually did what you guys say that he doesn't.

When things are going well he doesn't sub as much, in other words he stays with the combination that is doing well.

When things are going the other way he subs more, in an effort to find that combination.

See I can flip the argument a complete 180 and have the stats prove my point. It's called cause and effect or chicken and the egg in laymen's terms.

You are right Ariel 22, it is possible to look at the arguement in both ways. However, there is lots of variables.

The way I look at it is this:
Did Clarke's continous subs work last season? No
This season with new players that he picked is it working? No

Clarke has no answers so why not try having 4 players play 30 minutes and see how it goes. If he tries it for say 10 games and it we play worse then we currently are then he can go back to his crazy ways. However, I don't think its possible to get any worse then how things are.

I just figured he was using SIRI to call the subs.

82% of all people know that...

For mine, basketball is a game of momentum, hot hands, good runs etc.

I don't feel Marty gets this part of it. It's almost like Ng hits three shots in a row so Marty pulls him out so he can re install that hot hand when he thinks the team needs it. Of course the player comes back on and isn't necessarily 'hot' anymore.

In their last game they all looked so nervous, or doubting their ability, I reckon that comes from Clarke.

From memory Phil used to let players play through a lot of their stuff ups, and as a result they had a lot of self confidence.

I don't see this with Marty.

How about a petition to get Marty Clarke answering live questions on Adelaidenow.com with Boti the moderator.

Then Marty can enlighten us all, explain/justify his weird ways and we can all feel better.

ng hits three 3's in a row and marty pulls him off......crikey's we used to just get oranges!!

I commented about Smyth in a previous thread, but i forgot to mention, and this is a big one for me. Under Smyth, that was the last time ive seen a 6ers team appear to have fun on court, and they truly played for each other. This roster plays like robots with no emotion, which is not a good sign.

truth in the bible?
were you there when they wrote it??
lol

half time i walked past two old guys talking about the rotations
one bloke was not happy and could not understand why clarke does it
must say i agreed with him

skull, just in case you think ineedmore was using a literal example, Ng hasn't hit three threes in a row this season.

I'm not sure this hot/cold thing is the biggest issue with the team. Perth players come off the bench and hit shots. Lisch has been hot all game and still goes off. And before someone rattles off that stuff about their players being so clearly superior, Ng and Ballinger are two of the best shooters in the league. Warren has shown he's a strong shooter too. The bigs need to be able to finish reliably inside and they weren't in the first home game.

I think confidence is a factor. I think defense is another factor - hard to get confident when the wins aren't there. Marty and the captains need to find a way to get confidence into a losing team - hell, every player has some responsibility for that. One advantage Hill had was that confidence didn't play a huge role in his game - he attacked no matter what.

One thing I haven't liked about the 36ers for years is that they don't shoot the three as soon as they're open. You watch guys like Penney, Lisch, etc run around off screens and then shoot the second they have the opportunity. If a 36er isn't taking the shot when it's there, why run off any screens!? The coaches need to be drilling it into them - if you're a designated shooter, do it when the advantage is there.

Isaac, you hit the nail on the head with point B.

The shot taking is too structured for that "spontaneousness" needed to be more offensive.

Beyond the fastbreak 3, I've seen Ng take about 4 shots in 5 years that reminded me of Brett Maher: quick screen, pick n' pop from 18-20ft.

Ballinger is a bit more pro-active on this quick shots; were he a bit quicker, he'd probably head-fake most defenders and either lay it in or teardrop from about 5-10ft out.

Infact, now that I think of it; it's kind of Ironic that we've been a Guard heavy team for years, but have never improved their offensive output.

disagree with the hill point, he would start confident and if things worked he was great but as soon as he buggered up his head would drop and he was useless with absolutely no confidence.

its all just teamwork and having fun on the court. they all look so tight thats why everything was short. It seems to me like at the moment if you miss you hit the bench but in the smythe days it was keep shooting until you make one. Confidence is alot easier to keep if you have a licence to shoot and dont get dragged if you make 1 mistake.

I think we all need to realise the NBL is actually quite high quality so imports dont dominate like they used to and teams on a good night will win by a bit but be 5% off and your gonna get spanked.

I showed the subs the other week that showed Creek wasn't dragged for mistakes, just regular subs. Smyth and Breheny had a similar sub pattern across the quarters. Though in their case, the criticism was often that they didn't sub or TO reacting to the play! Here, if Clarke is, he cops it for that. Like I said, I don't think the rotations themselves are the major problem, despite the threads about it.

igotmadskills we lost 10 games last year by 2 shots or less from memory. Indeed the competition is tight and the difference between mediocre and great is a fine line.