I don't reckon it's a complete failure if they don't win bronze.

It would be disappointing given the way they played early in the tournament, but the fact still remains we've actually over-achieved based purely on our world ranking (11). We beat France (5), Lithuania (3) and Serbia (6) in pool play/quarters.
So not a complete failure in my eyes.

I wouldn't see the campaign as a failure if the team misses the medal. It'd be a disappointment but not a failure.

This is the most impressive Boomers team I can recall for a long time. Watching them has reminded me of the air that the Adrian Hurley coached teams had about them. i.e., a cohesive unit with a lot of self-belief, in themselves individually, in each other and collectively as a group. I haven't felt that way watching a Boomers team for a long while.

However, I suspect the players will feel a sense of failure if they don't win the medal.

Serbia executed a remarkable shift in strategy, and showed the Boomers they had what it took to win. Having lost to Australia 80-95 in the Group A tourney, they readjusted and secured a decisive 87-61 victory in the semi-finals.

So how did they do it? Their strategies are also likely to be adopted by Spain.

How Serbia adjusted and dominated the Boomers

LC, what strategies should Australia employ to give themselves a reasonable chance against Spain?

the fact still remains we've actually over-achieved based purely on our world ranking (11).

"Exum. Dellavedova
Mills,
Simmons, Ingles
T Maker,
Humphries, Baynes

Find 4 more and our 2020 team should almost certainly medal"

Why do people continue to think that a team of mostly international rookies *should* be able to medal? This tournament has highlighted the importance of having an experienced core who know the international game well. By 2020, Simmons and Maker will have, at most, one tournament experience, the 2019 World Cup. That's it. One campaign together. Likely no qualification games experience. Bear in mind, we need a strong showing in the World Cup to qualify for the Tokyo Games. These promising young guys whose names keep being mentioned might be able to complement our experienced core, but don't expect them all to suddenly be major impact starters that can handle the pressure of big international knockout games.

Even now, they are just young guys with potential. Maker has never played for Australia, Simmons sat out the juniors (last time he played for Australia he was 15), and Exum hardly impressed when he suited up for the Boomers in 2014.

By 2020, we might even be in a situation where none of the young NBA guys have any playoff experience, let alone one-off elimination games. I really hope players our starters can keep their bodies in good condition through to 2020, because their experience will be invaluable. By 2020, Ingles will be 32, Baynes 33, Delly should still be in his prime at 29 and Mills will be 32. Bogut will be Pau Gasol's age in 2020, age 36, so fingers crossed he will still be able to contribute as much as Gasol is for Spain this Olympics.

These 2016 Games have all these guys in their prime. The time is now. It is a great opportunity to grab a medal. They are definitely underdogs for outside observers in this one, but that perception might suit them better than the semis where they were favourites.

"This team is ranked second. Finishing fourth would clearly be a failure."

Perhaps I have been too pessimistic, but pre-game I had the Boomers as favourites only against China and Venezuala. IMO, wins against Serbia, France, and Lithuania were upsets. Perhaps they deserved to go in as favourites against Serbia in the semis, based on their previous performances in this tournament, but I had $200 on Serbia because I thought they were more dangerous (although I regarded it as a profitable insurance policy). Prior to this tournament, based on talent, I don't think anyone who follows international ball, apart from the team themselves, really believed they were genuinely medal material and should go top 4 at least. So a top 4 result surely has to be a success.

Given their form throughout the tournament, though, it must be regarded as a disappointment to walk away with no medal.

"They are definitely underdogs for outside observers in this one, but that perception might suit them better than the semis where they were favourites.
"

I think you're right there. When Australia thought of themselves as the favourites they didn't come out with an edge to them. But every time it's been a game they weren't expected to win they've been pests on defense. It also helps if Spain comes in underestimating Australia. The best thing we can hope for is a fast start where we never take the foot of the pedal, and coming in as favourites rarely inspires that kind of play.

Australian teams don't handle favourite status well and it's generally a case of pride coming before a fall. A lot don't handle underdog status well either but the losses don't seem as bad without the boastful bravado to herald them in.

Boomers have to hit their wide open looks.

Spain arguably have more weapons than Serbia, but play differently.

Will need a supreme defensive effort this game and use that to spark the offense.

The Serbia game was, admittedly, an embarassment. But the tournament has been anything but a failure.

Aussie hoops says they've had massive amount of kids sign up during the Olympics and Channel 7 says the basketball has been a massive ratings winner. We've also knocked a few Euro powers out and our international ranking should rise from 11th to somewhere between 7-10 apparently after tonights match depending on result.

"This team is ranked second."

According to whom?

I was wondering the same thing, paul.

Pool results.

you're basically saying that a bronze would be a clear failure for the Boomers.

To expand on the second-ranked thing, now that I'm not trying to fire off messages while watching the bronze medal game:

Yes, it's an incredibly small sample and totally meaningless, but it's the only sample we've got with this team. It's certainly a better indicator than the country's rank of 11th, which has only increased to 10th even after this and nobody could argue with a straight face that the team that competed at the Olympics this year was the 10th-best in the world.

In fact, they were clearly better than China, Venezuala and Nigeria coming in, even to the most pessimistic of people, which ranks them ninth. Still higher than the nation's overall ranking now.

So to trot out 'we're ranked 11th, therefore a fourth-placed finish is a huge achievement' is silly.

Pool play doesn't give you rankings as each pool is different, it is just about getting to the QFs, the knockout rounds are about determining who is best.

The only time Australia has ever been ranked second in men's basketball in anything was in 2001 when we were ranked second in Oceania!

... and 2009.

Pool play doesn't give you rankings as each pool is different, it is just about getting to the QFs, the knockout rounds are about determining who is best.

"In fact, they were clearly better than China, Venezuala and Nigeria coming in, even to the most pessimistic of people, which ranks them ninth. Still higher than the nation's overall ranking now.

So to trot out 'we're ranked 11th, therefore a fourth-placed finish is a huge achievement' is silly."

Don't forget how many good teams aren't even competing in the Olympics- all of whom would beat China, and I'm pretty sure most would beat Nigeria and Venezuela too (I have no idea how Venezuela won the Fiba Americas).

Canada, Greece, Italy, Puerto Rico, New Zealand, Turkey...most of the European countries who competed in Eurobasket 2015 (24 teams, most didn't play Olympics).

Presumably kr will be far less disappointed after that loss, because now this Boomers team is "ranked" 4th, and we finished the tournament 4th. Therefore we did exactly as well as can be expected. Can't be unhappy with that.

I am pretty sure the world respects Australian basketball after this Olympics. We were the talk of the town right up until the Serbia loss, and we pushed an inform Spain right to the brink and lost on a questionable call. I think the world knows Australia can play the game and they'd rate us. No failure here in my eyes.

Not in mine either.
Purely in terms of results, ask me before Rio and I'd have happily taken a 4th placed finish.
In terms of the way we played, I'm even more pleased.
I think this is now the undisputed best Boomers team ever, and as disappointing as it was to go out of the tournament like that, in the big picture it doesn't make sense to be anything but pleased that we're trending upward and the team is at its highest ever point.

Not going to engage in the current debate, but I am surprised at how the world rankings don't rate making it to the medal rounds. The points allocations are:

Gold 50
Silver 40
Bronze 30
4th 15
5th 14
6th 13
7th 12
8th 11
9th 10
10th 9
etc.

I would have thought that 20 points for 4th would be more appropriate given you have to win a quarter final for that and 5th doesn't.

No bikkies for the best of the losers?

Martin earned his spot. Lisch was too small and not quick enough for international ball, but hard to know that until you get put in the spotlight.

Lisch just completely lost his offensive confidence after a good first game. His D and rebounding were good in the bronze game, but he missed two bunnies he would have eaten for breakfast the rest of his career. It was all mental for mine, which is odd because he seems like a mentally tough bugger.

Koberulz you implied that anything less than second would be a failure

Purely in terms of results, ask me before Rio and I'd have happily taken a 4th placed finish.

Also looking back, lisch completey out of his depth Martin hardly played was a huge key against Lithuania in the quarters

Douche of the week goes to KR.

I agree with paul about Lisch. Lack of effectiveness was mostly in his head IMO. That's the down side of the biggest stage being his first real Boomers campaign. Baptism of fire. I thought he looked ok in the early games.

(No question he is on the small side for an international 2 though. Not ideal, but that's the depth of talent we're working with right now)

Does anyone think not playing Goulding against Spain was an error, let's face it he is likely our best exponent of flopping and we could have used that in the dying seconds.

The Boomers generally don't flop much and Mills could have chosen to flop when contact was made instead of trying to avoid contact (which he in fact did), but the official decided to make a call against him for essentially not flopping!

And, no I don't want us to start to learn how to play that way, it's just a tongue in cheek suggestion...

You didnt fix shit, you just changed my opinion to fit your own.

And when you referred that by finishing the pool stages ranked second, and that anything thing below that would be a failure

I think in hindsight, Lisch was a waste, and although Martin had spurts, Ogilvy as an EXRA big Euro type body was more important.

Goulding being listed as a 3 is one obvious problem with it. What the?

Goulding being listed as a 3 is one obvious problem with it. What the?

Fair enough, mattic. Lemanis & I stand corrected. Given that list of 12, clearly CG suddenly becomes an international forward, with Mills left playing all 40 minutes at the 2.

Lemanis didn't pick that squad, so I'm not really sure why he'd stand corrected.

Two and three are more similar to each other than three is to four, really, if you're intent on slotting each player into exactly one of the five positions. Goulding isn't really a ball-carrier or a play-maker, nor can he provide the defensive pressure the Boomers thrive on, so I threw him in at the three. It's not really a big deal.

We can sit here and argue all day about the finer points, but at the end of the day bringing Ogilvy in for Lisch leaves you very weak in the backcourt in exchange for...not really very much at all. If Bairstow weren't injured I doubt we'd be having this discussion. He'd be largely irrelevant, with Bogut and Baynes taking most of the minutes at the 5, or Baynes has to play more 4 and push Andersen out of the rotation. I'm not seeing the benefits.

We took enough bigs, we just got caught a little short once one of them went down (and even then, Motum played tremendously). Imagine if we'd taken the lineup anon is suggesting and an injury occurred to a backcourt player. We would have been well and truly screwed.

kr, Lemanis played Goulding at the 2. That's why I mentioned Lemanis.

"We can sit here and argue all day about the finer points"

Feel free. But my sole issue was your use of Goulding as an international 3 whilst have only a single 2 in the team you listed. My initial "What the?" is really all I can contribute to any argument about that.

"That's the down side of the biggest stage being his first real Boomers campaign. Baptism of fire."

That's it. Rare to take a guy to an Olympics who has never tasted international ball before and I guess it showed after that promising start against France.

For an international rookie I thought Lisch was really solid defensively, save for the occasional breakdown, but just lost all confidence in his shot which was odd.

I wouldn't write him off completely though, Leilani Mitchell was a much better international player at the Olympics than she was at the 2014 WCs once she had adjusted.

Lisch is getting on a little bit at 30, but he could be important for the Asia Cup and WC qualifiers coming up.

As for the discussion about the team, this was clearly the best performing Boomers team ever, what Lemanis did in terms of style, offence, defence and selections worked incredibly well.

There should be nothing more than minor adjustments going forward (and taking six bigs when you want to play aggressive basketball isn't one of them).

Given it looks most of the key guys are keen on 2019 and 2020, and our exciting young guys to come in are suited to the Boomers style, we should be building on what we've done and aiming for gold.

That should please Jerry Colangelo.

Comparing Martin with Lisch is comparing entirely different skill sets. Martin is the undisputed champion of defense in our NBL + reliable handles and leader at the Point.
Lisch proved a consistent match winner when playing for Perth, great defender, also good with the ball and a clutch shooter always in the top 10 in the NBL. With R. Martin absent for the first 6 weeks last season The Hawks struggled in the back court when Lisch played point.
Martin is probably better in the 1 but Lisch is far more productive at the scoring end. Both were Olympic Rookies and both deserved to be there.
On the other hand Goulding is a confidence based super shooter but at Olympic level you get judged on your first 2 or 3 shots, You need to have no nerves and incredible confidence when you get the call.
Thank you Andre for a great role as Aussie Coach

Have to agree with Paul. There should only be minor adjustments to the program and personnel. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

I'd be inclined to take most of the guys from this Olympics to the next Olympic cycle, just add Exum, Maker and Simmons. The offensive emphasis might change with those three being in, but defensively it should stay exacrly the same except it will have more length and speed - which is scary to consider.

I'd like to see Lemanis stay as head coach and maybe have his assistants pick up the slack during his NBL season duties.

Feel free. But my sole issue was your use of Goulding as an international 3 whilst have only a single 2 in the team you listed.

Ogilvy up against Reyes and radijca would've been 'not much at all' that's where we were beaten.

a risk was taken, they just risked having less bugs than guards.

Mills and delly are used to the 48minute format, they are young and could've played extra minutes if needed.

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be offended by that.

That's the most polite insult I've ever received. Cheers!