Dazz
Years ago

Did Too many teams go Too Big?

Been a great season, closest I can ever remember by far, quite an achievement with only 8 teams.

I haven't analysed this, so its only an impression.

That a lot of teams seem to have assembled very top heavy squads?
And if you look at the teams that struggled in the end, and even at Perth along the way, it was lack of depth in the backcourt that killed them.

Sydney rode Lisch into the ground, Brissy were left floundering once they lost Gibson, NZ only looked threatening after belatedly adding Dillard, and Perth were stuffed until Cotton came along.

Even MU, who looked deadly with Ware and Goulding on court, struggled when they rested.

Topic #40855 | Report this topic

Shano76
Years ago

It seems like you have answered your question.

Reply #624639 | Report this post

paul
Years ago

I think only Brisbane, Sydney and Perth went with top heavy lineups, and the Cats rectified it, so I personally think no is the answer to your question. However, those teams were probably a good reinforcement of why you should err on the mobile side in a fast, aggressive league like the NBL.

Reply #624690 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

"too" is a preposition so should be decapitalised.

Reply #624747 | Report this post

Luuuc
Years ago

No.

Reply #624750 | Report this post

ME (he/kangaroo)
Years ago

Brisbane's line up was pure comedy from the start. I mean, how many power forwards does a single team need? They picked two of the most inconsistent guards in the game and paired them with basically every Australian forward not in the US or Europe and wondered why it didn't work out for them. Injuries notwithstanding, I think that team was destined for the cellar from the moment they were put together.

Reply #624751 | Report this post

LV
Years ago

Yes- several teams went too big.

The alternative is just as bad- like United in 2014/15 thinking that a 5 man rotation of Kickert and Chris Patton, with Wortho and Walker at the 4 would be a good idea.

Roster balance is of such vital importance - it's amazing when NBL teams get it so badly wrong. For example Melbourne Tigers then United have got it horribly wrong several times in the past 7 or 8 years.

Reply #624889 | Report this post

Isaac
Years ago

NZ only looked threatening after belatedly adding Dillard

He was replacing another guard though. That's more about upgrading a player than adjusting your depth at a given position.

Brisbane is the best example this season.

I agree with paul - I'd be erring on the guards rather than overload on SF/PF. You often see players transition up a role rather than down. e.g., Barlow playing bigger than when he started, Walker went from SF (I would've thought) to PF, Weigh also, Forman from SF to PF, Redhage and Hire too perhaps.

Not a great example but Harris can be streaky, but the Hawks often play three guards without a traditional SF.

Reply #624901 | Report this post

Mystro
Years ago

the point forward may be the reasoning behind teams loading up at those spots due to ticking a lot of PG boxes with ball handling ability & passing vision with the added bonus of being able to trouble smaller true guards with their length defensively and bully them in the post and rebounding battles.
Only problem is that there are quite a few very quick Import PG's in the NBL who can burn them with outright speed (Randle, Ware etc) and have enough wingspan and nous to protect the ball when attacking the rim against them.

Reply #624927 | Report this post

J
Years ago

No. Brisbane yes.

Sydney replacing Blake with a forward yes.

If Perth didn't lose all their pgs at once I don't think Jaron Johnson gets cut, he could play, although he was more of a sf

Reply #625147 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

You can never go too big in basketball!

Reply #625250 | Report this post

WTF !!
Years ago

andrew svaldenis agees with you

Reply #625251 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

Small Ball has cost too many coaches too many crucial games of late at many different levels, surely it is clear that a dominant big man or two is the key to winning basketball championships?

Reply #625252 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

"Small Ball has cost too many coaches too many crucial games of late at many different levels, surely it is clear that a dominant big man or two is the key to winning basketball championships?"

Its also won coaches games, and NBA Finals!

Reply #625253 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

NBA finals, what are you on anon, when Bogie Man was at Oakland he protected the rim and the won the championship so now he is gone what happened last season?

Just one example of many I reckon!

Reply #625258 | Report this post

Dazz
Years ago

I'd argue that neither Melbourne nor NZ had enough depth in the backcourt.
But again I assume that was Moore's role, and I kinda lost track of who replaced whom.

Go back a couple of decades and it was not uncommon to see 3 PFs on the court, and the offensive guard was sometimes more akin to today's SF.

Today's game seems to require more ball-carriers in the backcourt, and a genuine SF, who at times seems to be more of a swingman. Then two bigs to play inside.

Reply #625281 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

It's all about buckets!

Reply #625282 | Report this post

Anonymous
Years ago

"Go back a couple of decades"

Oh I too remember a couple of decades ago - when Kevin Brooks was an All-Star.

Reply #625284 | Report this post

Hoops

Did Too many teams go Too Big?

Recent Posts