Top 2 in each pool will play two additional games against the top 2 in another pool (A-B, C-D, E-F, G-H). There will then be quarterfinals based on the top 2 of the four second-round groups.

So my predictions:

Group I - Poland (A1), China (A2), Argentina (B1), Nigeria (B2)
Group J - Spain (C1), Puerto Rico (C2), Serbia (D1), Italy (D2)
Group K - USA (E1), Turkey (E2), Greece (F1), NZ (F2)
Group L - Germany (G1), France (G2), Australia (H1), Lithuania (H2)

Quarterfinals:
Argentina (I1) vs Spain (J2)
USA (K1) vs France (L2)
Serbia (J1) vs Nigeria (I2)
Australia (L1) vs Greece (K2)

Semis:
Spain vs USA
Serbia vs Australia

Final: USA vs Serbia
Champs: Serbia

I genuinely have no idea. I think as far as Boomers predictions and overall predictions go, this event is wide open.

"Australia v Germany practice game tomorrow. Any information on time or on net"

According to Australian Boomers Instagram page it is at 8 pm AWST and they are still trying to confirm a livestream.

I think the problem with predictions is people look at line ups and compare them on paper. If we did that all the time there'd be no way we could see Australia beating Team USA, as happened Saturday. I think Australia has a good chance of medalling at this Cup. They have the right amount of talent and cohesion to play above themselves and make something happen. I think the lowest they'll rank is top 8 and the highest is to actually win the whole thing. Yeah, I said it. You don't beat the gold medal favorites like that by accident. We will see how they go against the tough European teams though.

I did the same exercise as Pyro and pretty much came to the exact same results.

I had Greece beating Aus in the quarters, but I think a lot of that is me tempering my expectations.

Group A is really weak and I think anyone could come from that, and also think Nigeria could surprise a few and get all the way to quarters.

I've watched a lot of Greece lately and they've played lesser- opponents and haven't really been dominant. Outside of Antetekoumpo they don't have much. And I know he's a hell of a lot on his own, but he isn't going to be getting easy dunks on our big men while they pack the paint. They're going to need a plan B. Of course, they could be holding a lot back before heading into the cup, but so far I'm not too scared of them. If you accept what Antetekoumpo is going to do and make someone else beat you you might take Greece.

Serbs are the faves

"there is no way australia is going past france"

Possible predictions are silly enough; but such adamant assertions of an outcome are completely outrageous.

ME has hit the nail on the head.

There's greater scope to make predictions for say the Rugby World Cup because teams play regularly enough (including against eachother) to make those predictions.

With the Basketball WC, you're basically talking about teams and lineups that basically never play as is, let alone against WC opponents.

I hope I am wrong, however I predict that without our best player we won't medal, sorry...

"Without our best player" sounds like a very NBA way of thinking, where the stars CAN dominate the game. That's a bit harder to do in international games, where team chemistry and plays matter more.

Serbs are my tip too. Honestly can't really see USA beating them. Maybe Greece can upset Serbia. But I see the serbs as a real bad match up for USA.

" Without our best player" sounds like a very NBA way of thinking, where the stars CAN dominate the game. That's a bit harder to do in international games, where team chemistry and plays matter more."


hoopie, lemanis' way of thinking is simply absurd, picking players with better " team fit " before players with better abilities and athleticism, which is never going to work.
As a coach, you pick your best players in each position, then adjust your tactics to accomodate
These players. Lemanis does it the other way around, hence we are stuck with journeymen like Barlow, kay, sobey and gliddon, instead of Adel, green and bolden. Lemanis is simply insane.

Comments from Brian Goorjian quoted in the paper this morning

"The Boomers must have the best camaraderie, ball movement and defensive ball pressure in the tournament to compete for a medal.
...
Note I didn't say plays, (defensive) rotations, shooting or anything like that."


I read that as 'team fit is more important than a collection of superstars’.

My long career in coaching has taught me exactly that - I’ve had to manage too many self-centred superstars who wouldn’t buy into my ‘team-first’ philosophy.

Team fit is hugely important. Its why nobody really expects the Harden-Westbrook combo to really work.

But having said that, team fit issues are usually factored in when two options are at least close on talent. I mean you wouldn't take Kevin White over Chris Goulding because he'd be a better team fit in any circumstance.

"There is no way Australia is going past France".

Yeah, they said that 3 years ago as well. How did that turn out?

wow, way to miss the point

This "team fit" issue versus the "most talented" one. Wouldn't you start with the most talented and whittle the squad down to most talented WITH team fit fit attributes.

Posters here seem to think it has to be one or the other rather than best of both.

I think Australia has gone for both. 6 of our Boomers fit into "most talented" available (formerly 7 before Bolden Bolted) and the rest fall into role players who compliment the most talented players and fill the gaps for them. Plenty of teams have had the 12 most talented players possible and have crumbled. USA experienced it in the 00s. And fact of the matter is, if Australia brought the 12 most talented players available (without the guys who have pulled out of course), we'd still be nowhere near the most talented team in the tournament. So how will we compete? Through team fit, cohesion and system. We cannot beat the absolute top dogs at having the most talent because we don't have it. So we have to rely on systems, culture, cohesion, defense, shooting, etc.

Well said, ME.

Robot, I agree - you need stars but you also need players prepared to be role players and unselfishly support the stars when required. The perfect team would be unselfish superstars who would step up as required but also step back when others are running hot. This is the usual USA problem - money-men who have to go from being the studs in their teams to having to sit on a bench as support players

It could easily be our problem if we ever have a full-strength Boomers squad - if Bolden left because he or his agent spat the dummy over him not being a top dog, then we might have the same issue with Adel or Green or Maker or any other newcomers in the team.

Boomers to finish 5th.

I'm pretty worried about the new school players. Many of them didn't grow up wanting to be Boomers, but NBA players. This is very much a side-gig for them. Bolden epitomizes it. He has to be the first guy in Boomers history to spit the dummy quite so spectacularly over his role and minutes. Simmons apparently has better things to do. Maker is working on his game. All of these are things that the old guard of the Boomers wouldn't dream of doing.

Few of our guys are stars on the world stage. Delly, Bogut, Baynes, Ingles and even Patty have made careers as great team mates, rather than stars. We simply don't have the possibility of a problem of "too many stars".

Australia also has a good history of players we consider stars (think Vlahov) being the best role players at international level. For the Boomers Vlahov played a role more similar to Warrick Giddey, but you would never consider Giddey himself to play that role no matter how good of a team mate he was or how great he was for the system (and he was).

A good coaching group can pick the best players (or close to it) and convince them to buy into the team and their roles, not simply adding players who are already role players at the level below at the expense of talent.

Cram, are you talking about this campaign, which had a 4-day camp plus a couple weeks and 5 practice games, for the new players to learn the system?

If anyone here is thinking that results of each game will be consistent world rankings or power rankings, then this world cup is surely going to have plenty of upsets.

"Cram, are you talking about this campaign, which had a 4-day camp plus a couple weeks and 5 practice games, for the new players to learn the system?"

Why was it such a short preparation? Other countries appeared to have their players in camp far earlier and playing practice games even before we'd gotten ours together.

In saying all of that, Motum looked like he understood the system well in 2016.

Yeah, the short preparation time gave Lemanis more reason to select his final 12 sooner. In other WC/Olympics campaigns the team was cut down to 12 after some practice games, or even whole tours of Europe. The new players this year basically had just a 4-day camp to prove themselves. Perhaps this suggests that players should put their hands up for at least one qualification window. Hopefully we can ride the chemistry that was developed in Rio (and the qualifiers).

I think this whole prep has been handled poorly, with the short prep time - which basically handed Lemanis the pre loaded excuse to select "his" guys. Then the apparent lack of foresight on keep emergency replacements around meaning Motum was out. Its just been a farce.

Farce: an event or situation that is absurd or disorganised

Lazy and cheap and over-confident, I'd say, rather than farce. But I agree that once again BA seemed to try to take the path of least effort and have probably screwed the Boomers' chances.
I begin to feel sorry for Lemanis, having to work for these clowns.

Was the prep time that short? Where are we getting this from?

"We've just handed the US their first loss in 13 years (without Motum) but we're still saying it's been a farce?"

Yep, that was good. How about 1-3 in the other 4 games? Or are we back to "results don't matter"?

"And we did keep an emergency replacement around. Creek came in as a replacement for the injured Cooks. Should we have had an emergency for every other player too? Should Lemanis have foreseen that Bolden would spit the dummy? "

You need contingencies in place. Any risk plan that resulted in a 35 year old, already injured role player being brought into the side ahead of FAR more talented players who actually attended the camp is farcical.

Boomers will finish 11th. Nostraballmus sees all.

Usually contingencies are just made within the 12-man team. Lemanis's selections made sense for that reason. The result against USA shows that it worked to some degree. It's not really reasonable to expect contingencies to cover such a long list of withdrawals in a short time, in a similar position: losing Simmons, then Cooks, then Bolden, then Motum. It's hardly reasonable to expect Motum to hang around in case of injury/withdrawals. That's why you select a 12 that has insurance picks for injury. Unfortunately, one of those most versatile picks went down with an injury. It's actually very fortunate that arguably our best in the qualifiers was available to step into the team.

Under the circumstances, the only possible mistake was not running with a bigger squad for the warm-up games, but there are good reasons to settle on a smaller group to establish chemistry, especially with not many games practice.

Now the we're at the pointy end, it's interesting looking back at who we thought would be in the finals. Some notable failures, as there will always be.

I reckon the game of the tournament will likely be the SF between US and Argentina. (I cannot see France having the temperament to beat the US.)

As for the Boomers, we just need to win tonight and then once more to take home a medal.


At the other end of the table, it's a worry that 9 of the bottom 10 teams came from Asia and Africa. And sadly (NOT!!) the Philippines came dead last.