Goorjian got a full campaign (including a 2-1 result vs and under strength NZ side). Phil had 1 ill-fated series. I think boy Goorj has been given more opportunity than Phil had.

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone else ready to step in. My next choice, personally, would be Frank Arsego, who is somewhat untried at Senior level. He had success in the 2nd half of the NBL season with NZ. I guess only time will tell how good he really is at senior level, but I rate him higher than most other NBL coaches.

Is Brett better than CJ? I'd say so. Is Catt better than Saville? I say yes, though I guess it's debatable, considering how different they are. Having said that, perhaps Boy Goorj doesn't see them as suiting his style. Who knows. No doubt he has his reasons for the time each respective player is getting.

Somewhat off topic - I think everyone would agree Jan Stirling has done a great job so far with the Opals, let's hope their 2nd week is as good as their 1st.

As I have stated prvsly, I believed BG would do better and be smarter than he's portrayed.
His team selection has been biased and his typical team strategies and floor makeup have not been portrayed through the antics of Heal.

I really believed that BG would have the resolve to keep Heal on a leash, to make Heal play the game the way BG wanted it played - to play a TEAM game.
The fact that BG continuosly played Heal and let Heal run loose bitterly disappoints me.
Heal is not a great player as the media portrays him to be.
All educated bball fans realise this... he is no Andrew Gaze.

Remember Heal quit the team when Smyth was appointed. Was this because he knew Smyth would not let him run the team? If not then what was the reason?

BG's traditional role for a guard is not what Heal played, this is portrayed in Heal's stint with the Kings which did not involve him jacking carpark treys and hogging the ball when a team effort was required. That season saw Heal play a more complete role as a guard. With the Kings BG had Heal driving, dishing, running plays, taking the high percentage points over the three from down-downtown.

The question is why? Is it because BG was stroking Heal's ego, was he playing the players he knew (Kings players)? Was he too spineless to reprimand Heal and/or bench him for his callous plays, ironically always in the final quarter? Is it because he didn't want to put ripples in the water in his first stint as coach? Wa sit because he's on Heal's payroll with the Kings?

The argument that he was playing the players he knew is ludicrous. He has been a coach in the NBL for a millenia now, therefore should know all players capabilities. Smith/Saville/Bruton/Ronaldson over Maher/Cat/Rillie/Rogers is not acceptable.

I am, of course, an Adelaide fan but we're not talking about Adelaide. This is the Boomers - the Australian Olympic Basketball Team. To under achieve yet again, the worst ever, is not acceptable.

In comparison to Smyth and the Oceania qualifier against NZ - where were all these high caliber players when it counted? That team was a B-side with only Maher as a carryover from the Olympics.

I think BG will stay, and it is good for stability and growth, but his actions at the Olympics are very suspect indeed.

Agree with the above comments. Performance and coaching were sub standard. The results would have been better with MAher and Cat starting ahead of Smith and Saville.

Heal's agenda seemed to be score as many points as he can at the expenses of the team probably to try and make the team of the tournament.

Viable replacements

Andrew GAze in time
Lindsey Gaze
Tom MAher
Brendan Joyce
Joey Wright
Bruce Palmer

Anyone who picks players based on ability and team play and not bias.

Andrew Gaze should be the coach for Beijing. In my view it is preferrable for him to do it, especially if he has not had NBL coaching experience by then.

If not then Brendan Joyce or Allan Black should be next.

Goorjian is a great club coach but should not be coaching our national team.

I'm one of those advocating an outside coach from overseas. Does BA have the money to do it thought?

Interesting point of view from the Cube. He is refering to the USA Team but i think it is also viable for BA and the Boomers.

"This guy nailed it. When he is right, he is right. A tweak here and there, and we probably can apply the same principles to our teams over here  in multiple sports.

Comments Canadians have gone through much of this "international game is different, we have the best players but don't win, etc." business over the last decade or so in hockey. The parallels in many ways are eerie, and well worth looking into. The influx of Europeans into the NHL draft was a huge issue in the late 90s, for instance.

But strangely, after some huge disappointments (e.g. the men's team not winning in the Nagano Olympics) the country radically changed the way it handles international competitions. And I do mean radically.

First, they appointed a "general manager" responsible for personal selection for each international team. They do this for the annual tournaments like the World Junior's and for the multi-year ones like the World Cup and the Olympics. This GM basically acts like the GM of a major franchise. He scouts for player selection, both on Canada's team and to identify the strengths/weaknesses of other country's teams. He selects the coaching staff. He is in charge of the whole process.

In Salt Lake City, after Canada tied a (much) inferior team, he gave a (now-famous) rant to the media about how the refereeing was biased against his team and how everybody in the world wanted the team to fail. The talk worked: the team didn't have even a marginally close game the rest of the way. He took *responsibility* for the whole process.

Second, the country as a whole  politicians, editorialists, and average fans  made it clear that losing wasn't acceptable. Sure, international rules are different  the size of the rink is completely different! So what? We expect our teams to return with a gold medal each and every year in each and every tournament. Always.

Third, a wide array of developmental programs at the youth level were changed to help address the skill-deficiencies that had become evident at the international level. In hockey it was primarily skating and passing that had been under-emphasized for greater defensive and physical play. The bigger ice-surfaces in international hockey made this far more apparent. So now young players (e.g. age 6 and up) here get lots more training on those issues.

Fourth, being a member of the team was treated and regarded as a *privilege*, not a right. At any one time there may be three or four players in the NHL who would be assured of an invitation: the Shaq, KG, TD, and Kobe of the NHL, basically. The rest of the team? They go to a *TRY-OUT CAMP*. That's right. Professional players get together with the coaches and go through drills and practices for a few days to get to know each other and for the coaches to see how they would fit together. There have been players who played themselves into positions on a team during these camps, and players who played themselves out of positions here too. This works because team membership is treated as a privilege.

Fifth, and finally, there was a concerted effort to decide on a style of play  from the GM down to the coaching staff  and to choose players that would fit that style. Recently one of Canada's defensemen for the upcoming World Cup of Hockey withdrew. The coaches selected a youngish player who had attended the try-out camp. In explaining why they selected this guy, they explicitly described how his game was suited to both the style they wanted to play and to the structure and flow of the international game.

One final example of this approach at work: in Nagano, the Czech Republic had the single best player in the world on their team (Jagr). He was dominating the NHL, and was a threat to score just about every time he stepped on the ice. Team Canada knew that the Czechs were probably semi-final match-ups, so they took a defensive specialist with them. For that one game, he matched up with Jagr and held the guy scoreless the entire game. That's like taking a Bowen or Artest on your team so that you can handle Arroyo or whoever else happens to get hot."

A little of the Goorjian staying or going.

But has anyone noticed that the rest of the world - inparticular more and more Euro countries are getting better and better, and we seem to have platued (sp?).

Other than the Euro's China has improved significantly and as biased as we all are the Kiwis are a pretty good unit, they get alot of wins from good team work, hustle and determination.

Cheers, DJ

You have to be kidding. Get rid of Goorjian and the best most of you come up with are, Smyth lost to New Zealand, first time ever, Maher a woman's coach who coached in the NBL and was so good that Hobart fired him, Wright one year in the league, one Swallow does not a spring make, Andrew Gaze the greatest but who would teach the team to play defense, certainly Andrew couldn't because he refused to do it in his entire carreer, or an overseas coach. That's a great plus for our coaching talent in this country.
Every one is an expert after the event. Play Brett Maher more? Probably, he did well but is his back OK to play more sustained minutes and there is no way he can play the point against the best point guards in the world. Brett is strictly a two in international comp so he Smith and Rillie should be the rotation. Cattalini for Saville at various times, but does the Boomers need his putting it to the floor every time he gets it? Still he is worth a shot to see how he goes.
But spare a thought that Australia was trying to hold on to a lead. Do you change the team that got you the lead and if you do you better be courageous enough to do it both while you are up and before the third quarter. It's a difficult job to sit there for three quarters and then get asked to play against the best players in the world while cold and you don't have time to ease your way into the game. Mistakes cost the team big time and quickly. If you change a winning combination you can wipe out a 8 point or ten point lead built up over 20-30 minutes very quickly and then all the non experts after the event can have a grizzle about the coach playing the wrong players. It's a lot easier to coach when trailing by a few then when leading by a few. Your losing, you can try a few things, nothing to lose, winning different deal, more to lose if the changes don't work, bigger risks. It's still dissapointing to see our boys not contribute too much, Rogers and Cattalini. Remember that the game is 40 minutes not 48 so 20 minutes is not available to get everyone some court time. Tom Maher. You can't be serious!

Have to agree with the comments about stability. As much as we don't like it, Goorjian has to remain as coach.

Here's hoping that Heal's retirement will allow him to play other guys. His achievements with developing Nunawading and Co in Melbourne is unsurpassed and this guy develops champions. We needed Anstey and McKinnon playing, along with Dwight. Stick with him - I'm a Smyth man but we have to let the whole Smyth thing go.

Disappointing for Rillie, Cat, Rogers and Ronaldson. Would have liked to see Schensher, Holmes and Newley warming the bench for experience' sake. Maybe we need more water boys!

From basketball.net.au:

"If the Boomers are victorious in their match tomorrow night they will equal their performance at the Munich Games in 1972. If they are not successful and come 10th in the competition it will be Australian men's basketball's worst Olympic result since Melbourne in 1956, their first Games, when they came 12th."

Jay,

I agree with everything you say - very logical and thought out response. But I don't think your comments about Tom Maher are accurate. Have you ever sat down and discussed the game of basketball with him? Or watched him organise and run a training session? Or sat in a room and watched film with him? Sorry, the guy is flat out one of the best coaches in the country - regardless of gender.



To those of you who suggested Gaze?Andrew Gaze? What makes anyone think he'd make a good coach, period. And you want him to coach our International Team? If you guys think Goorj runs his "boys", I'd love to hear your comments when you saw Gaze do it. C'mon, the Boomers coach has to be someone tried and tested.

I'm not going to wade into this debate, all I want to say is that with the team we had this year I am totally pissed off at how we let ourselves slip from a Medal favorite to being the pool-round bitch along with angola!

Every game we've played up till the end of the 3rd quarter, said to the opposition;
"OK boys! We're done now, so we're just gonna stand over here on the side line with our shorts around our ankles and bend over! So if you want to shaft us in the last quarter..... Feel free to have your way with us!!! Good luck for your next game!"

As for people stating that we should get in an overseas coach you are twits! We have plenty of coaching tallent in this country! I myself coached Walford Girls school to an undefeated season some years back!! I mean come-on! Give me a shot!

Bags you are you sure you want to take a shot of tabasco sauce?!!!!!

Good post with some interesting points. Here's my 2c.

Goorjian must go for the following reasons:

While he may have an excellent basketball mind with some interesting strategies he is to inflexible to use them to his advantage. He goes into a game with a set of ideas and cannot adjust when things don't work. This has been the bain of his coaching career in this country.

His appointment is first and foremost as a powerplay for BA. While the whole 'sydney bagging' is tiresome it has it's merrits. I speculate that there are some ridiculous powerplays going on that unfortunately have little to do with basketball, and Goorjian is the pawn.

Stability is one thing, but the wrong coach is the wrong coach, pure and simple. Just like my arguments about Charles Thomas at the Sixers - no question he could play, but was the wrong piece to the puzzle Adelaide was trying to solve.

And the solution? I believe an overseas coach with Aussie assistants. I suggest that we return to a Boomer only coach mentality as we did with Barry Barnes. There will be no player bias, no conflict of interest and someone that can genuinely study teams both OS and in OZ to get the mix right.

While funding is the biggest issue, I refuse to accept in a sport-mad country like Australia that we cannot emulate simmilar cash windfalls like those enjoyed by the AFL to make the NBL/Boomers product better.

Success breeds success and you have to start somewhere.

Cheers,
WG

i say give him another year or 2 then and if he doesnt improve we should give him the flick.