Also worth mentioning Perth's recent ownership change which has had various impacts on culture and possibly spending

You're not taking the Sydney back to back very well are you.

If it makes you feel better for not making the top 60% this year, that I’m sure Melbourne will adjust and spend $$$$ to get back in next year

Adelaide will probs continue to be mediocre at best, wasteful decision makers at worst

Like I said in my post, United have actually overachieved in the last couple of years if anything. I think the "big spender, buying success" tag is a few years out of date (if it was ever relevant at all).

Whether United spends big next year remains to be seen

2021-22 United was ranked 5th by the bookies at seasons start, and most posters here had them missing top 4. They ended up being on top of the ladder all year and losing a tight semi final game 3 without Chris Goulding.

2022-23 lost White and Delly during the pre-season, had to hastily throw a roster together. Again, not expected to be a top 4 team but I think the evidence suggests they would've been a top 4 team with a better run with injuries. They were pretty clearly better than Perth, Tassie or SEM

If anything it's actually the last two years that has proven Vickerman's coaching worth more than his titles.

SEM are the dark horse moving forward for mine. With a new coach, they might be ready to take the next step after going agonisingly close to a Grand Final already with a mediocre coach at the helm (2021). Like the Dragons, Titans and Magic before them, expect Melbourne's Southern team to be making noise over the next few years

""big spender, buying success" tag is a few years out of date (if it was ever relevant at all)"

You just wrote a whole spiel about the big spending clubs.

Literally started it with;

“Since 2003, 19 of 21 NBL championships have been won by Perth, Sydney, Melbourne or NZ. (The other two by South Dragons in 2009 and Brisbane in 2007).”

The sydney that was successful was a high spending Sydney. The Melbourne and NZ you're referencing are high spending years, particularly NZ under earlier ownership.

Even the two exceptions to your “big 4” are literally high spending years for those two clubs.

You could very easily and literally have just said “TL;DR: The big spending clubs have been succeeding the most in the NBL”

It would have had the same effect as the residual spiel.

Of course spending is correlated with success. Its probably the number one individual factor- as I said above

But as you know, 36ers fans around here like to whine (still salty about 2018) like as if United was an outlier and the only high spending team. Whereas the reality is, it changes every year but other teams have also been high spenders- so you still have to earn your success

And it's debatable the extent to which United spent the last couple of years. Hence why they were tipped to finish mid-table both years then overachieved (factoring injuries)- their rosters weren't great on paper

Whoever spends big, makes sure they have a quality coach, and makes use of whatever other little advantages they can (eg Landale training with both United and SEM during Covid lockdowns, etc) will generally be successful. And the 4 clubs I mentioned are ones who have done this- that was the point of this thread.

LV, for the love of God stop trying to steer all the conversations towards Melbourne United. This is the Sydney Kings time. There is no 'Big 4' or 'United is really the best team over the last five years' qualifier crap. The Kings are the dominant team now it's their time, back to back championships including 3 GF's over the past four years.

I know how much people from Melbourne have an inferiority complex towards Sydney but they don't care about you, get over it. No amount of jumping up and down and demanding they admit "Melbourne really is the centre of the universe, say it!" will get them to acknowledge you. You're almost as bad as Eddie McGuire and Bill Lawry.

" But as you know, 36ers fans around here like to whine (still salty about 2018) like as if United was an outlier and the only high spending team."

Interesting shit take.

I'd suggest it’s something like

“LV designs a way as to why Melbourne would have succeeded if not for x scenario every year that they don’t win.“

When it’s pointed out “lol 36ers fans could do the same for 2018”, your response is to go defensive as if it’s more bullshit than any of your hypothetical reasoning.

At some point you ought to be perceptive of the irony given you manage to whine and shaping everything about Melbourne, including a playoff series that you needed to be the top 60% to make, and Melbourne didn’t even manage that.

The last two years have been about Sydney whether you like it or not. Pure & simple.

"It's Sydney's time" and "Sydney are the dominant team now".

That's just a "here and now" perspective coloured by watching last night's game

A long term perspective is that Sydney is the team who's spending big, with a good coach, had some luck on the injury front, and have enjoyed having a homegrown NSW star in Cooks (notwithstanding they won Game 2 without their best two players- a bloody good effort)

The pendulum in the NBL will swing towards those who spend, those with a good coach, etc. And like all sports, those who stay healthy.

That's the whole point. Don't miss it.

Also, this isn't the AFL- basketball is a sport where individuals play a massive part. It's not like AFL where Geelong or Sydney can stay good (for the most part) for 20 years or Hawthorn can lose their best player (Buddy) and win flags the next two years

Without Cooks, Sydney is just another team- albeit one with a good coach and good resources, and hence a better chance of success than most clubs.

"This is their time" is a meaningless comment in that context

The point about AFL is it's (Somewhat) equalised (much more so than NBL anyway) and teams have remained good purely by culture and coaching - as that's all they have. There aren't as many differentiating factors as there are in the NBL.

And, there's 40 players on a list. So Ablett - the best player in the competition- leaves in 2010 and Geelong cannot replace him and they win the flag in 2011. Buddy leaves in 2013 and Hawthorn wins in 2014 and 2015.

And yes I know Geelong has the "surf Coast" advantage and Sydney has academies and used to have COLA etc. But it's not like NBL where the top teams spend 50%-100% more than the bottom teams

I think you can consider it from an AFL-esque structure:

"Powerhouse" club scenario - big market capture and crowds mixed with capital/affluence and prolonged success.

Melbourne and Perth are there, Sydney has looked like it last 3 years and will probably stay like that in the future.

These are your Collingwood, West Coast and Sydney maybe kinda emulates the Swans actually.

NZ is probably similar to Adelaide and Brisbane in the middle-market.

These are your Fremantle types.

SEM is middle-lower (middle with affluence and market capture, lower with crowds).

Saints maybe?

Cairns, Tasmania, Hawks are the lowest tier.
Your Kangaroos, Bulldogs

Yeah that's a fair summary

It is interesting how, despite the similar spending and the football club cap and everything else, how certain clubs fail to achieve success in the AFL (my own included).

Ground advantage is a really interesting topic in AFL discussions. Only two teams from Marvel have won a premiership while playing there- Essendon in 2000 and Dogs in 2016.

And I think the individualism of basketball and small-number-of-players can work to mitigate the discrepancies in spending too. You just need to nail your import selections and you'll compete. You only need a solid core of 6 or 7 players- eg NZB mostly played 6 guys last night.

But a team like ST Kilda (mid table, 6th, 10th, 10th the last 3 years) could add one really good player and it probably wouldn't be enough to even get them into the top 4. Whereas if say, SEM or Perth or Tassie made one change this season, they go from mid table to likely Grand Finalists.

The NBL salary cap leak showed the King's are far from the biggest spenders.

Likewise, they lost all their imports from last season and had to re-tool.

I hark back to Night's time in Milwaukee, and remember up to his armi jury how much a loser culture the Kohl owned Bucks were.

In contrast, he would have observed what a winner culture looked like with the Warriors, with Lacob, West, et. al.

Longley could say the same with the Bulls vs Wolves/Knicks/late 90's Suns.

Looking from the outside, the King's over the past decade, as opposed to the mid 00's version was now they are spending money to invest yes, but they are definitely spending to develop a winning culture there.

Cry all you want, they aren't racking up big losses (more so have the top 2 NBL attendance figures of all time in the past 11 day) and they don't seem to be diminishing.

Sure, they could find themselves losing in a crap shoot with their next imports, but they are building something big.

Yes that cap leak was interesting although with all the "tips and tricks" in the NBL system including Marquee players we didn't get the entire picture.

NBL success in the long term has depended on the factors I outlined along with strong culture.

In the medium term it's having a solid core of locals who you can build around. When the good locals leave things get interesting.

"The NBL salary cap leak showed the King's are far from the biggest spenders."

I don't agree with that.

Because of the marquee system/soft cap system, that’s precisely something you can’t glean from such partial information.

They were a long way off the Wild Cats.

They'd have to be matching Euroleague salaries on their marquee players to overtake number 1.

If Cotton became a marquee, the Wildcats would drop back to around the cap.

Small market teams need to be a lot smarter and harder to get success.


The definition of success needs acknowledgement and discussion.


Talent and $ is not the only measure of success.

"Talent and $ is not the only measure of success."

When there's more than 1 top-end talented team with $$$ to spend, for sure they have to have those things plus be smart, get the right pieces, balance and chemistry and culture.

36ers and United’s of the past has proven you need more than spending lots of money Real Madrid style to succeed.

However, you still need talent and money as well.

Established by the last time a non-powerhouse spender won was like....Hawks in 01?

If the ratio is 1 in 20+, it would suggest money is still a pre-requisite.

If you manage to beat the odds, chances are you get cleaned out like Cairns are about to be.

Since 2003, 19 of 21 NBL championships have been won by Perth, Sydney, Melbourne or NZ. (The other two by South Dragons in 2009 and Brisbane in 2007).

Subsequent thoughts: the NBL has historically always had a Big5 - Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth.

Big6 now, since 2003, with the inclusion of NZ (Auckland).

Regionals will always struggle.

PW - only if you go back to the late 80s. Adelaide 36ers didn't even exist until 1985. Perth only became strong (made finals regularly) after Bruton, then Fisher went there. Melbourne (the club, not the city) only became something of a powerhouse after Copeland, then Bradtke joined them. Sydney weren't really prominent until the 2000s, etc.

Interesting discussion above.

Yes PJ, from the mid-to-late 80s onwards with the exception of when the Kings and Bullets went under for a while.

Kings were prominent in the 90s, although would crumble come playoff time, in terms of resources. I base my Big5 on that rather than titles.

Have a look at late 80s and 90s ladders and the capital city teams were always in the top half of the table.

and by Big5 I include their lineage prior to mergers, for example Bearcats performed strongly prior to theirs.

Yes the 90s were all about capital cities and regionals have always struggled. Sydney being the underachieving capital city until their Goorjian era.

The 2001 Grand final between Illawarra and Townsville was a anomaly within the history of the NBL. Canberra Cannons being the only small city team to find consistent success.

For me, I was only a very young fella but I enjoyed the halycon days of Melbourne basketball in the 90s. From 1988-2000 there was a Melbourne team in the GF 12 out of 13 years. 6 titles, 9 runners ups. 3 derby Grand finals between the Magic and the Tigers.

And it was only the 80s where the Cannons were successful.

By the time they left the NBL they'd missed the playoffs in 11 of their last 14 seasons.

So yes, it's true the history of the NBL is a history of capital city success.

Perth only became strong (made finals regularly) after Bruton, then Fisher went there.

If you manage to beat the odds, chances are you get cleaned out like Cairns are about to be.

If it makes you feel better, a lot of the previous few years' MVP candidates are former 36ers...

Pinder, Sobey, Creek

Ofcourse all were really the 36ers doing in pushing out/offending/bad culture

Perth only became strong (made finals regularly) after Bruton, then Fisher went there.

Just reflecting on this thread 6 months later

Perth, NZ, United and Sydney have cumulatively won 14 titles in a row, and are 7 of the last 14 runner ups.

New season starting and all 4 clubs have had substantial roster changes yet are the clear 4 favourites with the bookies

"Success begets success" and location appears to have played a role in that favouritism:

- Sarr met with Perth then cancelled all remaining NS meetings. Hukporti stayed with United for a 3rd straight season and Toohey chose Sydney giving those clubs 3 strong Next Stars. The Lithuanian in NZ looks good too.

- Delaney returned to NZ and Delly returned to United, and Bolden reboots his career- all in the places those players grew up.

- Travers and JLA have both stated they believe team success will help them reach the NBA.

- Bigger budget Perth and Sydney poached the best two players from low budget Cairns, Hogg and Pinder