Anonymous (#71472) they also have developed 3 Championships in less than 10 years. The second most successful program in the country!

well you guys clearly no nothing about the game i guess Oscar and Jacob werent developed funny they both say how much these guys helped them Jordie Dodman chose the sixers over footy because of Phil. Matt Illman left cos management stuffed him around ask him if you want the facts.Dean Brogan chose footy cos he couldnt go any further with his basketball gee that appears the right decisionoops you have no facts just ill informed opinion.Brad Hill will have a great season next season but i dont suppose the coaches will get any credit for that also funny how every player that has played here has played there best basketball ask them or anyone who knows the game

Punctuation please! Nifty, you're breaking records for the world's longest sentences!! ;-)

Nutwork...Phil won his titles with veteran players. I don't dismiss his titles for a second, but that doesn't prove his ability to develop players.

nifty...Holmes has developed since his rookie season, but that development has stalled over the last 2 seasons. So the question is - at this stage in his career would he be better off playing under a different coach?

Forman's development has been great for the Sixers, but he isn't doing anything that he wasn't doing 2 years ago. He just does it with more confidence. His game is still very limited, so the question is - would his game expand under a different coach?

I'd have to say that Richard Hill would do about 10 times more work developing the 6ers young players. Richard would do more in one week then Phil has ever done in his 5 years.

Sure they have team sessions but Phil from what i have been told has never done an individual session with any of the players.

What have the 6ers done in the last 5 years?

They have been disappointing.

Other than BG you tell me a coach in this league right now who does a better job of creating a winning club.

Joyce - 1 GF Win - 1 player in oz team (saville who is injured for the comm games).

Black - So far so good with Cairns, but was ousted by one of his former players in Perth (no oz players).

Stacker - Looks like he will be sacked, no rings in 8 years (newley in oz team along with davidson who was cut by stacker for not being good enough).

Fisher - Had decent results this year (Rogers & Ronno in oz team but were not developed by Fish)

Tigers - Westover has had a great year (Mottram in OZ team) but is doing it with mostly tried & true veterans.

West Sydney - Crap

New Zealand - Crap

Brisbane - Joey has underachieved in Brisbane with some great players (Mackinnon & Black are Oz quality players but both were developed under other coaches).

Hunter - Good young Aussie talent being nurtured by the Doctor, but he has retired.

Adelaide 36ers - 3 rings under current coaching staff (Jacob in OZ team, Oscar a reserve and Brett being begged to participate)

BG - 3 rings half his team in Oz team.

Obviously BG is more successful, who would you rank after him? Joyce & Black in my opinion would rank equal 3rd but Phil is streets ahead in 2nd place.

His job is to coach his club to wins. Development is a part of that, along with a lot of other things, player management, tactics, motivation etc.

I am not saying our coaching staff is beyond reproach but who, other than BG has a better record?

Where would you rank Westover then? e has had a pretty hands on approach at the Tigers for many years ..

Like I said, Westover has had a great year. His team is stacked and he has the only guy in the league that no-one can match up on. I would put him 4, but time will tell. It is pretty hard to rank him after one season.

That is what I am saying, everyone is bagging our coaching setup, but no-one is suggesting superior alternatives.
Most of Australia's young guys are developed o.s., even looking at BG's team from last night, out of the guys that got on court last night only Knight, Smith & Sheridan didn't go to college (and knight was developed @ just about every club in the league). Compare that to the Sixers team in our last game, Hill, Forman, Holmes & Maher are all Adelaide products.

Handily summarised Nutwork and with some very good points.

It is true to say that Smyth and Breheny are not the best at developing youth in the league (in any event, BG is streaks ahead). It is also fair to say that Phil and Steve are not the most proactive recruiters in the league (again, BG in a landslide).

But despite that, Phil and Steve continue to put competitive teams on the court that tend to win more than they lose, under tight financial restrictions.

But after BG (and god I would hate to have BG as coach of the team just because of the prancing on the sideline) there is no other coach(es) in the league that would do better with what they got.

They are certainly not flawless, but neither is BG. See the pitiful performances of the Aussies in Greece for an example. Or the fact that he can not coach (or get along with) some players (Maher, Cattalini, Markovic and Dann being some that spring to mind). His teams, whilst consistently good, are also not invincible (he has lost more grand final series than Smyth for starters!)

Phil and Steve have a record that proves that they are good coaches. Great coaches? Time and as many years in the league as Goorj may tell. If they win another three flags in the next ten years they will be considered legends. After all you cannot expect to win it every year, so it is worth having a little bit of perspective.

Oh and BBH

'What have the Sixers done in the last five years'

They are one of only 2 (yes that's two) teams that have won a championship.

That makes them the second most successful club over the last five years by my calculation!

They also made the finals each other season, with (unfortunately) some disappointing results in the finals.

Over the last five years, the Sixers are 85-72 in regular season which is not brilliant, but is not a losing record. It is good enough for 5th best in the league (of the teams who played all of those seasons).

Kings 109-48
Hawks 98-59
Tigers 93-64
Wildcats 92-65
Bullets 76-81
Crocs 73-84
Razors 68-89
Taipans 67-90

The Sixers record over the last five years is pretty good, and that does not take into account the best years of the Smyth-Breheny reign from 1998-2000. Over their reign as coaches, the Sixers have a 160-109 regular season record.

I have tried to keep out of these posts, because of how ludicrous they are.

Yeah Smyth has developed no one. Cattalini came to Adelaide as a wash out, whos career was over before it started.

He developed into a feared player, high demand overseas, and now a regular Boomer. I am sure that some Phil haters will find another reason.

I also recall Bauer and Williams playing incredibly well in the last couple of regular season games when Mee and Maher were injured in the 97 season, where we went on to win the championship...once again I am sure no influence.

Stiff also came to Adelaide almost at the end of his career, only to have it revived.

As did Rees, Maley etc. Sure they are all veterans...but proof Smyth knows how to get the best out of his players :o)

Claims Holmes has been developed by the Boomers program is absolute carp (not a typo).....he had to be a decent player to be noticed, and make the team. Oh of course, the Mavs developed him into a NBL player and Boomer. Why dont they have anymore?? (And no dis repect meant to the Mavs - please dont hurt me!!) not to mention Holmes probably just had his most consistent season yet.

Forman has clearly developed over the last 2 years, once again something that can only be attributed to the 6ers program. I saw someone post that he has stepped up since Boomers camp - something I would totally expect from someone going to their first camp as a young player...they are going to learn heaps.

I just wish people would lay off - after all...who else here is an NBL coach and knows how to do the job?

I don't know what people expect when it comes to developing players but how much more are coaches supposed to do when winning a championship is heavily on their mind. This is their job and what the club expects of them. They cannot jeopardise winning games to give development players too many minutes on court. Young players are developed by training with the squad. Their training jumps a level when they train at NBL level. If you train at the higher level, your game also develops at that higher level. 15 or so hours per week training (not sure how many) is going to get much more out of a development player than 5 minutes a week on court during games. If a player doesn't show much improvement over a couple of years with this type of training, the player has to take responsibility for that. The coaches top priority is to win games.

Getting the best out of players and developing players are different things.

Isaac is probably about the only one who can really comment on this topic IMHO and that depends on his interpretations from Oscar.

One would suggest its the type of basketball a coach plays will determine the type of training utilised to get the best result. For Phil to be some scape goat dont forget at the halfway point we were in first position and with a crap draw this season was our worst defensively but look at the donut of a squad we have. In fact we are probably one of the smallest teams in the league what do you expect.

Look back, baring this season and a couple of unfortunate one game final series and our results stack up against most. You might also note statistically we were usually one of the best defensive teams in the league but our squad is aging especially in the PG/Ctr positions were we are most exposed.

(Mod: Just wanted to pick you up on your first paragraph: Oscar and I don't necessarily share an opinion on this topic at all. Nor would I ignore other people who've posted either - sometimes the people who post would surprise you!)

"I also recall Bauer and Williams playing incredibly well in the last couple of regular season games when Mee and Maher were injured in the 97 season"

Firstly - I don't recall Bauer or Williams ever playing "incredibly well" in the NBL. 2nd, I think you'll find that none of Smyth, Breheny or Mee were at the 36ers in 97.

Cattalini came to Adelaide in 1996 (two years before Smyth came) after a promising start to his career in Perth, playing behind Vlahov, Fisher etc. I would hardly say his career was heading towards "being over before it started".

As much as I think Forman is a better player than 2 years ago, a lot of that has to do with his confidence levels. I don't think his skill set has significantly improved in that time.

Jacob has plateaued since 2004.

If there's one thing Phil does, it's give established players the chance to do their thing. Do I think he has dramatically improved anyone's game in his tenure? No. Was Brad Hill better this year than last? No. Are any AIS graduates queing up at 6ers head office to play for Phil? No. And that is what this argument is about, are Phil & Steve capable of developing this 6ers squad for 2, 3, 4 years down the track?

The 6ers were not serious title contenders this season. They won't be next season if they return the same (or similar) lineup. They will be respectable. When Brett calls it a day (2-3 years down the road?) & Willie heads off home (he is 31, remember) who will that leave us with? Do you trust that Phil & Steve are the guys to get Oscar & Jacob to the level that they'll be able to lead the team? Do you think they're capable of recruiting enough talent to make us title contenders again? I, for one, don't.

Yogee: "I have tried to keep out of these posts, because of how ludicrous they are."

Maybe, you should have stuck to your guns and dissuaded yourself from posting.

Things got a touch more ludicrous immediately after you posted with some of the stuff you wrote.

Hoop Addict - they were there in 1997. They won a title in 1997 and 1998, or so I thought.

Moses

The Sixers won back to back in the 1998 season and the shortened 1998/99 seasons (when the league first went to summer).

Dave Claxton coached in 1997, with the Sixers not making the finals.

Indeed - the Melbourne Tigers won in 1997.

Hoop Addict, if Phil & Steve can win a championship with two different squads (1998,1999 & 2002) what possible reason do you give for him not being able to do it a third time?

Nutwork, I don't see them being able to develop a squad capable of winning a title. When we lose Brett (who has been a constant in the Smyth era) we will be left with a younger "up & coming" team. I personally don't see that Phil & Steve are able to take a side like that and make them contenders. The fact that they are thoroughly incompetent at recruiting young talent is another reason I'm not confident in them. If we were able just to hold on to SA talent, we'd definitely have the good young Aussie players (Newley, Ingles, Hill, Dodman, Kersten as well as Oscar & Jacob) to be competitive after the Maher era. However, I don't see Phil as being the right coach to take Oscar & Jacob much further than where they are now, Hill hasn't shown any improvement in 12 months, and we've already lost out on Newley & Ingles.

As I mentioned, Phil is a good coach with an established team of veterans, since he can just let them play. I do not think he is a good developer of talent, and that's why I don't feel he's a particularly good coach for the 36ers right now. We're at a cross-roads where we can ride Maher into mediocrity for the next 3 years, or perhaps endure a few leaner years with younger talent & try to develop a contender. Unfortunately, as mentioned above, we've already missed the boat of a couple of highly promising SA juniors, and are likely to continue to do so with others if Phil remains in charge.

We will have to agree to disagree, I think that Phil & Steve have proven they can make teams win games (although I also think there is a possibility they will be snapped up by another team in the future).

Hoop Addict, who do you suggest should coach the 36ers. It is easy to bag the coaches but who, in your opinion is a vastly superior option?

There are not a lot of fantastic NBL level coaches floating around Australia right now. I dislike Stacker, but for the stage the 6ers are at, I think he'd be a better option than Smyth. I don't think he's fantastic, but I think he's at least willing to recruit youngsters, which Smyth appears disinterested in. Let's also not forget that (despite their pay cut) Smyth & Breheny are the highest paid coaching staff in Australia. Are they doing a sufficient job for the amount they're costing?

Perhaps we should be looking at an American College coach, ala Dunlap. As I said in my previous post, maybe we should look at sacrificing wins in the immediate future to try to build a contender 3, 4, 5 years down the road. If that means bringing in a guy who is used to coaching 18-22 year olds to suit our needs, then so be it. Hell, if the Dragons are able to recruit Mark Price, surely we could get a D2 or even possibly a D1 assistant to take the step to coaching a professional team?

Above all else we need someone dedicated not only to the 36ers current success, but also their future success, and I don't see that Smyth is doing that.

If nothing else SA people have a passion for the game of basketball. Either right or wrong you have an opinion; there is no fence sitting for you guys. Again thats good.

I am a blow in from VIC and have a son that will be (fingures crossed) playing the ABA (SA version) comp.

A couple of lines in this string. Development starts at the juniors with quality coaching, then progresses to State selection. At this time a BIG decision needs to be made.
1. US college
2. AIS
3. ABA or other significant Aus comp.
4. NBL development squad (proven to be very successful in Cairns, Townsville and of course Melbourne)

As far as Phil and Steve goes lets pretend that they had not been at the 36ers and there was a coaching change and two guys were going to come in that had won 3 champs in 10 years and had respect of all the players who have played for them you would role out the red carpet and kiss their collective butts to get them to Adelaide.

I suspect the difference is that Phil and Steve have been here 10 years and people are getting use to them and need something to sook about.

But above all that have an opinion.

HA - I don't even think that you need to set aside hopes of winning to build a younger team -- look at what the Kings are achieving with the Goorjian-Dunlap relationship. They have ex-college rookies coming in and playing starting roles or providing very significant input off the bench - Worthington, Kendall, Martin, Barlow, Crosswhite.

They were the benchmark all season and aside from being psyched out of the series with Melbourne, they're still a good squad.

A college coach sounds good in theory, but they have their limitations aswell.

We experienced it with Dunlap and there are many examples of it in the NBA (Pitino for one).

College coaches are excellent at developing young players when they rely on them for their scholarship & future, however they sometimes struggle to work with professionals who have guaranteed contracts or are attractive to other clubs.

TK - am I right in suggesting your son will play for South Adelaide? That has nothing to do with this conversation, but anyhow.

One part of your post that I disagree with : "two guys were going to come in that had won 3 champs in 10 years and had respect of all the players who have played for them"

I think you will find that there are quite a few ex-6ers who wouldn't come back to play for Smyth. Rillie & Stiff definitely wouldn't, Catt had the chance & didn't, KB didn't leave on rosy terms. So I don't think they've got the "we get along with all our players" reputation. But I guess that's a bit off-topic.

You're right Isaac, we don't necessarily need to sacrifice short-term wins for future success. The Goorjian-Dunlap relationship is very successful for both parties. Ideally, I think we should look at a coach who either already has ties to a successful college program that's willing to take good Aussie talent & develop it, or someone who is willing to forge that relationship.

I guess there's two ways of going about it. 1) get the talent out of the AIS/local junior programs & develop it yourself or 2) do the groundwork with the kids, then persuade them to go to a college you've got connections with (IE - Goorj/Dunlap) then get back a more polished product in 4 years time.

Obviously Goorjian is very successful at the latter. Smyth is not successful at either, and I don't see that changing.

Re : college coaches - yes, I agree they have their limiations & often struggle adapting to coaching grown men who are making a living out of the game.

My biggest issue with Smyth is that he's unwilling to even attempt getting young talent to the 6ers, and he's not proven to be a good talent developer. This was fine with the lineups we've had previously, but not with the lineup we currently have, and are looking at having in a few years.

I think we need someone who is either able to develop the talent himself, or willing to forge some relationships in the US, do the groundwork on the kids, and get them back.

In theory that sounds good Hoop Addict, but if you send them away how do you know you will get them back at all?

If Oscar went to college when he was offered, who is to say he wouldn't be playing in Europe now. That would mean we would have missed out on his services all together.(Look at Schenscher)

Sure - absolutely. I think that's a risk the club should be willing to take. Had Oscar gone to LMU & developed to the stage that he could play in Europe, more power to him.

Of course you won't get 100% of the kids you send away back, but you'd certainly have a better strike-rate than Phil does now. Look at how many Goorj has had from Dunlap's program.

So if all of our young kids go to college who plays here? Instead of Hill, Forman & Holmes do we have Grant Kruger, Nik Mirich & Potsy Bauer for an extra four years? Don't you want young talent playing in our league, or should they all go to college?

As mentioned above - there are two ways of doing things : developing players yourself, or sending them to college. Not all players want to go to college (IE - Oscar & Jacob). You need a coach who is capable of developing those players.

The fact is if players want to go to college, they will (see Kersten, Wood for current SA examples). What we need is for our coaching staff to already have had contact with those kids, and make sure we keep tabs on them while they're overseas, to ensure we have as much chance as possible of getting them when they finish college.

Preferably, we would be able to persuade them to go to a college where we have a good working relationship (IE - Goorj/Dunlap). It benefits the college if we can consistently ship them good talent & benefits us if they do a good job developing them.

I agree with you re: Keeping good relationships with players who are o.s. or heading there. Phil, Steve and Management (who ever is responsible for signing the players) should be in constant contact with propsects.

Nutwork, so you're arguing that Sydney's path hasn't worked for them? All those long hard years championships waiting for Metro State to send home players.

Maybe you sign other ex-college players (e.g., Worthington wasn't a NSW kid) in the mean time. There are enough options.

The fact is that our reputation for younger players is not good. Missed Newley. Ingles not coming to the Sixers. The best upcoming players are going to go where the opportunities are best and those teams are going to continue to accrue serviceable players with a good future, capped points value, and capped initial salary. That's pretty helpful!

This isn't all that relevant, but I'm sure someone will find it interesting: I believe that when Darnell Mee left Adelaide, one of the things he said to Smyth was that he disagreed with him (Smyth) encouraging Oscar to sign with the Sixers, and that he (Oscar) would be best served by having taken the contract with LMU.

STFU hoop addict, get over this anti Phil and Steve sediment you have as everyone by now knows you pretty much hate everything they stand for and have achieved in the last 10 years. Enough is simply enough, FFS Stop beating a dead horse and let the issue rest. They are not going anywhere because they have a contract and smarter and more knowledgeable basketball people are in charge that actually respects what they have achieved in the game. Unlike you and a few others on hear.

Why don't you supporter the Sydney Queens instead of the Sixers as your so in love with BG and his authoritarian style of coaching. I would not like that pounce stalking the sidelines as a Sixers coach as his style is insulting to adults who do not need to be treaded like school kids.

If his style of coaching is so successful, why does he have to recruit a brand new side every year? BG is arguably the best coach in Australia at the moment but his style is not the be all and end all, as after 3 championships in 3 years has lead the Queens to have 3 different sides.

Your very quick to call for player who respect there coach (or in a few former cases lake or respect toward Phil), well go ask Scott Ninnis, Mike McKay, Mark Davis, or Robert Rose about how they perceive and remember Mike Dunlap and ask them if they would play for him again?

The reason Holmes, Forman and Hill have not developed is simply because they have not worked hard enough. All 3 of them are adults and should not need someone to hound them to do extra work. They should take the responsibility upon themselves to work on areas that are there weaknesses.

All good points Isaac, but you are not gonna get BG here, and you tell me who in this league has developed players and won championships other than him?

Drmic has done ok . He was a firecracker thats all ~

Jimmy Floyd - I'm going to tell Brad Hill to start subbing himself on. See how that goes. If your suggestion of players not working hard enough is true, why don't US College programs developing talent for the elite league just go with your suggestion and fire all of their coaches who are there to develop younger players?

I'm not going to disagree that some players aren't working hard enough, but every person needs a different approach. When the club is investing tens of thousands of dollars in a 19 year old player, why wouldn't they do everything they could to get the best out of their investment?


Nutwork - you're measuring success by championships alone, and you're assuming that the solution is headhunting Goorjian. It's not.

A solution isn't necessarily swapping Smyth for Goorjian - it's adapting so that we can get the best out of the current and near-future roster. It's about catering for the Mahers and Cattalinis who already know what to do, while also improving our reputation amongst younger players so the Newleys and Ingles favour our offers.


There are two retorts to "so, why does Goorjian have to build a new side each year?" - one, well he's won the last 3 championships, so who cares. Two, he was picking up imports that were playing beyond their price bracket, or boasting players that had European potential (Neilsen). And a bonus one - I don't think that will necessarily continue given the squad he has now. He might lose Barlow and maybe a free agent, switch out Webber back for Roberts and see CJ off to Europe, but the young core is signed for 06/07.

Hoop Addict: Jason will be in the stands watching the Mavs. this weekend and having a chat with the coach. Jay has just come back from Townsville (trained with Stacks NBL team) was looking for a roster spot there next year. Blow me down Stacks gets the heave and we have to start over again.

Talk about developing players, Stacks coaches a local (townsville) Under 10's team.

Steve Brenney (spelling) has been linked to the Croc's in a package that has him taking a senior 36ers player (I wont say who)to the Croc's but from what I understand that it's a fair chance that Wollongong coach has the inside running.

BG has now interest in developing players he just plunders them from Dulap at metro state.

TK - that's called outsourcing. ;)

I am not saying to target BG, I am just saying Phil has a record only second to him.
And yes Isaac, championships are the name of the game. I would rather have my team coached by Phil & Steve & win 3 rings (and according to a few, not develop many players) than have my team coached by Stacks, develop a couple of players and win 0 championships.

In a perfect world Adelaide 36ers would win a championship every year and develop lots of players that go to the NBA and Europe, but the world is not perfect and I am happy if Phil & Steve keep coaching us to winning seasons. Nuff said.

The other name of the game is that history is history. Right now, the situation, the cap, the market, everything is different and we haven't had as much success since those changes. We gone out in the first round a few times.

This isn't a Smyth vs Goorjian competition BTW. This is a 'How can we improve our chances' topic. Options include, stick with the status quo, change coaches completely, add a coach or a contact that complements what we have, etc.

And dare I remind you - if you go back and read the first post of this thread, a rumour is that your happiness with the current coaches might not be enough to keep them in town beyond their existing contract.

What if Phil and SJ were to take Maher up north with them - what would you do then?

I would hope the club get's the best available coaching staff for the job!

And who are those staff? And what's the job?

The job is to coach the 36ers. Win the goal of winning games. The staff? who knows, hopefully we don't need any, but if we do you interview the best available candidates.

Phil and Steve's job is to win a game of basketball for the Adelaide 36ers not to develop young players who in 4 or 5 years will bugger off to Europe. They are hired to win a game of basketball and they have done that. Ian Stacker has a reputation for being a very good developer of NBL players yet he didn't win enough games to keep his job? Brad Newley, M. Cedar and the injured Adam Quick all have developed but the board of the Townsville crocodiles decided that they wanted to WIN.

The NBL coaches have ranked the Adelaide 36ers side as a side that is not one of the top echelon of teams; the last 3 years at the Adelaide 36ers have proven the other coaches wrong simply because Phil and Steve know what they are doing and get the best out of each player

The objective of any NBL program is to win games and develop players second, the objective of a NCAA college program is to develop a reputation that your coach can develop players into superstars and this will help that college to recruit blue chip talent and that what will help you win.

The Key Performance Indicator for a NBL coach is simply winning and losing, winning pulls the crowds, winning increased the potential to increase sponsorship; the Key performance indicators for a college coach are different as they have to show a greater emphases on a players development (On and off the court) the average college kid is 18 years old, the average rookie on a NBL list is 21. Having a good reputation as developer at college level has to play a major factor in recruitment but not in the NBL.

Doesn't that also tell you something, Townsville are willing to change their basketball philosophies and go with a coach that wings games rather than someone with an authority's style of coaching.

Go from recruiting the best young players (Newley, Quick) in the country to an opportunity to win the whole thing?

Townsville, what are you thinking about?

We havent survived beyond the first round of the finals in the last few years.. Somethings missing. And its not just the club and salary cap that are restricting coaches because other teams with cheaper teams have done ok..

Something has been missing, a centre. For the last few years we have been undersized. We got away with it when we won championships because Rees was younger and we had some other tall players: Garrison, Stiff etc.

If its because were missing a centre is that because Jakob Holmes hasnt worked hard enough??

Jimmy,

Yes, obviously winning is the most important thing for a coach. My question is : can we be serious title contenders if nothing changes? No, I don't think we can.

So the next question is, is Smyth the guy to lead a team through a "rebuilding" phase when Brett, Willie etc. all move on? Again, I don't think he is.

Phil *does* have a good record coaching experienced teams, lead by highly competent veterans. I am not disputing this. If we had a team resembling our 1998 lineup, I'd suggest Phil would be a suitable coach.

However - the fact is that Brett's career is winding down, and we will soon be faced with mediocrity if we don't establish a young base of players capable of carrying the team in the post-Brett era. That starts with the coach & management being able to attract those players (via the AIS/local juniors or from US colleges) and then ensure that they develop those players to such a level that they can compete for a championship.

Again, do you think that Phil is the right coach for that situation? I would say he's not, because he's completely disinterested in (or incapable of) attracting young talent & hasn't shown that he's willing or able to develop young talent.

Jacob is a 3/4. He does admirably when he plays 5 but he shouldn't have to be put in that position.

You missed my point. The coachs and the club choose the roster and they chose Rees,Cooper.. Either they think thats enough or they didnt have any more money because of other things,

Re 'something is missing'

Lack of a dominant centre? Lack of five guys that can shoot three pointers at better than 40%?

Thems the two things that separate the Sixers from the top two sides. Oh, and a genuine lack of defensive commitment from half of the team.

You don't have to look too far to see areas where the Sixers can improve - they can improve everywhere.

The underlying dispute in this thread seems to be 'where to put the blame for those deficiencies?'

Maybe it is just that these coaches, with these players, in this league with all of its financial and other restrictions, cannot elevate their performances above what they are.

Lets face it, the Sixers have fielded substantially the same squad for the last 4 years (with CT being a slightly inferior version of Farley). Same core. Different development players. (People will undoubtedly tear this point apart, but the fact remains that no squad in the last four years has been much better, or much worse than the one before).

The Sixers have had no injection of NBA calibre players. The Sixers have fostered some young talent (with good retention rates to date) but not everyone will develop into a star in a given environment.

The only thing that can be said is that for some time the Sixers have been stagnant.

The Sixers are reportedly overpaying their best three players (in terms of league standards). That appears to be required to keep them contracted in Adelaide. Same for the coaching staff. Is that the coaching staff's fault or the underlying problems with the organisation which have been well reported for some time.

It is fairly standard practice to use coaching staff as the first scapegoat for the performance of a team. It happens all of the time.

Some people tend to think that getting rid of the coaching staff will be a cure-all to the Sixers problems. They are welcome to their opinion but I cannot agree.

#71710

"I believe there is a trust issue and many don't trust him"

Care to explain? Back your statement up with some facts.



"So many of you equate good coaching with winning premierships" how do you equate good coaching then? Development of young players. What a load of crap, how about a player earns his court time instead of demanding it.

So in your books the Melbourne Tigers are pretty much stuffed as they only have Neil Mottram coming through? D-Mac, David Stiff, Tucker and Thomas are the Import and could leave for a better offer

But Al Westover is coach of the year, should they sack him as he has no credibility at developing players? Been with the Tiger 20 years so he would have a history of developing a few players as an assistant under Lindsey Gaze.

A good portion of that "universal condemnation" would've been because it's hard to put a roster together when you don't have your coaches in place. That's a reasonable assertion regardless of anyone's judgement of the current coaches in my opinion.

As usual, I agree with a decent amount of what XY's contributed further up. There's no point in sitting back and saying "We appointed coaches and they've won more than they've lost. Awesome, nap time."

We're off the pace. We have room to improve. We haven't made any significant changes over recent years. Restrictions such as the cap have changed a bit and a good way to counter that is with rookie contributors out of college who are capped at five and limited in their contracts. That's exactly what allows the Kings to bring in Webber or have decent players at the end of their rotations.

Sack the lot of them and appoint 2 or 3 of the finest on hear.

I am sure they would do a better job anyway as they have more experience and understanding of why a player should get on the court.

I love that 'Sack everyone and hire the critics' come-back eh!? Every argument needs one..

Now Now Jimmy - your posts have been even temperred so far and this discussion is very interesting...dont fall into teh trap of getting offended when someone disagrees with you and making smart arsed comments.

If you do that we will all think your actually Joe M in disguise ;)

Is that an insult or a complement?

Have you ever tried to read these long posts and eat a box of barbecue shapes at the same time. Its madness. Give it a try.

Where is Ingles off to next year?

The fans pay a lot of money for season tickets. They expect value for money. Value comes in the way of a good team that will win championships. Its what keeps the fans interested and coming back. They don't want to pay money to see a whole lot of rookies on the floor developing their game. At the same time there isn't a lot of money to pay rookies under the current salary cap and the amount needed to entice the top players to sign up. Its a vicious circle because as a result of not much money for rookies, how many of them make themselves available when they could be earning a decent salary somewhere else? NBL level basketball is about entertainment. Fans want to see the skills that seasoned players bring to the court and they want to see success. The way to attract the best young kids is to make it financially worthwhile. Its what will encourage them to sign on and work hard towards their goal of making it to the top. Atleast they can make the committment because they are also earning a salary. Perhaps the key to developing young players is in the way of a separate salary cap to the other players. That way it won't reduce the amount needed to entice the best but at the same time there will be money there for the developers. However, if a club is going to invest in young players and pay them a decent salary at the same time, a committment needs to be made by the players to stay with that club for atleast 5 years and not just go off to Europe or wherever at the expense of the club that has been paying them to develop their game. Its easy to pass the buck onto the coaches for not doing a good job at developing players, but the problem is much deeper than that.