Variety Bucket: The BOG 'my man' team

Triple M's footy commentators often use the phrase 'my man' when calling a player who isn't necessarily rated in some circles, but stands out to them. The type of players usually targeted are up-and-coming guys yet to be 'discovered', underrated guys and those that constantly cop criticism beyond the Triple M box.

(Some also, however, qualify purely because of their nickname. My favourite in this category is Fremantle's David Mundy, or No Undy Mundy as he is known.)

Last year, the boys compiled a full team of such players and posted it on the station's website. It's no longer up, but I figured I'd follow suit and put together a list of guys from different sports that get me that little bit too excited when they start to fire up on the field of play.

1. Gael Monfils (Tennis)

I've declared my love of Monfils' game before on this blog, and although he's still struggling to actually win tournaments, he is slowly climbing up the rankings – he was tenth going into Roland Garros.

Why is he in the team? Because with Monfils, you're guaranteed flair. The Frenchman is young, energetic, not afraid to slide (no matter what surface) and will chase seemingly impossible shots if it means keeping the point alive.

Seriously, "conserving energy" is not a term in this kid's vocab. He just keeps going.

The best part? You don't get that cautious, considered feel of Roger Federer and you don't get the wedgie-picking, banana-eating, let's-put-my-water-bottles-in-the-exact-same-spot-between-my-legs-every-time-I-sit-down antics of Rafael Nadal.

2. Justin Westhoff (AFL)

There's a few players in contention when it comes to footy (Mundy among them.) But Westhoff is the man who inspired this post. I mean, he could gain entry to the team on trivial things alone; he has a sweet nickname – "the Hoff" – and looks like the guy off Napoleon Dynamite.

Why is he really in the team? He flies under the radar. Firstly, people make the mistake of not realizing how big a role he had in the grand final-making side of '07. Secondly, few people realize he's an absolute marking machine (ranked 6th in marks per game in '09) and is developing at an impressive rate for a key forward.

If he hadn't gotten injured earlier in the year, everybody would be singing his praises.

The best part? He's back from injury now, and my Dream Team is looking forward to welcoming him back in. (FanFooty said he was "up on his average" on the weekend, but the average is only low because he got injured half-way through a game – he's really averaging around 49 points per half.)

3. Nicky Carle (Football)

This one is a strange one. The thing is, Nicky Carle is rated by experts and people in the media. It's just that he isn't – for some strange reason – rated by those that actually matter. You know, like Pim Verbeek or top-tier European clubs, for example.

Why is he in the team? To not sound too repetitive, I'm looking up synonyms for the word "flair". Ah, bugger it – Nicky Carle epitomizes flair! He is that creative spark that can create something out of nothing. He can produce mind-boggling runs like the one in the YouTube clip above.

He is, dare I say it, what the Socceroos are missing.

The best part? Unlike a certain former Socceroos captain who shall remain nameless, he's put his hand up for national team selection this month. He's in the squad. All Pim has to do is say yes.

4. Benji Marshall (Rugby League)

I never used to "get" league. It'd be on Channel Nine some mornings and I'd be sitting there wondering why they weren't trying to kick it through the posts. Then someone explained all the rules to me. Then I rediscovered the game staying up late on Friday nights. Then, on one of those nights, I saw Benji...

Why is he in the team? He's got a bottomless bag of party tricks. Those nights happened to be during the year his Wests Tigers were making a charge at a premiership, 2005. Marshall whipped out grubber kicks, side-steps and, best of all, the flick-pass, ad nauseum.

And for the first time in my life, I "got" league.

The best part? Seeing 'my man' whip out those exact party tricks in the grand final that year was off the heezy. It was truly spectacular, just look at the YouTube clip. The Tigers went on to win.

Who you got?

There are a few "honourable mentions" I could throw in right about now, but I figure I've wasted enough of your time. So, readers, is there anyone who makes you want to give the so-called "experts" the Ben Cousins treatment? Or who just simply gets you that little bit too excited?

Feel free to leave a comment with your answers.

Photo credit to Patrick Frauchiger.

Now's not the time to be looking down on the Dragons

As a South Dragons fan, there's one thing that gets on my nerves more than anything else about the fact the club will be spending a year – at best – in exile, with the very real possibly of never returning.

It has nothing to do with Mark Cowan and how the club has handled things.

It has nothing to do with Seamus McPeake and how the Melbourne Tigers have 'dogged' their rivals once again.

It has nothing to do with (pre-Larry Sengstock) Basketball Australia and how their failure to deliver on promises forced both clubs into rebellion in the first place.

It has nothing to do with (Larry Sengstock-led) Basketball Australia and how, according to Cowan, the Dragons didn’t get any of the information – if it even existed – that was used to force the Tigers’ hand.

Rather, it is the knowledge that were the South Dragons introduced today, they would thrive.

The NBL of late 2005 – when Cowan obtained the license of the old Victoria Giants – was not ready for the vision of him and his team. Back then, the concept of reform wasn't taken anywhere near as seriously as it should've been.

The NBL was a league where clubs had to spend more money than they should to have a genuine shot at winning the championship. This was a practice that the Dragons, from the outside looking in, were reluctant to partake in.

Sure, they were big spenders. But it seemed that they’d rather get stuck into promoting their games, putting on a show to gather return visits and, more importantly, set a new benchmark for the rest of the league to follow.

You know, like Melbourne Victory did with the A-League.

But the difference between the two clubs was the environment around them. Victory’s opponents were bound by a salary cap; the Dragons’ opponents were bound by a salary cap that wasn’t policed.

Some of those opponents, for obvious reasons, weren’t profitable. And when their owners ran out of money – or, in the case of the Sydney Kings and their infamous owner Tim Johnston, out of the country – no investor wanted to touch the damn clubs.

At the same time, the Dragons languished down the bottom half of the ladder, accumulating an embarrassing number of losses. The lack of success was hurting the club.

Responsibility was eventually thrown out the window, with the Dragons belatedly joining the group of clubs with suspiciously ‘stacked’ rosters. It won them a championship from finishing last place just a season earlier.

But it was a sad consequence of how the ‘old NBL’ operated.

Any league that forces clubs to ‘sell out’ to win a championship has a serious problem. Clubs shouldn’t have to compromise on what’s best for the game just to taste success.

Thankfully, it’s all in the past.

Despite some concerns that the previous set-up was to remain, recent reports suggest there will, in fact, be a policed salary cap in the ‘new NBL’.

The clubs in the league are more committed to reform than ever, even if it will be stagnated over another thrown-together season.

With a level playing field in place and other clubs committed, the obstacles that held back the Dragons in their initial years are far less evident. The league is ready for a benchmark-setting, Dragons-like club to step in and lead the way.

You know, like Melbourne Victory did with the A-League.

Unfortunately, it seems the opposite is happening. Instead, the Dragons are being looked down on as traitors, as part of the old days where owners controlled the game and drove their own agendas.

In a way, it’s true. That does reflect how the club acted, even though my personal opinion is that BA have more to answer for in that little saga, but to only look at their recent history is to ignore all the good they had been doing for the game.

What really gets me riled is that the same people who have been looking down on the Dragons – and even though I love his work, I am thinking of Boti Nagy as I write this – are now welcoming Seamus McPeake back into the fray with open arms.

Is there anyone still involved in the game today that embodies the bad ways of the past more than McPeake?

In an ironic way, the Dragons – before the days of excessive player spending – embodied more of what basketball should aspire to than probably any of the clubs that will partake in the upcoming season.

Right now, the new league needs more South Dragons about it than some people’s pride will let on.

How did basketball's reform get to this?

If long posts aren't your thing, avoid this one. I'm finding it hard to string together a coherent post on recent events, so you'll have to put up with this copy-and-paste-induced trip through time for now.

When the long-anticipated review in to basketball was tabled in September of last year, this was what I wrote:

Listed in the review are four key objectives for the next four years.

These include doubling player registrations to 500,000, an amicable
target; being ranked by FIBA in the top three nations in the world, we're
already second so that can't be too hard; and also reducing government funding
to 25% or less.

But the big one is, obviously, the aim to become a "Top 3 recognized sport
measured by viewers/attendees."

Dragons co-owner Raphael Germinder also recalled the promises made back then on the weekend:

(The reform's) charter was to deliver financial stability, broadcasting of
all games, government funding, a new governance and leadership group, a viable
budget to connect with community and market the game, adequate player salaries
to attract the best talent and finally playing a different period in the
year.

So basically, at this point in time, it was all happy-happy joy-joy. They were big goals, but they weren't unattainable.

Things soon started to go wrong, however. Grantley Bernard's November 14 column in the Herald Sun raised brewing concerns:

But just what is going to be different about the relaunched competition other
than its name?

Are the teams going to change? No.

Are the venues going to change? No.

Is the level of play going to change? No.

Maybe the only thing you can really change about the new NBL is the
perception.

Two days earlier, then-CEO of Basketball Australia Scott Derwin dropped a bombshell with a throw-away line in The Australian:

"We are also looking at doing away with the salary cap."

At this point, the promises stemming from the review into the sport and early discussions on what the New NBL would look like were starting to fade away.

But Derwin felt there was no need to panic, assuring us in that same article:

"But with a new NBL, new criteria, we as a national body would be silly not
to have a team playing out of Brisbane.

"A decision will be made by late January or early February."

It's interesting, in light of recent events, that once upon a time BA expected to know about the inclusion of a team by late January or early February.

Anyways, by December I was on my soap box:

Since the document's release back in September, the sport's interim
administration has been disturbingly contradicting many of the review's
recommendations. [...]

We may just end up seeing the exact same teams, give or take a Sydney-based
side, of course. [...]

According to the timeline set out by the review, "key appointments" were
supposed to take place in November. [...]

And it seems key appointments are not the only area that has been running
behind schedule. The release of the review was delayed. Voting on the review's
recommendations was delayed. Question marks surround whether or not bids coming
out of Brisbane and Sydney can be prepared in time.

Running on such a tight schedule puts the sport in a dangerous position. If
history is anything to go by, this is a frightening proposition. Remember that
the Razorbacks becoming the Sydney Spirit was a decision made on a short time
frame. Allowing Tim Johnston to own the Sydney Kings was a similarly rushed
decision. What about the move to summer?

Also around this time, the first real key decision the "new" BA involved itself in, the establishment of the Sydney Spirit, proved to be the failure everyone expected it to be. I wrote about that issue here.

By the end of the month, Grantley Bernard was producing some of his sharpest work yet again:

Seriously, the proposed reform of basketball in Australia, especially the NBL
as the masthead of the game, is not reform. It is more like an adjustment that
will have the NBL, or whatever it is going to be called, heading down a familiar
path. [...]

The most visible aspect of the reform process, the NBL, its teams and games,
will not change to the extent that people see change. [...]

The NBL needs to take a big dose of reform. All it is getting is a spoonful
of adjustment.

Exacerbating fears over a lack of change, it was even reported that the new league would bear the exact same name as the old one, the NBL.

In the next few months the focus shifted to the thrilling finish to the present NBL season. But the fact there was little reform news over this period would've been a factor in this.

A team in Sydney had not been found. A team in Brisbane had not been found. There were no major announcements late in January or early in February, despite the claims by BA there would be.

A post over at Scibz' Spiel looked at the timeline set out by the review and noted how behind things had become:

It's January 2009 and the important step of accepting expressions of interest
from current and prospective team owners is yet to be taken. In fact, the most
recent closing date given for applicants was January 16, which appears a
pipedream considering the interim board hasn't even finalised what the criteria
for licenses will be.

And another important grab from that post:

After the recent resignation of interim CEO Scott Derwin, the leadership
waters have only become murkier.

From this point on, BA were well and truly behind schedule.

The new bids they were expecting didn't eventuate, and even current clubs struggled with the criteria. The search for a new leader (although didn't Derwin always carry that "interim" tag anyways?) complicated things further.

Without the new bids, the reform could never gain any momentum, particularly with the rapidly shortening time frame. Sponsors were never going to warm to a Sydney-less and Brisbane-less league.

Going on recent reports, Fox Sports didn't like it either.

My thoughts following Larry Sengstock's belated appointment last month as the new CEO summed up the lack of progress:

There is, however, enough of a reason to remain cautious in spite of today's
announcement. Like how ridiculously deep into the reform process this
appointment is, for example.

The new NBL is only – supposedly – six months away.

We haven't got any idea on which teams will be competing. We haven't got any
idea on the name of the competition. And it has taken until now just to find
someone to oversee the competition?

The introduction of the new league was always going to be a race against the
clock. But you have to wonder if the sport is rushing into this too fast.

Clearly, I wasn't the only one wondering that.

On Friday, the Dragons pulled out of the 2009/10 season. Their reasoning was perfectly understandable.

A couple of days later, the Melbourne Tigers joined them on the sidelines. Their reasoning was perfectly understandable.

Now, Basketball Australia say they'll press on without them, even if it means enduring another half-arsed season. Their reasoning is, well, I'll let you decide that...

Is 0-3 really that much of a surprise?

Is it that time of year already? I could've sworn "Annual Bash the Tigers and Call for Terry Wallace's Head Week" occurs during the middle of the season.

Nonetheless, the knives are out, after just three games, and Richmond's clash with Melbourne this week has already been labelled "Bloody Sunday".

Mike Sheahan, in big giant letters on the back page of the Herald Sun, said Wallace is on "death row".

Beneath the hype, it seems everyone is talking about how horrible the Tigers have been.

Under normal circumstances, going in to bat for Richmond is not my style. In fact, I don't think much of Wallace as a coach. His interviews tend to leave me unconvinced and he doesn't have an overwhelming track record when it comes to getting results.

But the past couple of days have been brutal (too brutal, in fact), and I think we should all put the 0-3 start in to some form of perspective.

Just consider a few points:

- The Tigers have been without midfield gem Trent Cotchin since the pre-season.

- The Tigers have been without midfield gem Ben Cousins since round one.

- The Tigers have also missed out on the services of returning stars Andrew Raines and Mark Coughlan.

(As it turns out, all of the above are on the verge of returning in the next couple of weeks.)

- The Tigers are implementing the rolling zone – something that should not be expected to make an impact overnight.

(As it turns out, the side that began the rolling zone craze, Hawthorn, took three years to finally get it right.)

- The Tigers have played three of the competition's best and most in-form sides. They certainly haven't had the benefit of playing a Melbourne, West Coast or Fremantle.

(As it turns out, they get to face Melbourne this week.)

- The Tigers led Geelong, arguably the best side going around at the moment, by one point going into three quarter time.

(As it turns out, even Collingwood couldn't manage such an influence over the Cats beyond the first quarter.)

- The Tigers have played THREE games for crying out loud! The season is still young!

(As it turns out, there are another nineteen rounds of footy still to be played.)

Judging a team on three weeks of the season is absurd, especially the three weeks Richmond have been through. So why don't we just wait until the season has progressed a little further before we start calling for Wallace's head?

His job this year, after all, is to make the finals. He's got another nineteen weeks of footy to meet that challenge.

In the meantime, is it so hard to just give the guy a break?

Photo credit to k-BeckS on Flickr.

Don't get carried away, basketball has a while to go yet

Basketball Australia announced Larry Sengstock as its new CEO today, along with its new catch-cry "basketball: everyone's game". The sport's administrators have assured us all that they're taking a step in the right direction.

You know, just like they did with the Sydney Spirit.

Just like they did with the Singapore Slingers.

Just like they did with mid-week games.

Just like they did with Rick Burton's appointment.

Just like they did with the move to summer.

Just like, well, you get the idea...

My personal favourite out of the lot comes in the form of this piece in The Age in 2003, which read: "Burton said public negativity made his task greater, but hoped in five years to talk about the 'meteoric rise of the NBL'."

Yes, that's actually what he said.

For the record, at the end of said five-year period, the NBL lost the Sydney Kings and Brisbane Bullets (and the Slingers too, ironically.) It was also forced into a last-minute broadcast deal with Fox Sports well down (both in coverage and financial terms) on the deal from when Burton arrived.

So forgive me for not completely eating up comments like "we are poised on the brink of what could be a new golden age for basketball," as Sengstock indicated today.

It's seems more appropriate to approach this "new age" with caution.

Of course, as a basketball fan, there's always been that instinct to be optimistic about the future. To be optimistic that maybe, just maybe, this time will be different.

Which is why today's CEO announcement was a touch easier to swallow than, say, the Sydney Spirit announcement.

Sengstock's appointment is not in the same league as that of John O'Neill's – the man chosen by Frank Lowy to turn around football – but it is, nonetheless, impressive.

What Sengstock brings to the table is not only a love of the game – Burton, Chuck Harmisson and Scott Derwin all had that down pat – but he also has significant experience working in the Australian sporting landscape outside of basketball.

He was head of sport and athlete services at the 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne and is currently a senior consultant of international projects for SGL Group, a sports consultancy firm.

Another guy plucked straight from the basketball fraternity wouldn't really raise too many eyebrows, let's be honest.

There is, however, enough of a reason to remain cautious in spite of today's announcement. Like how ridiculously deep into the reform process this appointment is, for example.

The New NBL is only – supposedly – six months away.

We haven't got any idea on which teams will be competing. We haven't got any idea on the name of the competition. And it has taken until now just to find someone to oversee the competition?

The introduction of the new league was always going to be a race against the clock. But you have to wonder if the sport is rushing into this too fast.

You don't need me to reel off another multi-paragraph list of examples to know that basketball administrators have a history of rushing into things, too.

The oddest part for mine is that running a September-March season is widely accepted as less than ideal. The season begins during the footy finals (a disaster in terms of generating media attention) and ends at a time when the focus turns right back to footy again (a disaster in terms of generating media attention.)

The start of a new league is the perfect opportunity to make the switch to a more media-friendly schedule once and for all. And best of all, it delays the start of the new competition.

It makes perfect sense, but yet this is another area in which Basketball Australia is opting to take the easy option and stick to the status quo.

Need another example?

The sheer fact they'd even consider running a league in this day and age, in this country, without a salary cap is ludicrous. But it is, after all, easier to stick to the status quo on that front, too.

And what about all those nasty rumours of the New NBL being called the, err, NBL?

Perhaps that'll be Sengstock's biggest challenge in the immediate future: to start making decisions that may not be easy in the short-term, but will reap benefits in the long-term.

Because if that doesn't happen, the game's administrators could really mess things up.

You know, just like they did with the Sydney Spirit.