BuzzerBeater Forums

I think we had to choose a 1-3-1 or 2-3 and hope that we picked the right one. So probably good tactic on that front (except for the wrong guess). For the offensive end, I know run and gun is better for the team than look inside, but playing look inside or another offense would prevent teams like the USA from playing a 1-3-1. That said, surprisingly few teams have played a 1-3-1 against us. It looks as though if Deutschland had chosen an outside focus on offense, we would have won even with the run and gun.

Our offensive stats with look inside are much lower than our offensive stats with run and gun (as you stated).
Also, looking at the game stats... we would have been just slightly better off, I have my doubts we can go over strong (low) with inside offense, we didn't manage much previously. We would have also lost with inside offense. Our only hope was to catch their offense with the right defense.
If we did, we would have probably won the game, which it would be purely on tactics, the stats below speak for themselves.


Canada Team Ratings Deutschland

Run and Gun Offensive Strategy Look Inside
1-3-1 Zone Defensive Strategy 3-2 Zone

proficient (high) Outside Scoring: respectable (low)
average (low) Inside Scoring proficient (medium)
strong (high) Perimeter Defense proficient (low)
mediocre (medium) Inside Defense respectable (medium)
inept (medium) Rebounding strong (low)
mediocre (high) Offensive Flow respectable (medium)

My approval rating has been positive since you started and it has not changed once. I'm pretty sure most people who take the time to see what's going on (forum users) understand that we are over achieving. I'm sure most of the negative votes are from the people who have no idea what's happening.

Well, I take offense to that. My vote has been thumbs down since nearly day 1, and I do have an idea what's happening.

The result has been good, though. I do agree with uflorin that we're not a top 8 team on talent. I think an objective look at how we got the result shows that it was more despite the coaching than because of it.

That is clearly not the point. Getting there once means we had a team obviously capable of getting there again, and for you to pretend you did a brilliant job on the basis of doing exactly what we already know can be done is laughable.

Now lete me reiterate - rather than getting defensive why don't you try engaging in some constructive conversation.

With that part I don't have a problem. I don't agree with it, but it doesn't bother me. You have a reason and you do study and have your own opinion.

I know I chose same offense very very often, and it was a choice. I am still confident it was the right choice, and I do think the results came because of this.
Of course, looking back is easy to say they should have played certain defense or what not, but at that time they didn't know (until recently when it became obvious) that I will stick with that tactic.

I did change it once, partially to try to see the stats and partially to leverage it for future games, different offense and it was with disastrous results.

I have no regrets in using the tactics I used, and I would probably do it all over again if the term would start now. of course, history not withstanding, but if a fresh new start and they would not know that I played it so often, I would definitely consider it.

Bottom line, evaluating performance without studying the data in hand was what bothers me, not negative justified feedback

It may be the poor Canadian educational system, or your French Canadian shining through, but I didn't understand you comment.

I am very curious as to know why you vote thumbs down. I think it'll give me a better understanding of the game, and also so that we know what needs to be improved with the national team.

There isn't enough healthy discussion going on in our Canadian forums. Hpw do we generate a better Nation and U21 team?

There isn't enough healthy discussion going on in our Canadian forums. Hpw do we generate a better Nation and U21 team?

I will answer this question. Instead of teams hording young talent, drafted 18 yr-olds with high salaries should be sold to be trained by another team (unless that team can devote sufficient training resources) - perhaps by another Canadian team. With a small user base, this is the only way to really compete. I am still surprised at the lack of talent on the U21 team. As a comparison, my 20 yr old Romanian SF with a $37k salary can't even make the U21 Romanian team.

1. My statement that I have not been closely following the national team is hardly an admission that I am too stupid to understand the relative player quality of the opposition.

2. My statement that the team has been there before has nothing to do with overachieving either. If the team has made it before it is perfectly reasonable to believe it can be done again.

3. What does using the forum have to do with it? Are you suggesting
I don't use the forum?

I love how you essentially condemn the ignorant with a statement far more ignorant than the behavior you are condemning. I know enough about whats going on to know that we can get into the top 8, yet you toss out a blanket statement that disagreement = ignorance.

I will answer this question. Instead of teams hording young talent, drafted 18 yr-olds with high salaries should be sold to be trained by another team (unless that team can devote sufficient training resources) - perhaps by another Canadian team. With a small user base, this is the only way to really compete. I am still surprised at the lack of talent on the U21 team. As a comparison, my 20 yr old Romanian SF with a $37k salary can't even make the U21 Romanian team.

I agree...
Also, Romania is not a large nation as far as BB is concerned, but it just so happens I am subscribed to that forum (as I originate from Romania).
You will be amazed on how much people discuss there and how much involvement and support there is to build the NT teams.

Ok, good. That means we have to educate Canadian managers what to do this draft season. We are fast approaching, and the more people who hear about it the better. Perhaps even personal BB-Mail to those managers who draft really good players suggesting their possible routes of action.

I'm a native Anglophone, and I'll put my written skills up against pretty much anyone in this forum. Now let me undermine that last statement by using bullet points to restate my post instead of a beautifully flowing paragraph:

- My approval vote for uflorin has been "No" since very early in his term.
- I do feel I understand this game, and our NT's performance, quite well.
- We're not a top 8 team in talent.
- We have overachieved.
- I ascribe this overachievement to luck, and not to the coach's performance.

I am very curious as to know why you vote thumbs down. I think it'll give me a better understanding of the game, and also so that we know what needs to be improved with the national team.

- Tactical inflexibility. Even if you accept the point that we can't use an inside offense effectively (and I do not accept that), we could at least have made more of a token effort to use other offenses in our most lopsided matchups. We're finding that countries with non-catatonic coaches are able to guess our offensive tactics correctly.

- Roster management. We didn't cut the roster down to 12 at the enthusiasm reset, which is 100% indefensible. We've been carrying the same 14 players for as long as I can remember... possibly as early as week 1 of uflorin's term.

- Gameday player selection. We started players in terrible game shape, and that didn't change until some determined public shaming. Maybe that was a coincidence, I don't know. Player ratings aren't everything, but we're giving non-trivial minutes at SF to players who are pulling ratings in the 6.0-6.5 range. That's unacceptable.