In my long rant I did mention wanting more variety within the squad. And not just for the changes with SB. If we can have options to swap players in and out based on teams needs each game we can take sides by surprise. Examples would be having players more focused on O or D. With options at each position we can alter how we defend and attack in each game. This I believe as you mentioned be vital for teams moving forward with the changes in the GE.
For me I would see this happening with guys half way through season when they are 20 asking a coach to alter his training if possible to focus on either attack or def. Then we will hopefully have options for team selections.
Also it is important to make sure we have players in each position. My boy Harry was the only PF in the squad when he was 20. This really limited Iwen's options with PF and SF. We really were only able to play SGs at SF.
I agree with all that you have said, Mickyster and thank you for answering my question. The PF position, is a black hole at the moment for us. But I would like to add the following information for people to consider. I went through the teams in our conference (India, Lubnan, Sauid Arabia, Kazakstan, Iran and Indonesia) looking to see who they had on their current rosters in terms of positions and whether thier rosters perhaps signalled what I had referred to in my last post. That is, are they preparing for the GE changes to SB. Now, I realise these numbers are only a snapshot and not entirely accurate given that elections are running, coaches have yet to be decided and more importantly, players selected. However, here's what I found.
Number of players per position:
PG: 7
SG: 16
SF: 9
PF: 9
C: 18
I find it interesting data. It could suggest the disproportionate number of PGs to SGs (7-16 more than double the SGs) suggests that teams are already considering what I spoke of regarding teams preparing to run outside offenses and the need for more SGs with particular skill sets. The high number of Cs suggests--for me--that teams are reluctant to move away from LI offenses just yet or it could mean they are thinking nigs with higher SB will be needed, a skill they can get their managers to hammer if required.
Now, the data above doesn't include Australia. Australia has 3 x PGs, 1 x SG, 3 x SFs, 0 x PFs and 2 Cs. Clearly we have issues that the next U21 NT Coach will need to address quickly if we are to compete with the teams in our conference. PFs, as Mickyster rightly highlighted, are an immediate concern. For me, the ratio of 3:1 for PGs to SGs will have to be adjusted quickly too. We will need outside offensive capabilities. We also have the most SFs than any other team in our conference. This may well be a great advantage and one we can use on either offense or defense depending on their skill sets.
So, these are the facts. Knowing what we need, what we will need them for and having the variety of players with a variety of skill sets to choose from becomes a priority for the next U21 NT Coach.