|
|
Post by SamH on Feb 15, 2023 19:08:06 GMT
Do we have any female posters here out of interest?
As for match fixing, only if there'd been suspicious betting patterns against Lions would it be cause for concern.
|
|
|
|
Post by LTfan on Feb 15, 2023 20:53:12 GMT
I’ve now watched, listened, and read everything I can about the game and I honestly can’t decide whether:
a) London were too arrogant and thought they’d always win whoever/however they played.
b) London half-arsed it, deliberately played a ‘B’ team not really caring whether they won the game/Trophy competition or not.
c) London (the organisation, not the players) manipulated the game to purposely likely not win it, i.e. not playing to win.
It’s one of those 3 scenarios. Regardless, I really don’t like it and am really disappointed in my team.
|
|
|
|
Post by dexter on Feb 15, 2023 21:29:20 GMT
I hope FIBA thoroughly investigates that game and makes its findings public. The integrity of British basketball is at stake.
|
|
|
|
Post by reallyoldfeenixfan2 on Feb 16, 2023 14:21:16 GMT
I hadn't noticed that no timeouts called in fourth quarter, not even in the last few seconds
|
|
|
|
Post by LTfan on Feb 16, 2023 14:44:04 GMT
I hadn't noticed that no timeouts called in fourth quarter, not even in the last few seconds I'm not sure there was necessarily a need to, it was a close quarter and London actually scored more than Caledonia. But not calling a timeout in the closing few seconds to draw up a play to try and win the game... just letting the (proportionally) lesser experienced players work it out amongst themselves (unsuccessfully) on court... that's somewhat telling of how the London Lions organisation had decided to approach this game. Maybe it was just poor judgement by Coach Schmidt. Maybe he really did just want to give the lesser experienced players the opportunity to win the game themselves. Or maybe he was under orders to not play to win. |
|
jt
Sixth Man
Posts: 219
|
Post by jt on Feb 16, 2023 16:32:19 GMT
I hadn't noticed that no timeouts called in fourth quarter, not even in the last few seconds I'm not sure there was necessarily a need to, it was a close quarter and London actually scored more than Caledonia. But not calling a timeout in the closing few seconds to draw up a play to try and win the game... just letting the (proportionally) lesser experienced players work it out amongst themselves (unsuccessfully) on court... that's somewhat telling of how the London Lions organisation had decided to approach this game. Maybe it was just poor judgement by Coach Schmidt. Maybe he really did just want to give the lesser experienced players the opportunity to win the game themselves. Or maybe he was under orders to not play to win. I do feel like in both the Thunder and Gladiator games we played our least experienced/British players the vast majority of the time. It may have just been that this was 'their' tournament to get good minutes and try and progress as far as they could when they wouldn't normally get starter level minutes. That would be decent motivation for those guys, and if this is the case then I understand why you wouldn't just bring on the normal starters when it got close. |
|
|
|
Post by LTfan on Feb 16, 2023 16:46:58 GMT
I'm not sure there was necessarily a need to, it was a close quarter and London actually scored more than Caledonia. But not calling a timeout in the closing few seconds to draw up a play to try and win the game... just letting the (proportionally) lesser experienced players work it out amongst themselves (unsuccessfully) on court... that's somewhat telling of how the London Lions organisation had decided to approach this game. Maybe it was just poor judgement by Coach Schmidt. Maybe he really did just want to give the lesser experienced players the opportunity to win the game themselves. Or maybe he was under orders to not play to win. I do feel like in both the Thunder and Gladiator games we played our least experienced/British players the vast majority of the time. It may have just been that this was 'their' tournament to get good minutes and try and progress as far as they could when they wouldn't normally get starter level minutes. That would be decent motivation for those guys, and if this is the case then I understand why you wouldn't just bring on the normal starters when it got close. It's certainly possible. I'm undecided on what actually happened. I'm all for developing talent, giving everyone some minutes etc. But, in my opinion, they should do that in a regular league game - especially as they can afford to lose one or two and still win the league. But, no. They decide to do it in a Trophy QF and throw away the chance to go in the history books as a team to have achieved the clean sweep. So even if this is what actually happened, I'm still disappointed in my team! |
|
|
|
Post by stevetino on Feb 16, 2023 17:24:35 GMT
The whole way London approached it seems strange
|
|
|
|
Post by dandayr on Feb 16, 2023 18:01:05 GMT
I hadn't noticed that no timeouts called in fourth quarter, not even in the last few seconds I'm not sure there was necessarily a need to, it was a close quarter and London actually scored more than Caledonia. But not calling a timeout in the closing few seconds to draw up a play to try and win the game... just letting the (proportionally) lesser experienced players work it out amongst themselves (unsuccessfully) on court... that's somewhat telling of how the London Lions organisation had decided to approach this game. Maybe it was just poor judgement by Coach Schmidt. Maybe he really did just want to give the lesser experienced players the opportunity to win the game themselves. Or maybe he was under orders to not play to win. poor judgement? I've watched Lions games in Eurocup (and I am sure BBL also) where he would call a time out with minimal seconds left of shotclock (or period) to sort a play and ensure an offense has a better chance of a basket. I had not payed attention in the Trophy game to which coach was calling which timeout so when Lions did not call one at the end just assumed they had burned though theirs already. So it did seem out of character that he had them in his armoury and did not use for the less experienced squad when he has done it before for the experienced guys. The only reason to not call a timeout in that situation is you are 100% confident your guys know what they are going to do and if you were to call the timeout it is just going to give your opponent a chance to discuss their tactics and matchups. |
|
|
|
Post by sonjel on Feb 17, 2023 0:22:01 GMT
From that point of view Ovie is irreplaceable. But that is probably quite a small demographic in the grand scheme of things. Over in the Ovie Soko thread I said back in 2020 London needed Ovie more than Ovie needed London. By that I mean there was a time, back during his first stint, when his reality tv star fame was a huge driving force for getting people to attend games. I witnessed it first hand, in the last game with a crowd in March 2020 there was about 3,000 people there – a large proportion just to see Ovie. Now however, with each passing series of Love Island, I don’t believe he has anywhere near that driving force. London are now sometimes getting 4,000+ people at game. Sure, some are still there to see Ovie, but not a large proportion anymore. I suspect more people are there to see NBA talent like Dekker and Koufos. So, whilst Ovie’s first exit was London’s loss, this second exit is more Ovie’s loss. |
|
