Philippines Senior National Team Thread Vol. V

[DAdmiral2]

I know two different players , but I see similarities with late Boomer Yanni Wetzel who was a tennis player , grew 6 inches in senior high school. And is now probably the best Kiwi big not names Adams
If not mistaken Ping was a track athlete. There is something to be said about being a good all around athlete, but I don't think Ping could have done the things he did if he was not a good athlete.
It's the same with Wetzel. (He outplayed Zhou BTW using his quickness)
So back to question on who is the next Ping, i think a key thing is look for is a good all around athlete. I'm not referring to hops.
But motor and mobility.. with it comes strength and balance. Look at Rodman the greatest rebounder, he didn't jump as high as say Vince Carter , but I think he was a better all around athlete, BTW Dennis was also a late bloomer
BTW if Thirdy was 6'4 and didn't have skill , he could be the type of player

On a personal coaching note .. I coached a college team recently and at 1st I thought my tall 6'7 and above bigs would be my main guys , but in the end it was a 6'3 or 6'2 athlete who I could rely on most inside and on defense. It comes down to value .. what can they do on the court .. and it shows in plus minus ..my team plays better when an active, mobile guy who does not miss rotations is ther rather than a tall player who misses assignments. And isn't in the right position alot , is always late to rotate or get to a ball.

 

[mathematicianrcg2]

I know two different players , but I see similarities with late Boomer Yanni Wetzel who was a tennis player , grew 6 inches in senior high school. And is now probably the best Kiwi big not names Adams
If not mistaken Ping was a track athlete. There is something to be said about being a good all around athlete, but I don't think Ping could have done the things he did if he was not a good athlete.
It's the same with Wetzel. (He outplayed Zhou BTW using his quickness)
So back to question on who is the next Ping, i think a key thing is look for is a good all around athlete. I'm not referring to hops.
But motor and mobility.. with it comes strength and balance. Look at Rodman the greatest rebounder, he didn't jump as high as say Vince Carter , but I think he was a better all around athlete, BTW Dennis was also a late bloomer
BTW if Thirdy was 6'4 and didn't have skill , he could be the type of player

On a personal coaching note .. I coached a college team recently and at 1st I thought my tall 6'7 and above bigs would be my main guys , but in the end it was a 6'3 or 6'2 athlete who I could rely on most inside and on defense. It comes down to value .. what can they do on the court .. and it shows in plus minus ..my team plays better when an active, mobile guy who does not miss rotations is ther rather than a tall player who misses assignments. And isn't in the right position alot , is always late to rotate or get to a ball.

It just means the college team you coached doesn't have a 6'7 and above Mobile, Skilled, and Athletic players.

 

[IPC2]

I know two different players , but I see similarities with late Boomer Yanni Wetzel who was a tennis player , grew 6 inches in senior high school. And is now probably the best Kiwi big not names Adams
If not mistaken Ping was a track athlete. There is something to be said about being a good all around athlete, but I don't think Ping could have done the things he did if he was not a good athlete.
It's the same with Wetzel. (He outplayed Zhou BTW using his quickness)
So back to question on who is the next Ping, i think a key thing is look for is a good all around athlete. I'm not referring to hops.
But motor and mobility.. with it comes strength and balance. Look at Rodman the greatest rebounder, he didn't jump as high as say Vince Carter , but I think he was a better all around athlete, BTW Dennis was also a late bloomer
BTW if Thirdy was 6'4 and didn't have skill , he could be the type of player

On a personal coaching note .. I coached a college team recently and at 1st I thought my tall 6'7 and above bigs would be my main guys , but in the end it was a 6'3 or 6'2 athlete who I could rely on most inside and on defense. It comes down to value .. what can they do on the court .. and it shows in plus minus ..my team plays better when an active, mobile guy who does not miss rotations is ther rather than a tall player who misses assignments. And isn't in the right position alot , is always late to rotate or get to a ball.

Come to think of it, yeah, I think Thirdy could be that guy if he were 6'4". He already has the strength, mobility, motor, and hops. But hey, him being a defender for 1-3 isn't bad.

Call me crazy, but I think, among the current Gilas seniors, the next all-around Ping-type defense guy could be Dwight. Motor's not exactly Ping-level, but he does have the mobility and strength to probably defend 1-4 at his peak. He like Ping has a good IQ as well, and could rebound.

We also have guys like Navarro and Baltazar in the fold as versatile defenders, but their strength could use a little work, they might need it to defend fours.

 

[IPC2]

Come to think of it, yeah, I think Thirdy could be that guy if he were 6'4". He already has the strength, mobility, motor, and hops. But hey, him being a defender for 1-3 isn't bad.

Call me crazy, but I think, among the current Gilas seniors, the next all-around Ping-type defense guy could be Dwight. Motor's not exactly Ping-level, but he does have the mobility and strength to probably defend 1-4 at his peak. He like Ping has a good IQ as well, and could rebound.

We also have guys like Navarro and Baltazar in the fold as versatile defenders, but their strength could use a little work, they might need it to defend fours.

Now that I think about it, it's nice that Gilas has a roster of versatile defenders at our disposal. Thirdy, Dwight, Navarro, Baltazar, Kouame.

Back then, our local defenders were just Gabe, Ping, and back then, Kelly, and to an extent even Japeth later on, and then CJ. Too bad we never got to see these guys play together at the same time.

 

[mathematicianrcg2]

Now that I think about it, it's nice that Gilas has a roster of versatile defenders at our disposal. Thirdy, Dwight, Navarro, Baltazar, Kouame.

Back then, our local defenders were just Gabe, Ping, and back then, Kelly, and to an extent even Japeth later on, and then CJ. Too bad we never got to see these guys play together at the same time.

Funny, how we are really like this. We appreciate more, the Players when they were gone. And a glamour of wanting exactly the same, or even a better/taller version of them.

Like:

After Caidic retired - " Who is our next Allan Caidic Shooter?"

After Castro Retired - "Who is our next Best PG in Asia?"

Now it is " Who are the Next Ping and Next Norwood"

And I am certain in the future: "Who is the Next Kai, or Who is the Next AJ?"

Yes, it is a shame that we can't have them all at once. But very fortunate that every era, we have a unique player in our arsenal.

PS: I think we are slowly but surely getting better at each position. Talent Wise and Heightwise

 

[IPC2]

https://www.interbasket.net/forums/...ines-Senior-National-Team-Thread-Vol-V/page69

This player is considered a late bloomer to think that some 4 years ago, his name was nowhere in Philippine amateur basketball. This to think that 4 years ago, he was already 21 yrs old - an age when most Pinoy basketball players are usually already making a name in amateur basketball. I've read his basketball career story which of course is very inspiring considering that he learned to play the game very late & he lived in a place so remote that he wasn't even aware of the NCAA & UAAP college basketball. Imagine if this guy get to play the game much earlier & got exposed to quality training & competition early in his basketball career. I think his basketball skills & athleticism are just so natural that even with inferior basketball background he is able to excel in the game & even became an MVP in college basketball.

I reckon that you referred to Oftana, right?

 

[PaVi2]

The main weapon of Ping is not his versatility or athleticism; but his attitude, mental fortitude, and mindset.

I don't know if most guys you mentioned have the kind of mental frame work as ping had.

 

[digitalsuperman2]

I stand corrected. But looking at his younger pics it seems he lost some weight. But I still maintain if Cone didnt handle him he might not have been the player we know now. He doesnt have good post moves for a big. Doesnt have an outside shot. He is a good defender but you have to be creative in putting him in offensive sets. With Tim Cone he didnt need to be a good scorer nor did he need to play many minutes. What if Leo handled him? How was his play in Air 21 or before Cone handled him?

actually when he was with SMB and Air21 he wasn't that effective he was more like a role player. i guess Magnolia coaches knew how to use him specially tim cone. im actually surprised tim never bring him over to Ginebra as he would really be suited there. i think Ginebra would be better to have Ping than having Slaughter.

 

[digitalsuperman2]

The main weapon of Ping is not his versatility or athleticism; but his attitude, mental fortitude, and mindset.

I don't know if most guys you mentioned have the kind of mental frame work as ping had.

i disagree. more than his attitude and mental toughness, he is actually athletic not too athletic but above average in locals comparison. he is actually a good team leader.

 

[DAdmiral2]

It just means the college team you coached doesn't have a 6'7 and above Mobile, Skilled, and Athletic players.

We do I use two of them at center and other one gets minutes at 4. , then the 6'3 versatile 4 I use at 4 . For my 3 man main rotation. My 6'8 center who misses assignments and started at start of season is out of the rotation.
Most coaches would do the same

 

[DAdmiral2]

We do I use two of them at center and other one gets minutes at 4. , then the 6'3 versatile 4 I use at 4 . For my 3 man main rotation. My 6'8 center who misses assignments and started at start of season is out of the rotation.
Most coaches would do the same

further elaborate
Start of season depth chart
Center : player 1 : 6' 8 traditional center cannot defend PNR player 2. 6' 7 Center/ PF skilled big
PF : Player 3 : 6' 7 super athletic PF , Player 4 Undersize 6' 3 PF but is best defender and rebounder

End of season depth chart
Center : Player 3, backup player 2.
PF , Player 4 , back up player 3

Player 1 out of rotation ( 5 to 10 min )

 

[IPC2]

We do I use two of them at center and other one gets minutes at 4. , then the 6'3 versatile 4 I use at 4 . For my 3 man main rotation. My 6'8 center who misses assignments and started at start of season is out of the rotation.
Most coaches would do the same

further elaborate
Start of season depth chart
Center : player 1 : 6' 8 traditional center cannot defend PNR player 2. 6' 7 Center/ PF skilled big
PF : Player 3 : 6' 7 super athletic PF , Player 4 Undersize 6' 3 PF but is best defender and rebounder

End of season depth chart
Center : Player 3, backup player 2.
PF , Player 4 , back up player 3

Player 1 out of rotation ( 5 to 10 min )

You have two 6'7" PF/Cs. One is skilled, one is super athletic. And a nice one is, both can play 4. As for your 6'3" PF, his cases is sort of like Ping, right?

I feel for your 6'8" guy, though. What year is he?

 

[DAdmiral2]

You have two 6'7" PF/Cs. One is skilled, one is super athletic. And a nice one is, both can play 4. As for your 6'3" PF, his cases is sort of like Ping, right?

I feel for your 6'8" guy, though. What year is he?

Pretty much, the 6' 8 limited center is a senior.. a the end you go with what has proven to be effective.. it is not like we didn't try and experiment with a traditional line-up. BTW depth chart refers to who get's more PT, not who starts, like the Lakers can start with Deandre Jordan at center , but essentially Davis is really their primary center (he get's the most minutes at center)

 

[IPC2]

Pretty much, the 6' 8 limited center is a senior.. a the end you go with what has proven to be effective.. it is not like we didn't try and experiment with a traditional line-up. BTW depth chart refers to who get's more PT, not who starts, like the Lakers can start with Deandre Jordan at center , but essentially Davis is really their primary center (he get's the most minutes at center)

I see. Sort of why Ping and RDO got the nod over Japeth at PF, and why Gilas resorted to SGs (Jeff Chan, Larry Fonacier) and 6'2" Abueva at the 3 after Gabe. Same reason we have a lot of 3-guard lineups in the PBA (TNT, Ginebra, SMB, Magnolia, MERALCO). Simply more effective players at those spots at that point.

 

[DAdmiral2]

I see. Sort of why Ping and RDO got the nod over Japeth at PF, and why Gilas resorted to SGs (Jeff Chan, Larry Fonacier) and 6'2" Abueva at the 3 after Gabe. Same reason we have a lot of 3-guard lineups in the PBA (TNT, Ginebra, SMB, Magnolia, MERALCO). Simply more effective players at those spots at that point.

Actually yes, in FIBA Asia 2013, it was actually Marcus , Japeth and Ping that were the main rotation bigs with Junmar limited min , in the World cup 2014 the main 3 big rotation was Blatche , Junmar and Ping. with Japeth limited minutes.

 

[IPC2]

We do I use two of them at center and other one gets minutes at 4. , then the 6'3 versatile 4 I use at 4 . For my 3 man main rotation. My 6'8 center who misses assignments and started at start of season is out of the rotation.
Most coaches would do the same

further elaborate
Start of season depth chart
Center : player 1 : 6' 8 traditional center cannot defend PNR player 2. 6' 7 Center/ PF skilled big
PF : Player 3 : 6' 7 super athletic PF , Player 4 Undersize 6' 3 PF but is best defender and rebounder

End of season depth chart
Center : Player 3, backup player 2.
PF , Player 4 , back up player 3

Player 1 out of rotation ( 5 to 10 min )

You have two 6'7" PF/Cs. One is skilled, one is super athletic. And a nice one is, both can play 4. As for your 6'3" PF, his cases is sort of like Ping, right?

I feel for your 6'8" guy, though. What year is he?

Pretty much, the 6' 8 limited center is a senior.. a the end you go with what has proven to be effective.. it is not like we didn't try and experiment with a traditional line-up. BTW depth chart refers to who get's more PT, not who starts, like the Lakers can start with Deandre Jordan at center , but essentially Davis is really their primary center (he get's the most minutes at center)

Go with what works. Well, at least for Gilas now, many of our most effective forwards and bigs (Tamayo, Baltazar, Navarro) are also good height-wise for the international level. Helps that the local bigs can also play 4.

As for your big man rotation, I think that it's kinda small ball in that your 6'7" center can play PF.

 

[JAMSKIE2]

I reckon that you referred to Oftana, right?

Yes bro

 

[Rodbi2]

Now that I think about it, it's nice that Gilas has a roster of versatile defenders at our disposal. Thirdy, Dwight, Navarro, Baltazar, Kouame.

Back then, our local defenders were just Gabe, Ping, and back then, Kelly, and to an extent even Japeth later on, and then CJ. Too bad we never got to see these guys play together at the same time.

We are currently witnessing a potentially all-time great iteration of Gilas NT, not just because of its offensive prowess, but because of defensive versatility by a good number of players in its current roster. From all the Asian teams, i think they should regularly do battles with SoKor, to keep this defensive versatility in its tip-top shape.

 

[JAMSKIE2]

i disagree. more than his attitude and mental toughness, he is actually athletic not too athletic but above average in locals comparison. he is actually a good team leader.

I think what PaVi was implying is that, Pingris got the job done mainly becoz of his attitude (very high work ethic) & mindset (mental toughness). While Pingris was athletic, that wasn't really his main feature. Of course his athleticism complimented his overall capabilities. I say a Mark Pingris with the athleticism of a Gabe Norwood but with an average work ethic, physical & mental toughness, would not have been a Gilas prospect at all.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that Ping was also physically strong.

It would also be like saying that athleticism wasn't really Michael Jordan's main weapon. And rightfully so, becoz when we speak of Jordan, we're talking about a basketball legend with high level of skills, competitive spirit, mental toughness & smarts. Of course it can't be denied that Jordan's athleticism had complimented his overall basketball capabilities, but there was more in Michael Jordan than just athleticism.

 

[IPC2]

Yes bro

And now, Yeng is saying that Oftana can be trained to play all 5 positions. Now that's a great case for versatility.

If we get him back for Gilas, we'll add another versatile two-way threat.