FIBA U19 2011 World Championship -- The Field is Set

16 Teams, Three Stages
The FIBA U19 World Championship field includes 16 teams (see Preliminary Pool below). FIBA will operate this tournament in three phases to determine the champion and set the finish for each participating team. ;

The pool for the preliminary round will include four groups (A, B, C & D) of four teams each:

Group A	Group B	Group C	Group D
Brazil	Argentina	Canada	China
Poland	Australia	Croatia	Egypt
Russia	Latvia	Lithuania	Serbia
Tunisia	Taiwan	South Korea	USA

The first preliminary round will have each group play three games, round robin style, with the other teams in the group. The top three teams from each group will be reorganized into two groups (E & F) of six teams each (Groups A & B will be assigned to Group E; Groups C & D will be assigned to Group F) for a second sequence of three games against the three teams from the other original group (A teams will play B teams; C teams will play D teams). The four teams not assigned to a second round group will play a two round classification sequence to determine places #13 - #16 in the tournament. The USA schedule for the first preliminary round is below; all first preliminary round games can be found at the USA Basketball and the FIBA World Cup sites. Team USA will play all three Group D games in Liepaja, Latvia...

		Est. Time
Date	Opponent	DST
06/30/11 Thurs	Egypt	9:00am
07/01/11 Fri.	Serbia	9:00am
07/02/11 Sat.	China	11:15am

Note start times are given in Eastern Daylight Savings time, approximately -7GMT from the time scheduled in Latvia.

From the second round of group play, the top four teams from Groups E & F (eight teams total) will advance to the medal round to play a quarterfinal game against an opponent from the other group (each group will be seeded for quarterfinal play). The winners will advance to the semi-finals, the losers will play a two round classification match for places #5 - #8. The last two teams from Groups E & F will advance to a two game classification round to determine places #9 - #12. Medal round quarterfinal winners will advance to a semi-final round, the semi-final winners to play for #1 and #2 place (gold and silver), while the semi-final losing teams play for places #3 and #4 (bronze and fourth place).

Sorting Out the Field in Groups C, D & F Play
A single loss in either of the two preliminary round robin phases would not, depending on the standing of the other teams in the group, doom Team USA to a classification round game in the third phase of the tournament. Since four teams will advance out of Group F, more than likely spots #3 and #4 (F3 and F4 in the medal round quarterfinal) will be settled on points and tie-breakers. A lower seed going into the quarterfinal medal round would not be fatal, but it would mean facing three (should Team USA continue to win...) of the most competitive teams in the field in the last three games. Team USA should advance out of Group D, the game with Serbia serving as an early indication of how the team will fare against the more competitive teams they will encounter in Group E (and medal round?) games. Canada, Croatia and Lithuana should advance out of Group C. Both Crotia and Canada advanced to the medal round(s) in the 2009 U19 tournament before falling to Team USA. The Team USA-Team Lithuania exhibition game being played today (Tuesday June 28) in Vilnius, Lithuania should give a hint on how that second round, Group F, matchup should go. Though Team Canada and Team Croatia should be capable of surprises, it is the games with Teams Lithuania and Serbia that will determine whether Team USA can advance to the medal rounds with a #1 or #2 Group F seed, or finish the tournament in a classification game.

Other Teams & Matchups of Interest
Group A teams that should advance to Group E include Poland, Russia and Brazil. Given the proximity of the tournament, expect both Poland and Russia (and Lithuania), along with host Latvia to enjoy a home court advantage against teams from outside the Baltic region. Poland and Russia in particular should be worth following, but Team Brazil, which finished strongly in the U18 competition last year (and returns the nucleus of that team) maybe the surprise candidate and advance to the medal round at the expense of one of the European teams. Out of Group B, expect Argentina, Australia and host Latvia to advance. How far can the hometown crowds carry Team Latvia? Over the past few years, Team Latvia has finished FIBA zone and world tournaments somewhere in the middle of the field...they may get to the Medal Round quarterfinals (beyond typical expectations), but most likely fight for a place in the #5-#10 standings. The older age classification teams for Argentina have done better in international competition than the younger teams. Matchups with the Poles and Russians (and Brazilians) in the Group E round should be a good barometer on how far the Argentines can go. Team Australia advanced by sweeping a very small field in the Oceania Zone, their games against Argentina and Latvia should provide a preview on how far the Emus can advance beyond Group E play.

WUG 2009 -- Looking at the Efficiencies

Offensive & Defensive Differentials
John Gasaway subtracted each team's defensive efficiency (points per possession given up) from their offfensive efficiency (points per possession scored) as a measure of relative team strength. In conference play, where round robin (or nearly round robin) play is common, the measure can be extremely useful, but when applied to international tournaments the measure can be problematic. For the World University Games the men's field contained teams from 24 countries. The organizers divided the field into 8 pools of 3 - 4 teams each and used a 2 or 3 game preliminary round to (very roughly) separate the top half of the field from the bottom half. The teams from round one then "repooled", winners with winners, losers with losers, to sort out the top and bottom quarters for the "final placing" round(s). Ranking the teams by their offensive/defensive differential does follow the eventual placement (last column in the table)...sort of.

Squad	W	L	Pct.	Eff Diff	Place
United States	6	1	0.857	0.29	3
Serbia	6	1	0.857	0.25	1
Lithuania	7	1	0.875	0.24	5
Mexico	3	3	0.500	0.17	20
Israel	6	2	0.750	0.11	4
Ukraine	3	3	0.500	0.09	11
Romania	5	2	0.714	0.09	13
Canada	4	2	0.667	0.08	9
Russian Fed	6	2	0.750	0.05	2
Germany	2	5	0.286	0.05	8
Latvia	2	4	0.333	0.05	12
China	2	4	0.333	0.05	23
Brazil	4	3	0.571	0.04	18
Turkey	5	2	0.714	0.02	6
Japan	2	4	0.333	0.02	19
Bulgaria	4	3	0.571	-0.01	7
Australia	4	2	0.667	-0.02	17
Iran	2	4	0.333	-0.05	21
Italy	2	4	0.333	-0.07	15
Greece	2	4	0.333	-0.11	14
Finland	3	3	0.500	-0.14	10
Korea	1	5	0.167	-0.15	22
Portugal	1	5	0.167	-0.16	16
So Africa	0	6	0.000	-0.41	25
UA Emirates	1	5	0.167	-0.55	24

Not surprising, each team's efficiency differential correlates more closely with their winning percentage than it does their final ranking in the tournament. But that is the nature of FIBA tournaments.

If Only...
The vagaries of international tournaments can produce interesting, if not especially accurate, results. The initial pool assignment appears almost random. The second "preliminary" round pitted Serbia and the USA, projected even before the tournament began as the two strongest teams in the field, in their 4th game, even before the medal round(s). With the medal rounds the tournament becomes more like a single elimination tournament (think NIT/NCAA here), though the teams do "play out" for places 3 - 8. The USA and Serbia would have met for the 2nd time in the tournament (and the third time in less than 2 weeks) had the Americans weathered the Russian's 4th quarter push in their semi-final tilt. Like the NCAAs, their fortunes turned on a single point (and considering the USA's 4 point win over the Russians the week before, a good set of adjustments on the part of the Russians). The largely uncompetitive final medal round games (USA blowout of the Isrealis and Serbia's blowout of the Russians) confirm what the efficiency differentials suggest -- there was a separation between the teams at the top of the field (Serbia, USA, Lithuania) and those in the next group.

Notes & Observations
1. Mexico is an outlier in the placement. The Mexicans started the tournament badly, dropping 2 decisions in their 1st preliminary round. The saving grace was their blowout (113-54) of the United Arab Emarites. Placed in one of the "losers" pools for the 2nd preliminary round, the Mexicans managed 2 successive wins, including a 2nd blowout game (versus Korea, 118-87), to close out their play. Two of their 3 losses were by 5 points or less.
2. Finland also stands out as an outlier. The Finns were pooled with the USA (and Korea) for the 1st preliminary round. Hammered by the USA, Finland was able to return the favor with Korea (a team that finished, appropriately it appears, 22nd with a differential of -0.15). Repooled with the USA, Serbia and Greece for the 2nd preliminary round, they dropped a tough 8 point game to the Serbs, but recouped narrowly against the Greeks (70-66), they then scraped by in their semi-final game (classification for 9-12 place) to the Ukrainians 67-62, only to get blow out by the Canadians in their classification final, 88-63. Finland may have finished the tournament with an even record (3-3), but they found themselves on the wrong end of 2 of the 3 blow out games they played.

WUG 2009 -- USA Loses to Russia 69-68; Plays for Bronze

Running on Empty
After leading for the entire game and entering the last quarter with a 10 point lead the USA squad was outscored 20-9 by the surging Russians and dropped their semi-final game by a point.

On...	Eff	eFG	PPWS	OReb	DReb	TReb	TOR%	AST%	BLK%	STL%
Offense	91.6	38.1	0.88	36.4	63.0	99.4	18.8	36.4	7.6	2.7
Defense	92.9	34.8	0.88	37.0	63.6	100.6	16.2	33.3	9.1	10.8
Pace	74.3

The tight score is reflected in the stats -- nearly even shooting (in?)efficiency, rebounding and turnovers. Team USA did a bit better with steals, but no doubt gave that advantage back in fouls (29 to the Russian's 23) and free throw conversion (64.5% vs 82%). Individual player efficiency stats:

Player	%PT	eFG%	PPWS	Shot%	Ast%	OReb	DReb
Anderson, James	20.0	0.0	1.05	7.9	0.0	0.0	0.0
Battle, Talor	50.0	9.1	0.34	34.9	0.0	6.6	4.3
Booker, Trevor	43.8	50.0	0.77	21.8	20.8	7.5	14.9
Brackins, Craig	40.0	0.0	0.0	15.9	0.0	0.0	38.0
Butler, Da'Sean	47.5	0.0	0.44	16.7	9.6	3.5	13.7
Fisher, Corey	62.5	65.0	1.34	25.4	7.3	5.2	10.4
Hayward, Lazar	56.3	57.1	1.14	19.8	16.2	5.8	0.0
Hummel, Robbie	55.0	65.0	1.28	28.9	8.3	6.0	19.8
Pondexter, Quincy	42.5	0.0	0.92	3.7	0.0	0.0	5.1
Thompson, Deon	52.5	42.9	1.18	21.2	0.0	15.6	24.8
Turner, Evan	30.0	0.0	0.53	5.3	15.2	0.0	0.0
Varnado, Jarvis	DNP

Odd that Jarvis Varnado did not play. No information on why (injury or coach's decision). USA will play Isreal for the bronze medal today, while the Russians and the Serbs will meet to decide who takes the gold and who settles for the silver.

Additional Links
The AP wire story posted at USA Basketball.
The box score in .pdf format.
Some additional post game quotes. "...I think we executed in the first half. In the second half, we started playing their game...and they got us out of our rhythym towards the end."
Corey Fisher, Villanova

The Serb International Invitational and the World University Games

A Quick Recap
The Serbian International Invititational Tournament, a four team round robin "warmup" to the World University Games basketball tournament, concluded on June 30, just in front of the opening ceremonies for the World University Games on July 1. If the final standings (USA 2nd, 3-1) are disappointing, it may foreshadow the World University Games tournament. I am not a handicapper for international FIBA/FISU tournaments, but if the results of the last three World University Game basketball tournaments (see below) is a reliable indication, the four teams are in the better half of the field (with the Serb & USA squads early favorites).

	Finished in Place...
Team	2005	2001	1999
USA	1st	3rd	1st
Serbia	3rd	1st[1]	2nd[1]
Russia	4th	9th	6th
Canada	8th	6th	5th

[note 1 Yugoslavia squad entered in 1999 and 2001]. Oddly, the USA and Serb teams seem destined to meet in the second round. For the Preliminary Round play, the USA is assigned to Group H, along with Finland and South Korea, while Serbia is assigned to Group A, along with Australia and Greece. After the round robin Preliminary round, the top two finishers in Group A will be regrouped with the top 2 finishers in Group H to play a second, qualifying round. If "seed holds", the USA and Serbia will meet next Tuesday (7/7) in the Belgrade Arena. Though the outcome would determine only the pairing for the (medal) quarterfinal round, it means, should both team win out in other games, the two squads would meet three times in less than 3 weeks.


Ray Floriani Siting
Frequent contributor Ray Floriani teamed with Big East referee Brian O'Connell to officate Tuesday night for the Hamilton Park Summer League in Jersey City. The Hamilton Park Summer League is a high school program. Best of luck to Ray!

WUG 2009 -- USA Downs Russia 67-63 (Exhibition)

Working Out the Wrinkles
The USA squad slugged it out with the Russian squad 67-63, in the last game of the the Serbian Invitational Tournament, a warmup for the World University Games. With the win the USA squad posted a 2-1 record, 2nd to host Serbia (3-0). Serbia's University of Belgrade will host the World University Games this year, with the basketball tournament (the field consisting of 23 teams) scheduled to kickoff Thursday of this week (USA will play their 1st round game versus Finland, on Friday). The box score (and published accounts -- see bottom) indicates USA head coach Bo Ryan (Wisconsin) shuffled his starting five for the third time in three games, looking no doubt, for a combination that would start fast. He could not have been disappointed as the USA squad held a 9 point lead going into the locker room at half time. The Russians came out and evened the score by the end of the third quarter. The USA squad sealed the deal with a 17-13 4th quarter. As the possession-based stats below suggest, this was another defensive struggle.

On...	Eff.	eFG%	PPWS	OReb	DReb	TReb	TOR%	AST%	BLK%	STL%
Offense	88.9	39.0	0.91	44.7	66.7	111.4	23.9	19.0	1.8	14.6
Defense	83.6	38.6	0.94	33.3	55.3	88.6	26.5	33.3	1.8	17.2
Pace	75.4

The squad played the most down tempo game of the set, as each team garnered between 75 and 76 possessions. Coach Ryan's Wisconsin was the 2nd most deliberate team in the Big Ten in 2009. The Big Ten, home for coaches Todd Lickliter (Iowa), Bill Carmody (Northwestern of the Princeton Offense), John Beilein (Michigan) might be ranked the lowest possession conference among the BCS conferences. The tilt with Russia bore all the markers of a defensive struggle, a PPWS below 1.00, high turnover rates (TOR% -- above 20% for both teams) and efficiency ratings (Eff.) < 100.

A few possession-based stats for the squad:

Player	%PT	eFG	PPWS	Shot%	Ast%	OReb	DReb
Anderson, James	10.0	0.0	0.00	33.9	0.0	0.0	30.3
Battle, Talor	45.0	30.0	0.65	18.8	21.2	0.0	0.0
Booker, Trevor	17.5	50.0	1.00	19.4	0.0	11.7	0.0
Brackins, Craig	17.5	NA	NA	0.0	0.0	0.0	17.3
Butler, Da'Sean	47.5	66.7	1.67	10.7	10.0	0.0	6.4
Fisher, Corey	70.0	54.5	1.17	26.6	0.0	0.0	8.7
Hayward, Lazar	30.0	25.0	0.72	33.9	0.0	0.0	30.3
Hummel, Robbie	47.5	37.5	0.90	28.5	0.0	12.9	12.8
Pondexter, Quincy	42.5	0.0	0.79	8.0	0.0	4.8	7.1
Thompson, Deon	65.0	60.0	1.06	26.1	0.0	15.7	18.6
Turner, Evan	62.5	0.0	0.26	16.3	0.0	6.5	29.1
Varnado, Jarvis	45.0	50.0	1.21	15.1	10.6	22.7	6.7
Team Total	39.0		0.91

The starting lineup is (again) highlighted in green. For the third game Coach Ryan decided to start the trio of Da'Sean Butler (West Virginia), Corey Fisher (Villanova) and Deon Thompson (North Carolina), while shuffling the last two spots (a wing spot -- #2/#3 and a low post spot #4/#5). He moved Evan Turner (Ohio State) and Jarvis Varnado (Mississippi State) into the starting lineup and brought Lazar Hayward (Marquette) and Trevor Booker (Clemson) in off the bench. The newcomers snagged 14 rebounds (6 more than they did as substitutes versus Serbia) and the shuffled combination netted 4 more rebounds than game #2 versus Serbia. Though the squad continues to struggle with shooting (see eFG% & PPWS above, both are below "good" levels of 50.0 and 1.00 respectively), Coach Ryan must have been happy, as he the starters take 58% of the playing time, well above the first and second game Min% of < 49%.

Additional Links
The AP wire story posted at USA Basketball.
The box score in .pdf format.
Some additional post game quotes.
Andy Katz mentions the squad and their shooting woes in his 6/29 blog entry (scroll down below the Memphis leadin). Also cited Villanova's Corey Fisher as "the most consistent player" so far.