UPDATE: The alleged tanking worked. Slovenia collapsed down the stretch in the Group D finale, allowing Lithuania to win the group and pushing Australia to third place. Read on for more on why this benefits Australia.
Why Australia probably tanked against Angola
Slovenia star Goran Dragic accused Australia of losing on purpose against Angola on Thursday. Here’s why it benefitted Australia to do so and why Dragic is so angry about it.
***
If you woke up this morning and checked the FIBA World Cup scoreboard, you likely saw a surprising result: Angola 91, Australia 83. Australia has NBA-level talent, while Angola historically struggles against tougher competition after dominating African teams.
Dig deeper, though, and there was some fishy business. Australia elected not to play two of its best players at all -- San Antonio Spurs big man Aron Baynes and top NBA prospect Joe Ignles -- and only played Matthew Dellavedova and David Anderson four minutes each.
This is odd on the surface ... until you consider the way FIBA’s tournament round works. Australia is in Group D and on Team USA’s side of the bracket, but due to a quirk in the setup, they avoid Team USA for longer if they finish in third place in Group D instead of second.
And that pisses Slovenia’s Goran Dragic off.
Basketball is a beautiful sport, there is no room for fixing the game like today Australia vs Angola!! @FIBA should do something about that!
— Goran Dragic (@Goran_Dragic) September 4, 2014 Confused? Let’s answer some questions.
Why is it better to finish third in Group D?
FIBA instituted a new format for the knockout round this year, placing teams in Group A and B on one side of the bracket and teams from Group C and D on the other. This is how the Group C and D side is laid out. From FIBA’s website:
Team USA is guaranteed to be in slot C1 and will surely beat the fourth-place team from Group D. After that, they’ll play the winner of the game between the second-place team in Group D and the third-place team in Group C for a place in the semifinals. The third-place team in Group D, meanwhile, is placed on the other side of this half-bracket. They must play the second-place team in Group C and likely faces the first-place team in Group D in the quarterfinals.
In practice, this significantly benefits the third-place team in Group D. That team faces the second-place finisher of a weak Group C -- Turkey, Ukraine, Dominican Republic or even New Zealand -- then likely faces the winner of Lithuania-Slovenia in the next game barring an upset. Win that game, and they are in a position to at least earn the bronze medal. In theory, they are trading in a tougher Round of 16 game for an easier quarterfinal. In practice, that’s not really true because there’s very little separation in Group C beyond the United States.
On the other hand, the second-place finisher in Group D has a tougher path to advancing. They technically face a weaker team in the Round of 16, but again, the difference is minimal in Group C. Then, they face Team USA one round earlier and must pull off the monumental upset to even have a chance at medaling.
Why is Australia now third?
Australia entered Thursday’s pool play finale at 3-1, with the one loss coming to Slovenia. A victory would have pushed that record to 4-1, but there’d be little shot at first place. Slovenia and Lithuania are playing later Thursday and almost each scenario would have resulted in one of those two teams finishing first and Australia stuck in the dreaded second spot:
- IF SLOVENIA WON: Slovenia finishes first at 5-0, Australia second at 4-1, Lithuania third at 3-2.
- IF LITHUANIA WON: There’d be a three-way tie between the teams, and seeding would be decided by margin of victory in all head to head games. Australia lost to Slovenia by 10 and beat Lithuania by seven, so it’s unlikely that -3 point differential would be good enough to propel them to first place or bad enough to drop them to third.
But if Australia lost to Angola, they’d have third place very much in the bag at 3-2. Only a Slovenia win would drop Lithuania to third. That’s probably why they rested Baynes and Ingles just in case.
Thus, it’s much more likely that Australia ended up on its preferred side of the bracket with a loss.
Is this unprecedented?
Of course not. Something like this happens all the time in big FIBA tournaments.
A similar controversial scenario may have occurred in the 2012 Olympics. Spain and Brazil squared off in the final game of Group B to decide who finished in second place. The winner slammed smack into Team USA’s path, while the loser went to the other side of the bracket and avoided Team USA until the final. Spain led by double digits entering the fourth quarter, but sat both Gasol brothers for a long stretch as Brazil rallied and ultimately won.
Spain ultimately topped France in a tense showdown highlighted by Nicolas Batum's nut punch and advanced to the Gold Medal game, so the loss to Brazil was fruitful. Meanwhile, Brazil fell to Argentina in the quarterfinals and didn't medal. One of the explanations for Batum's act was that he was angry Spain tanked to that side of the bracket, putting a stronger team in France's path. (Also, he felt Spain flopped a lot).
So why is Dragic so mad?
Maybe Dragic is really, really, really concerned about the integrity of FIBA games. But he has an agenda too. Dragic’s team is directly affected by Australia’s decision to bench two key players. Should Slovenia lose to Lithuania, it will finish second in Group D, exactly the spot Australia vacated. That puts Slovenia on a collision course with Team USA in the quarterfinals and significantly limits its chances to earn its first FIBA medal.
See More:
