18:29 | 27.08.2010 | Viewed []

Theoretically this year, practically in one year

In despite of the fact that Georgian team has recorded 21 turnovers and missed 16 free throws it has celebrated a crushing 80:57 victory over the Portuguese side yesterday after the 2011 European Championship clash in a city of Fafe, Portugal. This victory increased Georgia’s chances of finishing in a second place of qualification round Group C.

We will introduce you the chances of Georgia’s qualifying below; before that we would like to introduce you some of the post-match commentaries made by head coaches of both sides.

Igor Kokoshkov (Head Coach of Georgian Team): “For us every game is unique. Today’s win is also significant. We played under a great pressure and that is why made mistakes which do not characterize our team. I would like to congratulate head coach of Portugal whose team played pretty well despite of the large list of injured players. I also would like to point out that in the last game against Belgium, Portugal looked as a better side.”

Moncho Lopez (Head Coach of Portuguese Team): “First of all, I would like to thank head coach of the Georgian national team. He is one of those persons who saw the progress of our team. I am satisfied with our boys’ performance and would like to thank them also. Taking into consideration the fact that we had major absences, the boys did great. Portuguese team indeed has a potential to grow.”

Now let us introduce you our team’s chances of going through. First we will take a look at the competition format. The competition format concludes that winners of groups A, B, and C will qualify for the tournament directly as well as the two best second placed teams among these groups. The remaining six teams (remaining second placed, 3 third placed, and top two fourth placed) will play for the last spot of the tournament against each other.

 

We should say that Georgian team needs to win their home match against Bulgaria, while Belgium should not lose against Poland in the home arena. In case Georgia will win but Belgium will lose head to head component between the three teams takes place where Georgia is in trouble. The reason why it is so is that Poland has three wins (two over Belgium and one over Georgia), Belgium has two wins (both against Georgia), while we have only one win recorded over the Polish side in Tbilisi. Therefore, in case Poland wins in Belgium – Poland will take the lead whereas Belgium will be in second, Georgia in third.

Now let us consider the chances of our team’s qualification in case of finishing in the second position in Group C. Two best second placed teams from the three present groups will qualify directly to the 2011 FIBA European Basketball Championship. The one that will have the worst result among those three second place teams will have to play in the play-off stage which will be consisted of six teams and will be held next year.

In Group A Italy is has finished all its games and has no chance of qualifying due to a worse head to head result shown in the games against its direct group opponents – Israel and Montenegro. These last two team mentioned above will play against each other in the last round of the qualifying stage and the winner will receive a direct ticket for the place in the next year’s European basketball forum. The team that will lose this match will automatically become our opponent. In case Georgia will defeat Bulgaria, ball differential will step in for decision of the one to qualify. As of now, Georgia is in a very bad position in this component since Israel and Montenegro have got +78 and +74 respectively, while Georgian team has only +20. It is clear that our team needs to overcome not an easy side – Bulgaria.

In the other Group B the situation is not better. Great Britain and Macedonia will take first and second spot in any scenario. In order for us to have a chance with this group teams a small miracle should happen: Great Britain should lose against a poor Ukrainian side Macedonia should lose in Sarajevo against not so good looking Bosnia and Herzegovina. Macedonia has +85 which means that ex-Yugoslavians are 65 points ahead of Georgia.

After reviewing all the circumstances that should happen in order for Georgia to qualify for the European championships in Lithuania, it can be said that chance is very miserable. However, finishing in the second spot has its own advantage. In case Igor Kokoshkov’s team will enroll in the next year’s battle for the final spot of the tournament, it will have relatively easy teams to play against.

 

2011 European Basketball Championship Qualifying Round. A Division

 

Group A

Italy 71 - 79 Israel

Montenegro 96 - 66 Latvia

Finland 60 - 74 Montenegro

Latvia 69 - 68 Italy

Israel 110 - 88 Latvia

Italy 82 - 73 Finland

Montenegro 71 - 62 Italy

Finland 84 - 83 Israel

Latvia 87 - 67 Finland

Israel 77 - 73 Montenegro

Israel 76 - 81 Italy

Latvia 84 - 90 Montenegro

Italy 109 - 93 Latvia

Montenegro 91 - 71 Finland

Finland 83 - 85 Italy

Latvia 56 - 92 Israel

Israel 85 - 71 Finland

Italy 72 - 71 Montenegro

 

 

1. Italy - 5/3 - 630:615 - 13

2. Montenegro - 5/2 - 566:492 - 12

3. Israel - 5/2 - 602:524 - 12

4. Latvia - 2/5 - 543:632 - 9

5. Finland  -1/6 - 509:587 - 8

 

August 29th

Finland – Latvia

Montenegro – Israel

 

 

Group B

Hungary 82 - 91 Great Britain

Ukraine 58 - 71 F.Y.R. of Macedonia

Bosnia and Herzegovina 86 - 76 Ukraine

F.Y.R. of Macedonia 78 - 44 Hungary

Great Britain 104 - 96 F.Y.R. of Macedonia

Hungary 74 - 70 Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ukraine 80 - 71 Hungary

Bosnia and Herzegovina 80 - 84 Great Britain

Great Britain 90 - 76 Ukraine

F.Y.R. of Macedonia 70 - 56 Bosnia and Herzegovina

Great Britain 66 - 64 Hungary

Macedonia 71 - 55 Ukraine

Ukraine 87 - 69 Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hungary 85 - 82 Macedonia

Bosnia and Herzegovina 73 - 64 Hungary

Macedonia 75 - 56 Great Britain

Hungary 83 - 75 Ukraine

Great Britain 94 - 85 Bosnia and Herzegovina

 

 

1. Great Britain - 6/1 - 585:558 - 13

2.Macedonia – 5/2 - 543:458 - 12

3. Hungary – 3/5 - 567:615 - 11

4. Bosnia and Herzegovina – 2/5 - 519:549 - 8

5. Ukraine – 2/5 - 507:541 - 9

 

August 29th

Ukraine – Great Britain

Bosnia and Herzegovina - Macedonia

 

Group C

Georgia 84 – 65 Poland

Portugal 59 – 67 Bulgaria

Poland 86 – 64 Portugal

Belgium 74 – 64 Georgia

Portugal 69 – 78 Belgium

Bulgaria 74 – 70 Poland

Georgia 73 – 57 Portugal

Belgium 74 – 69 Bulgaria

Bulgaria 79 – 83 Georgia

Poland  93 – 73 Belgium

Bulgaria 103 – 64 Portugal

Poland 67 – 58 Georgia

Georgia  63 – 86Belgium

Portugal 85 – 84 OT Poland

Poland 75 – 71 Bulgaria

Belgium 68 - 63 Portugal

Bulgaria 92 – 81 Belgium

Portugal 57 – 80 Georgia

 

1. Belgium – 5/2 - 534:513 12

2. Bulgaria – 4/3 - 555:506 11

3. Poland – 4/3 - 540:509 11

4. Georgia – 4/3 - 505:485 11

5. Portugal – 1/7 - 518:639 9

 

August 29th

Georgia – Bulgaria

Belgium - Poland

 

Points

1. McCalebb, B. MKD - 122 - 24.4- Average

2. Bargnani, A. ITA - 193 - 24.1

3. Deng, L. GBR - 164 - 23.4

4. Videnov, F. BUL - 144 - 20.6

5. Pekovic, N. MNE - 141 - 20.1

11. Pachulia, Z. GEO - 112 – 16.0

 

2 Pointers

1. Videnov, F. BUL - 36/48 – 75.0% - Average

2. Gortat, M. POL - 49/75 - 65.3%

3. McCalebb, B. MKD - 36/58 - 62.1%

4. Pekovic, N MNE - 43/71 - 60.6%

5. Lishchuk, S UKR - 29/49 – 59.2%

…17. Pachulia, Z. GEO - 35/70 - 50.0%

 

3 Pointers

1. Salin, S. FIN 14/22 - 63.6% - Average

2. Horvath, A. HUN- 19/32 - 59.4%

3. Kostov, C. BUL- 10/17 - 58.8%

4. Jeretin, G. ISR- 9/16 - 56.3%

5. Van Rossom, S. BEL-  /17 - 52.9%

 

Free Throws

1. Giachetti, J. ITA 17/19 - 89.5% - Average

2. Pecherov, O. UKR- 17/19 - 89.5%

3. Halperin, Y. ISR- 21/24 - 87.5%

4. Bajramovic, K. BIH- 21/24 – 87.5%

5. Rannikko, T. FIN- 27/31 - 87.1%

…14. Green, T. GEO - 24/30 - 80.0%

 

Rebounds

1. Mensah-Bonsu, P. GBR- 99 – 14.0 - Average

2. Sanikidze, V. GEO - 64 - 9.1

3. Deng, L. GBR- 60 – 8.6

4. Gortat, M. POL- 60 - 8.6

5. Lampe, M. POL- 54 - 7.7

…8. Pachulia, Z. GEO - 48 - 6.9

 

Assists

1. Cook, O. MNE 46 - 6.6 - Average

2. Koszarek, L. POL - 36 - 5.1

3. Strelnieks, J. LAT - 35 - 5.0

4. Minhava, M. POR - 24 - 4.8

5. Calloway, E. BUL - 31 - 4.4

…19. Tsintsadze, G. GEO – 17 – 0.7

 

Turnovers

1. Deng, L. GBR 29 – 4.1 - Average

2. Tsintsadze, G. GEO – 25 – 3.6

3. Mensah-Bonsu, P. GBR – 25 – 3.6

4. Evans, H. POR - 23 - 3.3

5. Lóránt, P. HUN - 26 - 3.3

6. Pachulia, Z. GEO - 22 - 3.1

 

Minutes

1. Deng, L. GBR – 274- 39.1 - Average

2. Mensah-Bonsu, P. GBR - 249 – 35.6

3. Kelati, T. POL - 239 - 34.1

4. Sanikidze, V. GEO – 233 - 33.3

5. Gortat, M. POL - 233 33.3

 

Double-Double

1. Mensah-Bonsu, P. GBR – 5

2. Gortat, M. POL – 3

3. Sanikidze, V. GEO – 2

4. Deng, L. GBR – 2

5. Lóránt, P. HUN – 2

…13. Tskitishvili, N. GEO – 1

14. Pachulia, Z. GEO - 1

0.181024