Sopron, Hungary was the host two weeks ago of another exciting international tournament which involved during five days eight teams representing six countries. BlueStarMedia, again, was the only media on location, the first three days out of five that is, to cover the event in order to bring you the most accurate news from the international youth scene.

In his latest event review here on BlueStarMedia my colleague Paul Nilsen explained our new approach on covering such events where we will disclose much less detailed informations, particularly as far as players names go, in order to preserve BlueStarMedia’s edge over other companies dealing with the youth game and emerging talents.

In Europe at the moment Hungary is is one of the most promising and exciting Federation. They take player development very seriously and invest considerably in their youth. They just recently launched a big data collecting program, asking clubs to fill specific informations about all their players from youth categories, this four times a year, in order to evaluate better their potential and the areas in which they need to put more emphasis on. The country has a long tradition of club academies putting tremendous work in players’ fundamentals, individual skills and overall knowledge of the game. Despite not necessarily having typical elite athletes, Hungary has managed to fare well in all international youth competitions in the past years thanks to that continous and ambitious policy, and it should rather be sooner than later that the senior NT gets the eventual benefits of it all.

Sopron and its academy are embracing their Federation dynamic for sure. Even before the Federation’s survey was launched nationally, the club was already using such evaluation methods with their players. Not only do they care about individual development, but they organize as often as possible international events in order for their players to gain international competition experience as early as possible. Prior to this tournament had already taken place in January the “Sopron Invitational Tournament” another high quality U14 event. This is not even mentioning the identical effort put in other age categories (i.e U16 Champions Cup, etc.), as well as the multiple youth European Championships they host regularly. Although Sopron’s senior side’s success (#EuroLeagueWomen 2018 runner-ups, 2019 Euroleague Women Final Four-bound) doesn’t necessarily rely on crucial contributions from Hungarian players (Zsofia Fegyverneky aside), their excellent results are nevertheless no stranger to the work ethic put in their youth in the first place which sets the conditions for consistent and global ambitions.

As mentioned earlier six countries were represented at the tournament. More so than six countries, it was five important hubs from the women’s game that were playing against each other. Indeed Riga (Latvia), Prague (Czech Republic), Girona (Spain), Sopron/Budapest (Hungary), Kosice (Slovakia) and Zagreb (Croatia) are all key spots in Europe, with most of these cities holding teams in either Eurocup (Girona) or in Euroleague (TTT Riga, USK Prague, Sopron) or used to be home to Euroleague Women clubs (Good Angels Kosice, Zagreb), giving us a privileged position to observe the multiple shapes of the European youth basketball landscape.

How did the tournament go then?

The eight teams were divided in two groups of four, each team playing three group phase games. After a day of break where the players got to explore the neighbor city of Vienna, Austria, located less than an hour by train from Sopron, the weekend saw the two best teams from each group play a SF/Final/3rd place competition and the four remaining teams battle it out in classification games for 5th-8th.

As it is often the case in youth categories, even more so before U16, the amount of turnovers, between 25-30 per game on average with a peak beyond 35 for one team, more generally the difficulty to distribute the ball correctly (between 7 and 12 apg only all teams but one) and the shooting efficiency (roughly 35% FG2 overall, real concerns about FT%, not even mentioning the alarming FG3%) harmed the level of play considerably. Also as the tournament was a club competition and not a national team one, the difference of roster depth from one team to another appeared crucial, and proved too much to handle when rotations started for the teams concerned.
Besides GEIEG Uni Girona who came with an all-2006 roster, all other teams were a mix of 2005 born and 2006 born players.

There was one clear better and deeper team which displayed patient, smart and unselfish basketball based on a right balance between an inside and an outside game: CSATA DSE. There could, should, have been a second unit joining CSATA DSE in that description if my remarks were to be based on talent alone, that is the selection of players from Zagreb – Croatia, but their overall results and efforts didn’t match their potential. Due to that aspect Zagreb joins three other teams with overall similar levels though not based on same qualities. BS Ridzene Riga heavily relied on the talent and impact of one player, backed by a pair of strong forwards who took care of the job on the boards. Sopron will certainly be disapointed by their final standings but they appeared too irregular throughout the tournament and really not shooting the ball well despite some clear talents and a precise vision of how basketball should be executed. Players looked at times more concerned about running plays properly and fitting instructions, than playing naturally. The learning process, which should pay off eventually, made their flow uncertain leading to many missed shots. Kosice lacked depth and happened to be in the tougher group of the two which didn’t help their final ranking after group phase, where they lost by small margins in two games out of three. They relied heavily on two players in this tournament, one of whom, 2006-born, looks set to have a very bright future. Slovanka Praha was pretty much the same as Kosice: two impactful players and then lack of depth which made rotations felt critically. Zsiros Akademia and GEIEG Uni Girona were the weaker units, Zsiros particularly lacked both depth and talent while Girona came to the tournament with an all-2006 and all guards team which, despite their high energy, skills and unquestionable passion, proved too much to handle. They nevertheless managed to get one W in group phase against the above-mentioned Zsiros and to take Prague all the way to an overtime thriller in classification action. Hats off to their will and their determination. Such a joy to watch.

CSATA DSE (Hungary) – Champion
97,4ppg 43,4rpg 26apg 30spg 53,6%FG 21,3%FG3 66,4%FT

The Budapest side was head and shoulders above every other team as testified by their victory margin average (+57,2pts) and it was totally logical to see them being crowned champions and go unbeaten. The club has established itself as one of the main talent greenhouse over the years in Hungary, They cruised past everyone and were the only team with consistent quality on both ends of the floor. It was particularly pleasant to see them, no matter how big their lead was, continuously harrass their opponents in defense, often times full court, leading to 30 steals on average per game. To me this type of attitude is the best sign of respect you can give to your opponents. They had a deep roster with a pair of dominating and talented frontcourt players perfectly balanced by a pair of skilled and smart guards. They displayed a very patient and sophisticated style in offense which resulted in great ball movement as shown by their assist average (26apg) and high efficiency shots (54%FG). Compared to the 25-30topg from the other teams, their 16topg was the best effort of taking care of the ball seen during the tourney.
Their biggest test came in the SF against irregular fellow Hungarians, and homeside, Sopron, where they won by “just” 24pts, but led already by 25 at halftime. In the title game and match-up of unbeaten teams they literally crashed Ridzene by 64pts.

BS Ridzene Riga (Latvia) – 2nd
57,8ppg 56rpg 7,4apg 12,2spg 30topg 34%FG 21%FG3 70%FT

As mentionned before not much separated, for very different reasons, the teams ranked from #2 to #5 and the standings could have been totally different without it being problematic. Ridzene came with the most impactful indiviual player of the tournament, which could mean she is the best from that generation, but it could also mean she just has a temporary edge over her opponents but without continuous development both technically and even more so athletically this situation could not last all that long. But for the moment she is the type that makes things look easy and can score pretty much freely (between 40% and 60% of her total teams points!). Thus much depended of how she fared. Such a level of individual impact limited ball movement and assists possibilities for her teammates who existed mostly through offensive rebounds and put-backs by their two bigs. Their biggest satisfaction will be their SF OT win over Zagreb, but crashing by 64pts in the title will certainly temper that feeling and will humble them down into more and more needed work once back in Latvia.

Selekcija Zagreb (Croatia) – 3rd
64,6ppg 49,2rpg 10apg 17spg 29topg 40%FG 10%FG3 47%FT

The most disappointing team of all given the talent at their disposal.
It wasn’t a proper club team as the other units were, but a selection of players from several clubs based in Zagreb, though a bigger chunk came from the reknown side of Tresnjevka 2009. I guess lack of chemistry could be counted as a factor for their 3rd place finish but it looked more to me like a problem of focus and determination as well as an absence of desire to overcome adversity. They should have challenged CSATA DSE for the title had they played to their potential. Instead they got crashed by 50pts in that only match-up, looking particularly awful. It is not the first time that I witness Croats or Serbs losing the edge that their talent should give them by an absence of concern. It’s something I hope will be addressed by the coaching staffs at club level as well as at NT level.

Sopron (Hungary) – 4th
53ppg 40,2rpg 8,8apg 17,2spg 26topg 36,2%FG 19,5%FG3 68%FT

Sopron, alongside CSATA DSE played the most elaborate offenses but lacked consistency, proving to be too irregular from game to game and even sometimes from half to half. The talent was there, as proven by their defensive effort against CSATA who scored their fewest points of the tournament in the SF (78) against them, but in offense 36%FG and just 9apg made things difficult for them.

Kosice (Slovakia) – 5th
51,2ppg 43,2rpg 12,6apg 11,4spg 30topg 39,2%FG 17,6%FG3 60%FT

Kosice was one of the teams that could compete with their opponents as long as their starters were on the court but as soon as rotations started things turned out more complicated. Two short losses (-6 & -3) in group phase against Riga and Slovanka Praha sealed their hope of advancing to the SF. Taking care of the ball was a real issue and with just three players contributing on the scoresheet, they needed the classification phase, where they faced weaker opponents, to get their sole two wins of the tournament.

Zsiros Akademia (Hungary) – 6th
52ppg 40,4rpg 8,4apg 13,4spg 34topg 37,6%FG 60%FT

Zsiros was according to me the weakest team of the whole tournament. No real standout and no physical advantage to counter-balance that fact. They finished at a flattering 6th place given their 34topg record which stressed their difficulty to take care of the ball and get anything started offensively. In a shock loss against 2006-only and guards-only Girona they even turned the ball over an awful 51 times. Much credit to the passionate effort by the Catalans.

Slovanka Praha (Czech Republic) – 7th
58,4ppg 44rpg 9apg 16spg 26,6topg 33,4%FG 18,4%FG3 47%FT

Much like Kosice, Praha could count on two impactful players and as long as they were on the court, things were somehow controllable but rotations hurt them a great deal, just as being outrebounded by all their opponents besides the size-limited Girona who still took them to OT in the 7th-8th classification game. 47%FT overall certainly didn’t make up for these issues. Allowed Zsiros to win their only game of the tournament which is not the feat one would want to be remembered for…

GEIEG Uni Girona (Spain) – 8th
46ppg 34,4rpg 7apg 23spg 30topg 34,4%FG 15%FG3 50%FT

Girona were admirable throughout the tournament. What they lacked in size and frame they made up with restless effort, particularly in defense where they would double-team, trap every player getting the ball under the hoop. No one stood out but all players were capable of scoring and distributing the ball. Typical Spanish guards skills, with great footwotk, good handles and high tempo flow. They relied heavily on three point shots which they converted only at a rate of 15% unfortunately… The tournament will serve as great learning process for them and cherry on top of the cake they were treated with the presence at one of their games of a Girona local star who started playing for GEIEG when a kid: Queralt Casas, who plays for Sopron professionally in both the Hungarian 1st division and in Euroleague.

It was very fitting and quite a lucky circumstance that as the U14 tournament started, Sopron was hosting the first game of a best of three QF series in EuroLeagueWomen against Tango Bourges Basket. Thus all the girls present at the tournament were invited to Sopron’s Novomatic Arena to see what turned out to be the best and tighest game of all four QF’s live in the stands. Candice Dupree’s game winner at the last second was just one of the things they will remember for a lifetime. Yvonne Turner and Marine Johannes trading crazy actions after crazy actions will certainly be high on their memories as well.

Rankings
1. CSATA DSE (5-0)
2. BS Ridzene Riga (4-1)
3. Selekcija Zagreb (3-2)
4. Sopron (2-3)
5. Kosice (2-3)
6. Zsiros Akademia (1-4)
7. Slovanka Praha (2-3)
8. GEIEG Uni Girona (1-4)

Semi Finals
CSATA DSE – Sopron 72 -48
BS Ridzene Riga – Selekcija Zagreb 73 – 69 (OT)
3rd place
Selekcija Zagreb – Sopron 46 – 43
Final
CSATA DSE – BS Ridzene Riga 107 – 43


Classification
Zsiros Akademia – Slovanka Praha 72 – 71
GEIEG Uni Girona – Kosice 35 – 48
5th-6th: Zsiros Akademia – Kosice 56 – 63
7th-8th: Slovanka Praha – GEIEG Uni Girona 62 – 59 (OT)


Group A
March 5th
BS Ridzene Riga – Kosice 58 -52
Sopron – Slovanka Praha 63 – 54
March 6th
Slovanka Praha – Kosice 59 – 56
BS Ridzene Riga – Sopron 55 – 43
March 7th
Slovanka Praha – BS Ridzene Riga 46 – 60
Sopron – Kosice 68 – 37

1. BS Ridzene Riga (3-0)
2. Sopron (2-1)
3. Slovanka Praha (1-2)
4. Kosice (0-3)

Group B
March 5th
Zsiros Akademia – Selekcija Zagreb 46 – 79
CSATA DSE – GEIG Uni Girona 100 – 33
March 6th
CSATA DSE – Selekcija Zagreb 99 – 49
GEIEG Uni Gitona – Zsiros Akademia 60 – 56
March 7th
Selekcija Zagreb – GEIEG Uni Girona 80 – 42
Zsiros Akademia – CSATA DSE 30 -109

1. CSATA DSE (3-0)
2. Selekcija Zagreb (2-1)
3. GEIEG Uni Girona (1-2)
4. Zsiros Akademia (0-3)