PDA

View Full Version : The Team White America Loved to Hate



KoriEllis
08-31-2004, 05:49 AM
The Team White America Loved to Hate
USA Basketball in Black and White!
By DAVE ZIRIN

www.counterpunch.org/zirin08302004.html (http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin08302004.html)

How many times do we hear fans try to assign wild-eyed political symbolism to sports teams? My friend Zeke is convinced that "If the Yankees win that's good for Bush!" I've also heard, "The Detroit Pistons beating the LA Lakers will give confidence to blue collar workers around the country." Or my favorite irrational analysis, "I bet they fixed the Super Bowl so the 'Patriots' would win--you know....because of the war."

But the Olympics are a different beast. The US as the world's lone superpower lord over the Olympics like Alexander the Great. Our defeats are celebrated as dents in the armor. Rooting against the US outside this country becomes as natural as cheering for Rocky Balboa.

But a new layer of people inside the Unites States rooted against one US team in particular this Olympics, and for all the wrong reasons. The bronze medal winning US basketball squad became the team fans in the United States loved to hate. According to a national poll, 54% of fans said they wanted to see the team of NBA superstars lose--with another 20% reporting that they "kind of" wanted to see them taken down.

Some of this animosity is more racist than a Bob Jones University course syllabus.

As sports writer Jason Whitlock wrote, it is as if White America got a memo that read, "[You] do not have to support a group of black American millionaires in any endeavor. Despite the hypocritical, rabid patriotism displayed immediately after 9/11, it's perfectly suitable for Americans to despise Team USA Basketball, Allen Iverson and all the other tattooed NBA players representing our country. Yes, these athletes are no more spoiled, whiny and rich than the golfers who fearlessly represent us in the Ryder Cup, but at least Tiger Woods has the good sense not to wear cornrows."

The confederate confines of talk radio have been the breeding ground for this anger. On one show, a caller who identified himself as a former member of the American military, said he hates Team USA because they don't "represent the America he fell in love with." When asked to describe this America he fell in love with, he said, "It was a country you could walk the streets without worrying about being mugged.

Another ESPN morning radio host--in an over-caffeinated frenzy--even called the players, "uppity"--this being the classic slur for Black people who "don't know their place."

Normally the code is subtler: this team is "too hip hop". They "don't care" or they have "too much attitude and swagger" are more popularly used. But "uppity" is about as subtle as a Bush campaign ad.

The racial slings and arrows are easier for the sporting public than the uncomfortable truth. The straight dope is that the US no longer owns a patent on the game of basketball. Unlike 1992 when the first Dream Team of Magic, Larry and Jordan posed for pictures and signed autographs for opponents and then won by 40, the teams of Argentina, Italy, Spain, Lithuania, and even Puerto Rico, now play an equal or superior brand of basketball. They weave around the court like it's the beautiful game of soccer, with back door cuts, infectious flair, and libertine emotion. It's no coincidence Argentina won the gold in both basketball and soccer. They play both sports with a joy and teamwork that is a wonder to behold.

But instead of analyzing why Argentina won, we get the gutter analysis of why the US lost. Forgotten is that the US players are playing against international teams that have been together for a dozen years. Forgotten is the fact that these so called "lazy" players, agreed to come while the top NBA stars refused to play. Forgotten is that the NBA is now an international league with players from Puerto Rico's Carlos Arroyo to Argentina's Manu Ginobli, to China's Yao Ming. Most importantly, forgotten is that International Basketball bears about as much resemblance to the NBA as Tai Chi does to Judo.

International ball is a game of constant passing, three point bombing, sharp shooting goliaths, packed in Zone defenses and a paint that is shaped like a geometrists nightmare--some sort of trapezoidal rhombus.

As former NBA coach Dr. Jack Ramsey wrote, "It may be just about impossible to teach the international game to a group of NBA players in the span of a couple weeks. Coach Brown, and assistants Gregg Popovich and Roy Williams, are among the top coaches in the game today. [and] they haven't gotten the job done."

The US lost because USA Basketball--not the players--were arrogant enough to think they could roll the balls on the court and other teams would genuflect in front of the NBA's marketing might.

Count me as someone who is glad the US lost--it's always good to see William "Braveheart" Wallace stick it to Longshanks--but the racist scapegoating reveals all that is bankrupt about the so called Olympic spirit. Face the facts: Argentina is on top of the basketball world because they can pass, shoot, and run, better than anyone in the world. They have taken down the master's house with the master's tools.

KoriEllis
08-31-2004, 05:54 AM
Black and white untruth
Scott Kaplan / Special to FOXSports.com

msn.foxsports.com/story/2851610 (http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2851610)


White Man's Disease.

What is it? In modern English, White Man's Disease is accepted as a slang term indicating that Caucasians are not as athletic as African Americans. To be more specific, whites are unable to dunk a basketball.

It is socially acceptable to use the phrase White Man's Disease. Certainly no one is offended by it. Just as no one was offended by the title of the movie White Men Can't Jump.

We laugh at it. We acknowledge it. We use it. We agree with it. White men can't jump as high, or dunk as well. And, if a white man does have skills that are more comparable with one of his black peers, white America celebrates it.

When Brent Barry won the slam-dunk contest in 1996, white America loved it. Finally, one guy disproved the theory that white men can't jump, for an entire race.

Read a scouting report on a white player versus a black player. The white guy is always fundamentally sound. The black player is always athletic. The white player is smart. The black player can jump through the gym.

White guys are always characterized by less athleticism and more smarts. Often times, the black guys are characterized by the opposite. Neither side likes the stereotype.

When Larry Bird said the NBA is a black man's game, white people and black people agreed. Neither side was offended; statistically Larry was stating a fact. What shocked people, was how Bird talked about being surprised when a white player tried to defend him, because white guys just weren't up to the challenge.

What Larry Bird failed to recognize, was that while the NBA game is dominated by the more athletic black player, the international game is not.

Never was it more obvious than watching the medal ceremony at the Olympics. While the U.S. squad, comprised entirely of African-American players, was being awarded the bronze medal, the silver medallist Italians, and gold-medal winning Argentines had no black players.

What does this tell us? It tells us that USA Basketball didn't think there was one white American player worthy of being on this team. There was no Larry Bird, no Chris Mullin, no John Stockton, no Christian Laettner. Not one white guy worthy of playing on this Olympic team.

Now, take black and white out of the entire equation, because race is really not the issue. The issue is the perception problem we Americans have with basketball.

We have convinced a generation of kids, black and white, that white players are unable to compete with the more athletically gifted black players. The Olympics should dispel the brainwashing that we are all guilty of.

I'm hardly suggesting that a couple of white players would have been the difference between gold and bronze, what I am saying is that the racial part of basketball is not accepted outside of the U.S., and therefore the rest of the world plays a different brand of basketball.

The NBA game is all about individual stars. The guys who shoot the most, score the most, dunk the most, these are the guys the league promotes. These are the guys who get the shoe deals. These are the guys the kids aspire to be.

The NBA celebrates individualism in the name of money, certainly not in the name of winning.

Allen Iverson seemed most disturbed by the bronze medal, I suppose he thinks he will shoulder the bulk of the blame for this year's failure. Face it, Iverson is the poster boy for what white America thinks is the "problem" with NBA players. He is perceived as being a selfish player, the tattoos would have people believe he is all street, and his run ins with the law scream gangster to a generation of kids that look up to him.

But this is hardly Iverson's fault.

Iverson is just one small part of the overall problem.

The bigger problem is, that we as Americans have lost the game of basketball to our desire for highlights. We love a 360 dunk, a behind-the-back pass, a crossover dribble. We love to see running and gunning, we want high flying rather than good fundamentals.

The NBA, the media, the fans, the players ... we are all to blame for this culture that we created.

I go back to the NBA Finals, when it was proven that a better team beats bigger stars.

So why would USA Basketball be so arrogant to think it could use pure individual stars, guys who dunk and shoot all day, put them together with Tim Duncan, the most fundamental and understated star of the league, and think it's enough?

Because we have yet to understand that pure athleticism and/or star power will never overcome teamwork and desire.

It is time for USA Basketball, clearly a group unable to put together a team, a group only able to compile NBA stars, to be gutted and rebuilt by scouts looking for team players capable of representing the U.S. in international competition.

We now know the game is different. The rest of the world does not play by the rules of the NBA. USA basketball must accept this and resolve the problem. Ultimately the best players are still in the U.S., but an All Star team of NBA players is no longer a guarantee.

Kevin Kaster
08-31-2004, 06:58 AM
Ultimately the best players are still in the U.S., but an All Star team of NBA players is no longer a guarantee.

Yeah, not having Shaq, Tmac, Kobe or KG wasn't the reason Team USA lost.....What an idiot. :rolleyes

Heck, just adding KG would have gotten the US a gold medal. The rest of the world needs to face it; the USA barely lost out on gold because 4 of the top 5 players in the NBA did not play in the Olympics. And it's because NBA players (rightfully) believe that the Olympics aren't worth the risk of injury or long-term damage to their NBA careers. That, and the fact that FIBA rules and the lane are just so ridiculously useless and should be changed. Basketball is an American sport after all.

Kevin Kaster
08-31-2004, 07:01 AM
And this white versus black argument is so hackneyed. No one except racially sensitive people (admittedly, that includes quite a bit of Americans) really care what color an NBA player's skin is. We're talking about skills here, and unless you're a homer or a journalist trying to please your boss, it's quite clear that the USA's best basketball players would win gold.

adonis50
08-31-2004, 07:52 AM
If TD was in foul trouble all the time, imagine how many seconds Shaq would have played:rollin

smeagol
08-31-2004, 12:00 PM
Yeah, not having Shaq, Tmac, Kobe or KG wasn't the reason Team USA lost.....What an idiot.

Kaster, in the 2000 Olympics, Team US had all their stars and still had a tough time beating Lithuania in the semi-final.


Heck, just adding KG would have gotten the US a gold medal.

I disagree. Team USA needed somebody who could shoot threes, not another big man.


the USA barely lost out on gold because 4 of the top 5 players in the NBA did not play in the Olympics.

Barely lost? Did you watch any of the games?

Team USA lost three games. They were shut out by PR and had a tough time beating teams such as Australia and Greece, teams that were not true medal contenders.

And they lost to Argentina in the semi-finals, with Argentina playing a similar style game as the US plays (a very physical game, taking the ball to the hoop and feeding the big guys in the paint, with limited outside shooting).


That, and the fact that FIBA rules and the lane are just so ridiculously useless and should be changed.

This argument is getting older and lamer by the minute. If US players do not like the FIBA rules, then the US should not present a team to the FIBA competitions (the World Cup and the Olympics).

If the US still wants to play the game in the international arenas, then the NBA and FIBA should get together and harmonize their rules.


Basketball is an American sport after all

The game was invented by a Canadian (granted he was in US soil when he did it).

E20
08-31-2004, 01:01 PM
A lot of people over the internet REALLY hated this team just because of there color.

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-31-2004, 01:30 PM
I don't think it was a race thing, and anyone who claims that isn't seeing the big picture.

People didn't like this team because approximately half this country, the liberal left in particular, hate America right now.

Patriotism or anything resembling it is the in thing to bash, and our "rich athletes" were an extension of it.

Think back to before the games started, all our athletes were getting lectured on how to be classy, how to not show any flash, etc. Who was at the top of the list? Basketball.

And to top it all off we had several athletes pass, and the critics said they were spoiled, contributing to a view of a bunch of basketball prima donnas.

But the big thing is half this country hates anything American, particularly the media, and that sentiment was amplified by the press and the left in this country who hate everything our country has come to stand for.

ShineOnYouCrazyManu
08-31-2004, 01:38 PM
And I would like to add that basketball fundamentals have nothing to do with race. It's not that white guys can hit a jumper and blacks don't because they rather look for a flashy 360 dunk.
The problem comes from high school coaches (like Steve Kerr said) and players hurried to make big money ASAP in the NBA.

Columbiamocowboy
08-31-2004, 02:19 PM
Jeez, depressing topic here, y'all. First off, I've lived in MO for over 15 years and believe me...Whitlock's a class A moron. Now, let's pick on a few comments from the crowd--


Article-- a piece of trash. Count me among those who totally dislike a LOT of what we saw from most of the players associated with this team, particularly Iverson. And race has nothing to do with it...I think Jeremy Shockey's every bit the idiot these guys are, and I think what I WANT to see in athletes on and off the field are best represented by Barry Sanders and Tim Duncan and David Robinson, and by George they ain't any of them white.

Me- that said, hats off to Iverson and all the players who at least bothered to show up and play, and may Shaq and Kobe and the rest of the lazy bums never be allowed to forget it.

Kevin K-- "Yeah, not having Shaq, Tmac, Kobe or KG wasn't the reason Team USA lost.....What an idiot." Right.

"Heck, just adding KG would have gotten the US a gold medal."

Wrong. IF we needed a big guy in the middle, Shaq would have been a better pick, but that's not what was needed. Kobe or McGrady would have been better help, we needed outside shooting.

Smeagol-- "If US players do not like the FIBA rules, then the US should not present a team to the FIBA competitions (the World Cup and the Olympics)...If the US still wants to play the game in the international arenas, then the NBA and FIBA should get together and harmonize their rules."

Agree more with the first than the second. The differences in the game aren't so major that our players cannot adjust for a couple of weeks and play the darn games. This is a silly excuse.

E20- "A lot of people over the internet REALLY hated this team just because of there color."

Hogwash. I'd challenge you to find five people anywhere in this country who hated the team just because of color.

It's ATTITUDE, not color.


Aggie- " People didn't like this team because approximately half this country, the liberal left in particular, hate America right now...half this country hates anything American, particularly the media, and that sentiment was amplified by the press and the left in this country who hate everything our country has come to stand for. "

Absolutely idiotic and a complete lie. I'm not a liberal, I'm pretty darn middle, but I'm sick to death of this tommyrot. No, liberals do not hate America, and no, the media isn't liberal. I know Rush told you so, but he lies an awful lot.

E20
08-31-2004, 02:26 PM
Yahoo message boards. Anything about USA basketball or Kobe Byrant case you'll get a lot of racist comments about Blacks and Yahoo has ALOT of people on there message boards and 70% of them are all racist.

SickDSM
08-31-2004, 07:07 PM
Yahoo is mostly underage kids.


I don't believe in the difference between FIBA and NBA is the case. Anyone who's competed in sports only needs a little time to adjust to other, similar events. I wrestled in HS and within a week's practice the whole team figured out how to freestyle wrestle. You don't think that the freestlle wrestlers could do Greco Roman? Derek Jeter could kick ass at softball? Lame excuse.

Kevin Kaster
08-31-2004, 11:58 PM
Kaster, in the 2000 Olympics, Team US had all their stars and still had a tough time beating Lithuania in the semi-final.


Are you joking? Tmac and KG weren't nearly the players in 2000 that they are now. Plus, Kobe and Shaq still did NOT play, and yet Team USA still won gold. You actually proved my point better than I originally did.


I disagree. Team USA needed somebody who could shoot threes, not another big man.

Actually no, Team USA's problem was Duncan being in foul trouble too much. Having KG start or come off the bench immediately solves that problem. Additionally, KG is a superb outside shooter, and would have done major damage. Odom isn't nearly the outside shooter KG is.


Barely lost? Did you watch any of the games?

Team USA lost three games. They were shut out by PR and had a tough time beating teams such as Australia and Greece, teams that were not true medal contenders.

And they lost to Argentina in the semi-finals, with Argentina playing a similar style game as the US plays (a very physical game, taking the ball to the hoop and feeding the big guys in the paint, with limited outside shooting).

Yes, barely lost. Their 3-2 record is irrelevant, they still qualified. Then they beat Spain, and could have easily beaten Argentina with just KG. I don't see what's so hard to believe about that, KG brings much needed outside shooting and interior defense to take Duncan foul trouble out of the equation.


This argument is getting older and lamer by the minute. If US players do not like the FIBA rules, then the US should not present a team to the FIBA competitions (the World Cup and the Olympics).

What? The US should drop out of competition, is that what you're saying?


If the US still wants to play the game in the international arenas, then the NBA and FIBA should get together and harmonize their rules.

I don't see what's lame about it, especially since you didn't actually refute any of my points. Why have a trapezoid lane? Why institute a college-like zone? Why change the rules of basketball when it originated in the US and when the NBA is the preeminent basketball league in the world? Come on now, this is simple stuff.


The game was invented by a Canadian (granted he was in US soil when he did it).

I assume you realize you didn’t actually refute what I said?
Asdf asdf

Kevin Kaster
09-01-2004, 12:00 AM
Columbiamocowboy,


Wrong. IF we needed a big guy in the middle, Shaq would have been a better pick, but that's not what was needed. Kobe or McGrady would have been better help, we needed outside shooting.

Since when is KG not an outside shooter, a great one at that? :rolleyes

E20
09-01-2004, 12:17 AM
Good outside shooter, never a great 3PT shooter. He's no Galanda or Nowtizki

smeagol
09-01-2004, 02:05 AM
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaster, in the 2000 Olympics, Team US had all their stars and still had a tough time beating Lithuania in the semi-final.
------------------------------------------------------------
Are you joking? Tmac and KG weren't nearly the players in 2000 that they are now. Plus, Kobe and Shaq still did NOT play, and yet Team USA still won gold. You actually proved my point better than I originally did.

KK, so the 2000 US Team was a bunch of scrubs?

- Kidd
- Allen
- Mourning
- Carter
- Payton
- Houston

(by the way, T-Mac was not part of the 2000 squad)

All I'm saying is that its clear to almost everybody that basketball-wise, the world has caught up with the US, and that change in the way the US Team is chosen is urgently needed, but you disregard the facts and arrogantly proclaim. "All they needed was to add KG and they would have won the gold".

Let me illustrate my point further (about the world catching up):

In 1992, the US outscored their opposition by 44 points, in 1996 by 32 pts, in 2000 by 21.5 pts, in 2004 by 5 pts (do you see the pattern?).

20 years ago, a US Team made up of any 12 NBA players chosen randomly would've kicked Argentina, Lithuania, Spain, S&M or any other NT's ass. Hell, college kids won the gold medal for 50 years (with the exception of 1972 (they got robbed by the officials) and 1988) [Kori, why can't i write nineteen eighty eight without having that face with glasses appear].

Put college kids today against Argentina, Spain or Lithuania and they would probably loose 9 out of 10 times. Put anything less than a well balanced team of your best NBA players (and not a marketing-oriented team) against any of those teams and you loose.

If my explanation is not enough, go and read all of your fellow LakerFan posts, Adidas11. He definitely gets it and is much more articulate than myself (I apologize, English is my second language).


Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
I disagree. Team USA needed somebody who could shoot threes, not another big man.
------------------------------------------------------------
Actually no, Team USA's problem was Duncan being in foul trouble too much
That was a minor problem compared with lack of effective perimeter defense and lack of outside shooters. 90% of the articles I read confirm this. The US shot 13% from the three point line against PR, 19% against Greece, 18% against Australia and in the game that mattered, against Argentina, they shot 27%. Very difficult for any team to win with those kind of percentages from the 3-point line.


Having KG start or come off the bench immediately solves that problem
So KG singlehandedly would have made the difference in the game against PR, where the US lost by 19? Give me a fucking brake.


Yes, barely lost. Their 3-2 record is irrelevant, they still qualified

For a team that was supposed to sweep the championship, loosing to PR by 19, to me, seems anything but irrelevant.

You probably think that the loss against Italy in the first friendly game and the game against Germany (a third tier team which almost beat the US if it were not for AI's incredible mid field three pointer) were also irrelevant.

Barely lost? They were completely dominated by Argentina. Their only lead in that game was in the middle of the first quarter. It was all down hill after that all the way to their lowest point when they found themselves down by 16 in the middle of the third quarter. If it weren't for Marbury . . .

Barely lost? Please review that game one more time.


KG brings much needed outside shooting

How many 3-pts did KG attempt/make last year?

I'll help you with this one. He attempted 1 shot every 2 games, and made 25% of his shots (1 in every 8 games he played).

I know you are going to come back with the difference in distance in three point lines in the NBA and in FIBA. The point is moot because KG's sweet spot for shooting midrange shots is much closer to the hoop than the FIBA three-point line.


Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------This argument is getting older and lamer by the minute. If US players do not like the FIBA rules, then the US should not present a team to the FIBA competitions (the World Cup and the Olympics).
------------------------------------------------------------
What? The US should drop out of competition, is that what you're saying?


No. What should happen is one of the following: a)The US players should adapt to the FIBA rules and stop bitching about them (funny how nobody bitched about the FIBA rules in '92, '96 and '00), or b) Harmonize the FIBA rules and the NBA rules. The worst case scenario would be that NBA players become so frustrated with FIBA rules (TD appears to be one), that they decide not to participate in international basketball any more.


I don't see what's lame about it, especially since you didn't actually refute any of my points. Why have a trapezoid lane? Why institute a college-like zone? Why change the rules of basketball when it originated in the US and when the NBA is the preeminent basketball league in the world? Come on now, this is simple stuff.

Its a lame excuse because all of a sudden, now that TEAM USA is no longer invincible when playing international basketball, its the rules that suck (no credit to the opponents, no acknowledgment that Team USA needs to go through a period of change and that putting a team together a month before the Olympics just doesn't cut it anymore)

As I posted above, I did not hear much complaining about the rules in 1992, 1996 and 2000.

FIBA did not "change" the rules of basketball. FIBA was created in 1932, the NCAA in 1939 and the NBA in 1949. Therefore, FIBA's rules were created first. The NBA chose not to be part of FIBA, follows its own rules and changes them whenever they want.

I'm not saying FIBA rules are better than NBA rules, I'm simply stating the facts.


Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------
The game was invented by a Canadian (granted he was in US soil when he did it).
------------------------------------------------------------
I assume you realize you didn’t actually refute what I said?

You said basketball is an "American" game. If by "American" you mean America, the continent, then you are right. If you mean the United States of America, both sides can make an argument. Canada can say it is a Canadian game, give that Dr James Naismith was in fact Canadian. But you, KK, can argue it was invented in US soil in 1891 and it was developed rapidly in the US (although it other countries it was played as early as 1904, only 13 years after its "invention").

In any case, if basketball would have been invented by an American who happened to be in Canada at the time, you would probably still claim that it was an American game.

Sorry for the long post.

Good night.

Kevin Kaster
09-01-2004, 07:24 AM
KK, so the 2000 US Team was a bunch of scrubs?

- Kidd
- Allen
- Mourning
- Carter
- Payton
- Houston

(by the way, T-Mac was not part of the 2000 squad)

All I'm saying is that its clear to almost everybody that basketball-wise, the world has caught up with the US, and that change in the way the US Team is chosen is urgently needed, but you disregard the facts and arrogantly proclaim. "All they needed was to add KG and they would have won the gold".


Yes, that squad was not the best squad the US could have had at the time. Just like this year, when 4 of the top 5 players in the NBA did not play for Team USA.

There is nothing arrogant about saying that the MVP of the NBA would have changed the outcome of the Olympics. I can't believe you actually think that's arrogant. It's painfully obvious KG would have been a huge difference. How is that even debateable really?


Let me illustrate my point further (about the world catching up):

In 1992, the US outscored their opposition by 44 points, in 1996 by 32 pts, in 2000 by 21.5 pts, in 2004 by 5 pts (do you see the pattern?).

In 1992 Olympic basketball meant something to NBA players. Since then:

1)&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp It has meant less and less, leading to generally disinterested play.
2)&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp The NBA players being sent to the Olympics aren’t the best NBA players in the league at the time.
3)&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp The World has gotten better since then, but are hardly equals.


20 years ago, a US Team made up of any 12 NBA players chosen randomly would've kicked Argentina, Lithuania, Spain, S&M or any other NT's ass.

Give me a break. You could easily pick 12 sorry ass 80’s NBA players who would get their butts kicked by an international squad during that time. I’m not refuting that international basketball has gotten better since the 80’s, it has. I’m refuting your claim that it has caught up to NBA ball.


Hell, college kids won the gold medal for 50 years (with the exception of 1972 (they got robbed by the officials) and 1988.

Explained in paragraph above.


Put college kids today against Argentina, Spain or Lithuania and they would probably loose 9 out of 10 times.

The best U.S. college basketball team In 92 would have been easily beaten by the best international squad in 92 (I forget which international squad was the best in 92).


Put anything less than a well balanced team of your best NBA players (and not a marketing-oriented team) against any of those teams and you loose.

Utter BS. Put the 5 best NBA players in your starting lineup with a balanced bench and Spain, Lithuania and Argentina wouldn’t stand a chance in hell. That’s Kobe-Tmac-KG-Duncan-Shaq or Marbury-Kobe-KG-Duncan-Shaq if you want a true PG.


That was a minor problem compared with lack of effective perimeter defense and lack of outside shooters. 90% of the articles I read confirm this. The US shot 13% from the three point line against PR, 19% against Greece, 18% against Australia and in the game that mattered, against Argentina, they shot 27%. Very difficult for any team to win with those kind of percentages from the 3-point line.

Outside shooting was the bigger problem. Team USA was taking 3-pointers because they didn’t have outside shooters. Had KG attended he would nailed outside shot after outside shot quite consistently. And heck, if he really wanted to, KG could hit 3-pointers, he’s a career 30% 3-point shooter.


So KG singlehandedly would have made the difference in the game against PR, where the US lost by 19? Give me a fucking brake.

Who cares about any game that occurred before Spain, you’re completely missing the point (and yes, since Duncan was in major foul trouble and no one could hit a shot, I definitely think a great outside shooter like KG who can defender the interior would have made a huge impact on the PR game). With KG they would have beat Argentina and would have went on to win the gold. But since KG cares more about his NBA career than the Olympics, he did not attend. It’s as simple as that.


For a team that was supposed to sweep the championship.

They weren’t “supposed” to sweep anything, unless you blindly follow the media. Anyone with half a brain could tell Team USA was going to really be hurt by the fact that most of the top 10 players in the NBA did not want to (or couldn’t) attend the Olympics .


You probably think that the loss against Italy in the first friendly game and the game against Germany (a third tier team which almost beat the US if it were not for AI's incredible mid field three pointer) were also irrelevant.

Not irrelevant, predictable. Get it through your skull, Team USA did not have the vast majority of their best players.


Barely lost? They were completely dominated by Argentina. Their only lead in that game was in the middle of the first quarter. It was all down hill after that all the way to their lowest point when they found themselves down by 16 in the middle of the third quarter. If it weren't for Marbury . . .

Barely lost? Please review that game one more time.

Get a clue. Team USA was within 6 or 7 points in the middle of the 4th quarter of the Argentina game. The reigning MVP of the NBA would have easily been able to make the difference in that game. Add in Shaq, Kobe and Tmac…. LOL, it would have been a massacre of 1992ish proportions.


How many 3-pts did KG attempt/make last year?

I'll help you with this one. He attempted 1 shot every 2 games, and made 25% of his shots (1 in every 8 games he played).

I know you are going to come back with the difference in distance in three point lines in the NBA and in FIBA. The point is moot because KG's sweet spot for shooting midrange shots is much closer to the hoop than the FIBA three-point line.

www.82games.com/03MIN12A.HTM (http://www.82games.com/03MIN12A.HTM)

KG’s strength is long range/mid-range outside shots. Next time please do the research and at least attempt to be impartial when making an argument. No one can guard a fading away KG jump shot, and he can hit it with great regularity from anywhere on the floor.


No. What should happen is one of the following: a)The US players should adapt to the FIBA rules and stop bitching about them (funny how nobody bitched about the FIBA rules in '92, '96 and '00),

A pointless suggestion, whether you know it or not. The US has no choice, and has no way of “adapting” to FIBA rules. They play by NBA rules 95% of their lives. A simply ludicrous expectation.

And no one complained about it in 92, 96 or 2000 because the US was winning, no one bothered to mentioned how stupid FIBA zoning, 2 refs, or the trapezoid lane was.


or b) Harmonize the FIBA rules and the NBA rules. The worst case scenario would be that NBA players become so frustrated with FIBA rules (TD appears to be one), that they decide not to participate in international basketball any more.

Huh? Do you have any idea what kind of training that would require for officials? You don’t make up new rules for Olympic basketball, that opens up refs and their calls to all sorts of scrutiny. It seems like a good idea on the surface (making it so that no team in the world is playing by rules they’re accustomed to), but it doesn’t work in practicality. Maybe someday it will happen, point is that it hasn’t, and that it was clearly detrimental to Team USA’s basketball hopes this summer.


Its a lame excuse because all of a sudden, now that TEAM USA is no longer invincible when playing international basketball, its the rules that suck (no credit to the opponents, no acknowledgment that Team USA needs to go through a period of change and that putting a team together a month before the Olympics just doesn't cut it anymore)

The rules have always sucked, you’re just making crap up as you go along. As I mentioned before, no one from the US cared before because it would be almost like being a sore winner if they were to complain about FIBA rules after a 40 point blowout.

And the NBA has no choice, the season lasts from November to early June, they’re can’t put together an Olympic team more than a month or two in advance.


FIBA did not "change" the rules of basketball. FIBA was created in 1932, the NCAA in 1939 and the NBA in 1949. Therefore, FIBA's rules were created first. The NBA chose not to be part of FIBA, follows its own rules and changes them whenever they want.

I'm not saying FIBA rules are better than NBA rules, I'm simply stating the facts.

www.nba.com/history/thegame_index.html (http://www.nba.com/history/thegame_index.html)

This is really, really simple stuff.


You said basketball is an "American" game. If by "American" you mean America, the continent, then you are right. If you mean the United States of America, both sides can make an argument. Canada can say it is a Canadian game, give that Dr James Naismith was in fact Canadian. But you, KK, can argue it was invented in US soil in 1891 and it was developed rapidly in the US (although it other countries it was played as early as 1904, only 13 years after its "invention").

In any case, if basketball would have been invented by an American who happened to be in Canada at the time, you would probably still claim that it was an American game.

Sorry for the long post.

Good night.

Don’t claim to know what I would or wouldn’t say. If basketball grew rapidly in Canada instead of how it did in the US at around the turn of the 20th century, I would say exactly the opposite, that it’s a Canadian game.

Anyway, you still have yet to actually answer any of my pertinent questions, and for good reason; you know you can’t answer them without admitting that USA basketball is clearly superior. Here are my questions (if you decide not to answer them, we might as well drop this subject and you should really just admit defeat):

1) 4 of the top 5 players in the NBA did not attend the Olympics this year. In addition, other marquee players like Jermaine ONeal, Jason Kidd, and Mike Bibby, among others I can’t remember at the moment, did not attend.

2) International teams had been playing together for far far longer than Team USA had been playing for. They actually cared and were able to develop chemistry for far longer periods of time.

3) The Olympics operate on FIBA rules, which includes a different zone defensive scheme, trapezoid lane, and only two refs. Team USA is the only team in Olympic basketball that doesn’t play by FIBA rules (as far as I know).

Now, that doesn’t mean international basketball hasn’t gotten better over the years. It has gotten better. But it’s hardly on the same level.

romsho
09-01-2004, 03:31 PM
This is not a hate America or racial issue. It is however, a backlash against a crappy style of basketball. How many years have we all been hearing it's "just great defense" to explain the lack of scoring in the NBA? For all of those who have longed for the days of great team basketball, Laker and Celtic 80's style, this was the tipping point. Maybe it will finally send a message. We can't just roll the ball out there and out-athlete the rest of the world anymore. The typical NBA isolation play, milk the shot clock brick the three style of play could not be anymore tired. This is a loud and clear cry for change.

adidas11
09-01-2004, 09:08 PM
Kevin, you're still not getting it.

The level of talent was not the issue here. Even if we sent out absolute best players, and even if they won, the actual PROBLEM has still not been resolved.

How can we maximize the level of play for our Team USA.

At no point since we have started using NBA players has our Team USA played well. The difference is that in 1992, the foreign teams stunk, and they have gradually improved since then.

Look at the process, and how our Team USA is chosen. Look at how a coach is chosen for the team (note: you can't pick a current NBA coach to coach the team. You have to pick a full time coach)

Sending our best players is not the issue. The team we sent was more than talented enough to compete and win.

ducks
09-01-2004, 09:15 PM
there was no talent there in the short time to fill the need of lack of shooters

now had they played together 6 months maybe they could fix that weakness
a full time coach could not fix them from not hitting from downtown in that short amount of time either addiass
I questioned alot of brown's moves but a full time coach coudlnot make shooters out of no shotters

SickDSM
09-01-2004, 10:40 PM
I personally don't think the caliber was that much difference in '92. If the floodgates to the olympics were just opened up this year, you'd have a hard time convincing me that Shaq, Garnett, etc.. wouldn't be caught in the hype and jump at the chane to be part of the "Dream Team"

If Olympics were open to NBA stars in '88 can you honestly say those same guys would be interested in yet another in '92?

There were guys like Petrovic, Sabonis that were studs back in the day.

smeagol
09-01-2004, 11:33 PM
KK, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. You think KG would have been the difference between the Bronze and the Gold, I don't. I've read and re-read your posts and none of them prove your point.

I will try to answer the questions you ask at the end of your post, just to prove that I was not defeated. By the way, your questions have nothing to do with our initial argument:


1) 4 of the top 5 players in the NBA did not attend the Olympics this year. In addition, other marquee players like Jermaine ONeal, Jason Kidd, and Mike Bibby, among others I can’t remember at the moment, did not attend.

This is actually not a question, its a statement, which I agree with, because it is a fact.

"4 of the top 5 players in the NBA did not attend" True.

I guess your point is that if they would have attended, no other NT could've stood up to their might. You are probably right, although IMO the results would've not been similar to 1992's results (44 pts differential between Team USA and the rest).

"Jermaine ONeal, Jason Kidd, and Mike Bibby did not attend" Again true.

Nevertheless, the team that attended was pretty talented (many NBA would die for a roster of such caliber). I bet 80% of Americans thought they were going to bring the gold home.


2) International teams had been playing together for far far longer than Team USA had been playing for. They actually cared and were able to develop chemistry for far longer periods of time.

Again a statement, again a fact and again I agree.

That is ultimately what Team USA should try to do (again, consult with Adidas11 on this particular point)


3) The Olympics operate on FIBA rules, which includes a different zone defensive scheme, trapezoid lane, and only two refs. Team USA is the only team in Olympic basketball that doesn’t play by FIBA rules (as far as I know).

This is getting boring. True, true, true. I agree with your statement.

And for the record, USA basketball is superior to the the rest of the world's basketball. No question about that. When I said "caught up" I should've said "catching up".

Now I have some random questions/corrections of my own:


You could easily pick 12 sorry ass 80’s NBA players who would get their butts kicked by an international squad during that time.

I said pick a team of 1980s NBA players at random, meaning probably you would pick good players and not so good players. In other word, you would pick your average NBA team. That team would kick any NT of the '80. Again, if college kids did, what make you think my "average player NBA" team would not?


Utter BS. Put the 5 best NBA players in your starting lineup with a balanced bench and Spain, Lithuania and Argentina wouldn’t stand a chance in hell

Read my post again. We are saying the same thing.

When talking about the Argentina - USA match:


Get a clue. Team USA was within 6 or 7 points in the middle of the 4th quarter of the Argentina game. The reigning MVP of the NBA would have easily been able to make the difference in that game.

There is no way you can prove this. Argentina was on average probably 10 pts ahead of the US after the first quarter through out the rest of the game. Bring in the "reigning MVP of the NBA" and maybe they could have one. Or maybe they could have lost anyway.

When talking about KG:


Next time please do the research and at least attempt to be impartial when making an argument

WTF???? I did the research. What I posted are facts. Please show me were I posted something that is not true.


KG’s strength is long range/mid-range outside shots.

Mid range, I agree.

What I fail to see is how his Long range outside shot, i.e., three-point shot, is also his strength, when his stats show that last year he only attempted 1 shot every 2 games, and made 25% of his shots (1 in every 8 games he played).

Your link does not change what I posted.

About FIBA rules:


And no one complained about it in 92, 96 or 2000 because the US was winning

Thats my point. When you win its because you are dominating, when you loose its because of the rules (and because you best players were not there, I get the point!)


The rules have always sucked, you’re just making crap up as you go along

I'm not making crap as I go along. I'm trying to make my point.:flipoff


no one bothered to mentioned how stupid FIBA zoning, 2 refs, or the trapezoid lane was.

Why do you find them stupid? The rest of the World uses these rules, the NBA choses to create their own. There is no reason to say FIBA rules are stupid. They are just different.


As I mentioned before, no one from the US cared before because it would be almost like being a sore winner if they were to complain about FIBA rules after a 40 point blowout.
and

and [FIBA rules] were clearly detrimental to Team USA’s basketball hopes this summer

So now that you complain (about the rules) because you lost you are probably a sore looser.

And my last point about how FIBA was created before the NBA and how the NBA sets its own rules and does not want to be a FIBA member is a fact. Your link does nothing to disprove it.

ShineOnYouCrazyManu
09-02-2004, 12:07 AM
I didn't hear Marbury complainning about the rules after injuring 2 Argentinian players and getting away with it.

SequSpur
09-02-2004, 12:12 AM
KG would have probably helped. He doesn't have the balls to go in the paint, so hanging outside with the pointguards would have been very effective.