PDA

View Full Version : Steve Kerr: Fall from Greece



Rick Von Braun
08-30-2004, 02:55 AM
Fall from Greece
by Steve Kerr, Yahoo! Sports

sports.yahoo.com/oly/news...&type=lgns (http://sports.yahoo.com/oly/news?slug=sk-olybasketball0828&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)

August 28, 2004

As I watched Team USA lose to Argentina in the Olympic semifinals on Friday, one thought continually recurred in my mind: This was no upset.

America didn't have its best team in Athens. Yes, Kobe, Shaq and KG probably would have made a difference. But Argentina's team was simply better than the team we put on the floor.

They played with passion and poise, they worked beautifully without the ball, they passed and shot better, and I got the sense they would have beaten Team USA six out of 10 times.

So the question American basketball fans are asking is, how did this happen? How did we invent a game, dominate it for over 100 years and suddenly forget how to play it?

How can our national team go from utter dominance a mere 12 years ago to suddenly becoming a mediocre player on the national scene? (If you think we're anything more than mediocre, witness the fact that we finished in sixth place in the world championships two years ago and third in Athens).

There are probably a lot of reasons for our Olympic failure, but the first thing we have to fix is the selection process.

Ever since the original 'Dream Team' trampled the competition in Barcelona in 1992, selecting the national team has been nothing more than a popularity contest.

The NBA was interested in promoting its league around the world, so Team USA was comprised of superstars.

If a star player turned down the invitation, he was replaced by the next biggest star.

The selection committee has been largely made up of NBA general managers and officials, who frequently are politicking their own players for marketing purposes. Selections were based on star status and exchanged favors, and since we were going to win anyway, nobody cared how the team was picked.

That is about to change.

It doesn't take James A. Naismith to figure out that Team USA desperately needed a shooter, and that guys like Brent Barry, Michael Redd or Wally Szczerbiak would have been valuable assets on this team. In the past those names would have never been mentioned. Now they will not only be considered, but recruited and coveted.

But to place all the blame on the selection committee for the Olympic failure would be wrong. While I believe we could have fielded a more efficient squad, international basketball has improved so dramatically that it's no longer as simple as sending our best players.

There are more than 80 foreign players in the NBA, so teams from around the world are extremely gifted. In fact, with Tim Duncan on the bench in foul trouble, it was difficult to view a disparity in talent between Team USA and Argentina.

Manu Ginobili was the best player on the floor, and Andres Nocioni, who will play for the Bulls next season, punished the smaller American guards on the block in the first half.

Luis Scola, for whom the Spurs hold draft rights, was a strong force inside. And late in the game, Walter Herrmann did his best Dr. J impersonation, swooping to the hole and closing out the Americans with his offensive aggressiveness.

These guys were awfully good.

But while the disparity in talent wasn't glaring, the style of play certainly was. I believe that the international teams are now playing the game better than we are.

Tex Winter once taught me that the best players make their decision to drive, shoot or pass within one second of catching the ball. That creates offensive rhythm and continuity.

The Argentineans rarely held onto the ball for more than a second or two as they passed, cut and shot us to death. The irony is that they ran a simple offense called the 'flex', which was a staple of American basketball 15 to 20 years ago.

It involves a pattern of back screens and down screens that are difficult to defend, especially when all five players on the floor can shoot. The Argentineans spread the floor, set great screens and knocked down open shots – something the 'Dream Team' of 12 years ago did from day one.

But the American game has deteriorated to the point where players are holding the ball for three or four seconds, over dribbling, dumping the ball into the post and not moving or setting screens. That is what Team USA did, and the lack of offensive continuity was glaring.

The Americans' play was simply an extension of an NBA game, and it was exposed in a tournament where teams employed a more traditional – and more efficient – style.

So will this Olympic loss spawn a new generation of players and coaches who are dedicated to working on their games and strategies and getting basketball back to what it was in this country just a decade ago?

Probably not.

The NBA game has become institutionalized, with teams playing the same way – running screen and rolls and isolations, feeding the ball to the best player and clearing everyone out.

Teams are not going to run the 'flex' offense because many players can't shoot, and without shooters the defense doesn't have to honor screens and perimeter play, preferring to simply clog the lane.

And younger players will continue to enter the league underdeveloped, having played hundreds of AAU games, but not doing what Magic Johnson and Larry Bird were doing 30 years ago – sweating in a gym all summer working on their skills. (This assesment really pisses me off... it is the truth! -- Rick).

The NBA can learn a lot from the Olympic failure. The league could use more innovation and more coaches – like Don Nelson and Phil Jackson – who think 'outside the box' and value basketball skill over athleticism.

Perhaps the league can help our young coaches at the junior high and high school levels to inspire kids to develop skills – especially away from the ball.

Maybe we can adopt some of the international rules and apply them to the NBA. We could allow all-zone defenses, for example, or possibly widen the lane, or even – heaven forbid – call traveling. :lol

But no matter what we do, the USA will never return to the dominant state it enjoyed for so long. The international game is too good. There are great players all over the world. And our game is regressing.

So even if we pick a better, more efficient team to send to Beijing in 2008, don't be surprised if we come home empty handed again.

Updated on Saturday, Aug 28, 2004 7:48 pm EDT

-----------------------
Very well written by Steve!

Whottt
08-30-2004, 04:13 AM
I disagree...there is no set style of American ball that totally diffferentiates us from what is being played in Europe other than we have a greater 3 point line and we don't play full zone d.

The Nets, Mavericks and Kings all play a style of ball similar to what is played in Europe and they always come up short when it matters.

I also disagree that the Argentinians would have beaten team USA 6 times out of 10 as well. The US was getting better every game. They were the better team when they beat us...but USA was getting more experienced and better with every game.

It's really not that big of a deal...we didn't pick a really good team this time around and there were some very strong teams coming from other countries.

adidas11
08-30-2004, 10:25 AM
Quote: "It's really not that big of a deal...we didn't pick a really good team this time around and there were some very strong teams coming from other countries."

Grant, we did not send over the best possible, or best constructed team Whott. But I still think the talent was there to beat all of the other teams. The squad we sent over was capable of winning the Olympics.

I stand by the issue that they were not given time (weeks were given, when in actuality years are needed) in order to train together and prepare for international competition.

Whottt
08-30-2004, 10:30 AM
Fine, but I think it was possible to send a team over there that didn't need as much time to train and prepare for international competition.

Like I said...you send Duncan, KG, Shaq, Kobe and Kidd over there and have Brent Barry or Wesley Person types coming off the bench......I'm sorry but that team probably puts up better numbers than the original dream team.

spurster
08-30-2004, 10:39 AM
In NBA rules, there is a lot more emphasis on one-on-one play, both offense and defense. Slashers on offense and good defenders who don't shoot well have more value in the NBA.

In international rules, a bad one-on-one defender can be a great zone defender. A great one-on-one defender does not have as much value. Also, most players need to hit the outside shot to loosen up the zone.

Whottt
08-30-2004, 10:39 AM
And there's a rat in there that no one has really smelled yet...

There were two things very flawed about the coaching on this team...

1.They looked like they were trying to run the Spurs offense...which is one of the most predictable offenses...it is too easy to take a dominant big out of the game if you do not have some shooters...Team USA should have never tried to run the offense totally through Duncan. They should have run it through AI.

We tried to play a style of offense that only 1 guy on the team was used to playing....that's not how you get the most out of your talent.

#2.We only had 1 true center, and he hasn't been used as a true center since his college days...I think Duncan was victimiszed on defense by some bad calls and unfamiliarity with the rules...but he isn't used to being the main defensive stopper in the paint...he has nearly always had someone else doing that role beside him...

This team was totally built around Duncan...and I understand why they would want to do that, but I don't think it was necessary...I don't think we had the talent on this team to build it around Duncan.

At the very least we should have had another defensive center.

Solid D
08-30-2004, 11:24 AM
It's all about the flow.

Although most of the teams doubled Tim Duncan in the post, used a 2-3 zone and clogged the lanes to force perimeter shooting, Tim Duncan didn't even play 20 minutes in the loss to Argentina. Iverson, Marbury, Odom and Marion got the majority of the floor time in that game. You bust a zone with a combo of good shooting, dribble penetration and crisp passing to the seams with movement. Team USA didn't shoot well from the perimeter. Many of Team USA's skip passes to the weakside were pop-flies and allowed the defenders recovery time.

There was little or no Duncan-centric offense in the loss to Argentina. USA just got beat by a team that has grown up together. Team Argentina is basically the same team, to a man, that beat Team USA in Indy two years ago. Their passing was crisp and their continual movement and option familiarity was outstanding. They are the most enjoyable team to watch because of their flow and execution.

Familiarity and rhythm comes with playing together, along with defensive trust. Team USA didn't have those elements and that is what it takes to win, especially when the talent levels of the teams are so close.

Maybe different coaches could have made a difference, but I don't think so. Team USA and Team Serbia & Montenegro were the two biggest Olympic disappointments for similar reasons. Both teams missed going with their best talent...missed having their best perimeter shooters, and they had very little rhythm, familiarity and flow.

Rick Von Braun
08-30-2004, 12:46 PM
Whottt said:
Like I said...you send Duncan, KG, Shaq, Kobe and Kidd over there and have Brent Barry or Wesley Person types coming off the bench......I'm sorry but that team probably puts up better numbers than the original dream team.I disagree... at some point all-star talent alone is not enough.

One year ago we sent this team to the Olympic Qualifying Tournament in Puerto Rico:

PG Kidd/Bibby
SG Iverson/Allen
SF McGrady/Jefferson
PF Duncan/Brand/KMart
C JO'neal/Collison

With the only exception of Shaq (who could have fouled out in 3 minutes in the Olympics), KG, and Kobe, the above was arguably the best team we could assemble to face international competition.

It had our best playmaker (Kidd), a good PG that could shoot (Bibby), an increadible slasher (Iverson), a deadly shooter (Allen), all around player/scorer (McGrady), best player on the planet (Duncan), talented rebounder and shot blocker in the paint (Brand), a young/strong post player (JO).

That team trained for 5 weeks intensively under the supervision of some of our best coaches (Brown). They played against some sub-par teams in South, Central and North America for the 3 spots available for the Olympics.

Yet, when we played Argentina in the game that mattered (the pool game when the qualifying spots were not defined yet), we had to fight point by point in a hard fought game that was not defined until the end (we were up by 3 with 1 minute to go, Arg posesion, Oberto took it to the rack and JO had a block on him). I remember watching that game thinking, shiiiit... Argentina has a deep bench, we should be routing them by now with our superior bench play.

Sometimes I wish we could have lost the meaningless final game (when both teams were qualified) to put a sense of urgency in USA Basketball. If that would have happened, may be we could be bringing back gold this Summer with a talented Dream Team that trained for a longer time.

As timvp said in another thread, when the talent level of the competition raises above a certain threshold, raw talent is simply not enough and you need teamplay.

E20
08-30-2004, 04:31 PM
America didn't invent basketball. Naismith first played the game in Canda with a volleyball and two peach baskets.
Also our team ran flex in high school. Our players couldn't even run it right.

LittleGeneral
08-30-2004, 05:54 PM
what?http://www.nba.com/media/bobcats/okaforin04_gallery_1.jpg

Whottt
08-30-2004, 06:43 PM
America didn't invent basketball. Naismith first played the game in Canda with a volleyball and two peach baskets.
Also our team ran flex in high school. Our players couldn't even run it right.

This is wrong...Naismith was Canadian but he didn't play the first game in Canada...at least thats not what he wrote in his book.

And he didn't use a volleyball with two peach baskets either, ...he used the two peach baskets...but it would have been impossible to use a volleyball because VolleyBall was invented 5 years after basketball, as an alternative to baskeball...and the first official games of both were played at Springfield College in Springfield Mass.

E20
08-30-2004, 06:46 PM
Ok a soccer ball sue me.

Whottt
08-30-2004, 06:50 PM
And the Candians didn't invent Soccer either, the Chinese did.

E20
08-30-2004, 07:17 PM
They did. I thought it was the brits.

Das Texan
08-30-2004, 07:23 PM
great article.



many truths to it.


there is a reason why the nba games are generally in the 70s or 80s.


kerr touches on it greatly...our offense was flawed from the start. our concept was flawed from the start.


we emphasized duncan and for logical purposes as stated...but this team wasnt built around Duncan. It just so happened that when all the stars were brought in...Duncan was the best player on the team by far...only Iverson being close in talent today. So the coaches had to try to take advantage of Duncan.


Should the offense of been ran through Iverson? Perhaps...but teams were still going to play zone, and we still couldnt hit shots, which is how you bust a zone. It didnt really matter who the offense ran though in the end, because we couldnt shoot the ball.


Perhaps the biggest point Kerr stresses deals with the change in young players...spending more time in AAU games rather than developing their skills further.


Until we get back to playing the game of basketball in all its glory on all levels in America, we are going to continue seeing our teams struggle.