Game Thread: Wemby vs Loonies Toonies (Canada) @ 2:00 PM CT

[Pauleta14]

Gobert's offensive limitations don't take away the facts that he's the second highest impact player on the roster, an elite defensive anchor and having two of them is a luxury and the strength of their roster.

It's the same narrative than with Sochan's defensive impact, it's all about balance with the liability he is on offense

Good coaches know the weak link and force the ball to him on offense, he has zero touch and can only dunk, leading to tons of wasted gimmies

[TD 21]

It's the same narrative than with Sochan's defensive impact, it's all about balance with the liability he is on offense

Good coaches know the weak link and force the ball to him on offense, he has zero touch and can only dunk, leading to tons of wasted gimmies

Except there's eons of statistical evidence (not to mention the eye test) that supports Gobert being one of the GOAT defensive anchors. Sochan is a different type of defender, with nowhere near the impact or track record.

I keep hearing politics and French basketball. Is that just code for they want more full white players or?

[KingKev]

This game thread le alienates me as a die hard Spurs fan who supported our team before the Raptors existed. Please remove while I mourn Biden’s candidacy and worry about his covid status.

[Pauleta14]

Except there's eons of statistical evidence (not to mention the eye test) that supports Gobert being one of the GOAT defensive anchors. Sochan is a different type of defender, with nowhere near the impact or track record.

I keep hearing politics and French basketball. Is that just code for they want more full white players or?

That's great but it's 50% of the game

That's the thing, you get "trapped" by his defensive impact that obliges you to put him on the floor, but then he can often cost u more with is offensive liability.

Any decent coach will take advantage of it

If you'e watching today vs Aussies, he's got gloves instead of hands and waste so many possessions it's surreal

[TD 21]

That's great but it's 50% of the game

That's the thing, you get "trapped" by his defensive impact that obliges you to put him on the floor, but then he can often cost u more with is offensive liability.

Any decent coach will take advantage of it

If you'e watching today vs Aussies, he's got gloves instead of hands and waste so many possessions it's surreal

Not for a C, it isn't. He's also higher impact offensively (elite screen setter and gravity as a roll man/vertical spacer, which opens up weakside 3's) than he appears because of his rudimentary ball skills (biggest issue is teams can switch with impunity because he often can't even punish small guards in the post).

Not staggering two elite rim protectors is inarguably stupid.

Anyway, why'd you evade the French basketball and politics (which you brought up) question?

[Pauleta14]

Not for a C, it isn't. He's also higher impact offensively (elite screen setter and gravity as a roll man/vertical spacer, which opens up weakside 3's) than he appears because of his rudimentary ball skills (biggest issue is teams can switch with impunity because he often can't even punish small guards in the post).

Not staggering two elite rim protectors is inarguably stupid.

Anyway, why'd you evade the French basketball and politics (which you brought up) question?

My bad, didn't answer the 2nd part.

No not at all, nothing race related at all. French ppl aren't racist, France is just a country where networking matters a lot more than pure merit.

It leads to a lot of confusion correlations/causations.

When some of us mention "politics" it means that merit isn't alwasy the main criteria in Frence's players selections (the same happens in football and other sports)

Collet is the perfect example of so many people without any accountability and a job for life whatever he does. He's shown again and again that he sucks at both basketball and man to man coaching, has never coached at the highest level in club level and is a massive handicap the team has to carry.

As for Gobert I don't totally disagree with your points but we'll have to disagree on the player. I like the guy, even defend him a lot vs the insane bias againt him but I'd hate if he played for the Spurs, unless he was a role player.
He's too much of a handicap as a main guy imo

[Limguogolo]

To illustrate the question of the deleterious weight of politics in sport or society, two examples.

Last year, the French women's team played without its best player (the only one to have played a WNBA final) because she had to go sign a contract in New York two days before the start of the preparation (this was seen as a sign of disrespect towards the French team). (This year, they didn't include the greatest player in history because... she criticized the management last year.)


Last example, in real politics this time. The political situation in France is worse than in the USA (yes, it's possible). The president plays with the ins utions, breaks the assembly to hope to put the fascists in power and leaves a week for the opposition to organize (one day for voters to register). The opposition is getting organized. There are two rounds in France. In the first round, the fascists came well ahead. To avoid winning the assembly, left-wing voters agreed to vote for right-wing representatives. The latter were elected instead of the fascist ones. Once elected, these same elected representatives explain that the left-wing is anti-Republican (explaining among other things that they are anti-Semitic -- they are in fact denouncing the genocide in Gaza -- while on their right there is a party created by Nazis -- therefore intrinsically and originally anti-Semitic). A few days later, this righ-win elected thanks to left-wing voters explained that it was not normal that the fascists did not have important positions in the assembly. Meanwhile, in the second round, the mobilization of voters and the left enabled the defeat of the fascists. But no one has won yet. Despite this, one of the leaders on the left claims that they have won. And it's been several weeks now that they haven't agreed on a prime minister and the president looks at them laughing: he hasn't succeeded in putting the fascists in power, but he sees clearly that the left-wing gives a pitiful spectacle. And today ? Not only did no one win, but France is ungovernable a few days before the Olympics. with a situation where it is the cons ution which poses a problem because it did not foresee the situation in which the country finds itself. But it's not just a cons utional question: if France collapses just before the Olympics, it's because of a president (elected so that the fascists don't come to power, already), who plays typically like a French basketball player attempting a shot from midcourt on a final possession in order to avoid giving the ball to best player of the team in the paint. Everyone hates him, including his own camp, so it's not about relationships with him, but about abuse of power and childish play with ins utions. Politics, in this way.


Everything is politics in France, sensitive and relationnal. When we say that, it is to say that particular interests always come before the general interest. This is often the case elsewhere, but in France, the proportions are gigantic. It is the country of revolution and privilege. We hate it when some people take advantage of a situation to assert their personal interests. In the world of work, it is even valued and ins utionalized, we speak of "network" to talk about the quality of one's social network in order to work and access good positions. The people in charge only have “merit” on their lips when they play a completely different game and fight to maintain their privileges. In all sectors of society it is palpable. In political life, as in the federal ins utions of a sport, and this is reflected even in the cons ution of a national sports team.

Cooptation and plutocracy, this is how French society works. (Also, when you're French, the main sport is to criticize everything. That's precisely what we do here.)

[exstatic]

To illustrate the question of the deleterious weight of politics in sport or society, two examples.

Last year, the French women's team played without its best player (the only one to have played a WNBA final) because she had to go sign a contract in New York two days before the start of the preparation (this was seen as a sign of disrespect towards the French team). (This year, they didn't include the greatest player in history because... she criticized the management last year.)


Last example, in real politics this time. The political situation in France is worse than in the USA (yes, it's possible). The president plays with the ins utions, breaks the assembly to hope to put the fascists in power and leaves a week for the opposition to organize (one day for voters to register). The opposition is getting organized. There are two rounds in France. In the first round, the fascists came well ahead. To avoid winning the assembly, left-wing voters agreed to vote for right-wing representatives. The latter were elected instead of the fascist ones. Once elected, these same elected representatives explain that the left-wing is anti-Republican (explaining among other things that they are anti-Semitic -- they are in fact denouncing the genocide in Gaza -- while on their right there is a party created by Nazis -- therefore intrinsically and originally anti-Semitic). A few days later, this righ-win elected thanks to left-wing voters explained that it was not normal that the fascists did not have important positions in the assembly. Meanwhile, in the second round, the mobilization of voters and the left enabled the defeat of the fascists. But no one has won yet. Despite this, one of the leaders on the left claims that they have won. And it's been several weeks now that they haven't agreed on a prime minister and the president looks at them laughing: he hasn't succeeded in putting the fascists in power, but he sees clearly that the left-wing gives a pitiful spectacle. And today ? Not only did no one win, but France is ungovernable a few days before the Olympics. with a situation where it is the cons ution which poses a problem because it did not foresee the situation in which the country finds itself. But it's not just a cons utional question: if France collapses just before the Olympics, it's because of a president (elected so that the fascists don't come to power, already), who plays typically like a French basketball player attempting a shot from midcourt on a final possession in order to avoid giving the ball to best player of the team in the paint. Everyone hates him, including his own camp, so it's not about relationships with him, but about abuse of power and childish play with ins utions. Politics, in this way.


Everything is politics in France, sensitive and relationnal. When we say that, it is to say that particular interests always come before the general interest. This is often the case elsewhere, but in France, the proportions are gigantic. It is the country of revolution and privilege. We hate it when some people take advantage of a situation to assert their personal interests. In the world of work, it is even valued and ins utionalized, we speak of "network" to talk about the quality of one's social network in order to work and access good positions. The people in charge only have “merit” on their lips when they play a completely different game and fight to maintain their privileges. In all sectors of society it is palpable. In political life, as in the federal ins utions of a sport, and this is reflected even in the cons ution of a national sports team.

Cooptation and plutocracy, this is how French society works. (Also, when you're French, the main sport is to criticize everything. That's precisely what we do here.)

ST, in a nut s .