O.K. I didn’t see the game, so I’m asking anyone who did. Did the U.S. Team really do that badly, was it officiating, or are the Argentine players just that good, or was it a combination?
According the the minor coverage the Argentine team was just that damn good. How much do these guys make and if it’s not much by NBA standards, should our NBA stard feel like ass hats or what.
We need to recruit from these guys.
The US played poorly especially on defense.
Argentina has one guy who is going to play for the Spurs next year.
It’s doubtful that the Argentinians can do this twice.
I saw the first half. USA was down by 16 at that point, and before then, 20. It was a pretty dirty game, and not good officiating. But overall, USA did not play well. They kept missing shots, and their defense wasn’t good. Argentina was right on the whole game and kept answering back. I didn’t see the end of the game, so I don’t know if USA had a probable chance of coming back and tying it. USA is still in the elimination quarterfinals and can still win the gold, but will have a lower seed. Just basically, the Argentinians played well and USA didn’t. Although poor officiating may have contributed, I don’t think that’s the main reason why USA lost. They just failed to step up enough. It’s unfortunate, but it was bound to happen sooner or later (maybe a bit too “sooner”).
Argentina has 3 players with NBA credentials. Pepe Sanchez, the point guard, has played with Philly and just recently signed with Detroit. Ruben Wolkowyski spent a little time in the league and Emanuel Ginobili is potentially the next great import, ala Dirk Nowitzki. The majority of the rest of the team plays at the highest levels of Euroball.
This game was a good example that a good team can beat a group of better players. Argentina is a team that excels because their style of play is based on flow. They have played with each other extensively so there is a knowledge of where to go, what to do, where someone likes to get the ball. They rely on teamwork to get open shots and good looks while the US team, which is certainly more talented, relies on an NBA style of play to get shots. That is, use your athleticism in a 1 on 1 situation to try and beat your man. But, the wider lane and defensive changes favor teams that play by those scenarios on a more regular basis.
I don’t think this qualifies as a great upset. After all, the USA posts are players like Antonio Davis, Ben Wallace, and Raef Lafrentz. All certainly good players, but they are the types of players that you would expect to find playing for other countries. I would wager that if Argentina played this US team 10 times, I would wager the Argentineans win 3 times.
WHile we COULD make all kinds of excuses for the U.S. loss (e.g. the best American players weren’t playing, while the other countries’ best players were), and many of the excuses would be valid, let’s face a reality I’ve talked about on these boards many times before.
In 1956, the American collegians (led by Bill Russell) slaughtered every other team at the Olympic games, and took home the gold medal without working up a sweat. A mere 16 years later, however, the Russians won the gold medal. In the grand scheme of things, 16 years is NOT a long time. That’s all it took for the best European teams to catch up to the American college players.
So, in 1992, we sent our “Dream Team,” the best American professionals. As expected, the American pros slaughtered the rest of the world, without working up a sweat. But basketball is increasingly popular around the world, there are loads of foreign players earning stardom in the NBA, and it was only a matter of time before their national teams started giving American pros a run for their money.
Moreover, it’s a MUCH bigger deal for foreign teams to beat the USA than it is for American pros to beat foreign teams. The American pros generally regard international tournaments as pointless exhibition games, and a waste of their time. They have no strong incentive to win. Foreign teams, on the other hand, want desperately to beat the American pros, as a matter of pride.
In the short run, would the U.S. still clobber the rest of the world if Shaq, Kobe, Karl Malone, et all had shown up? Yes. But that’s only a “cure” in the short run. In the long run, basketball is going to continue to improve around the world, just as soccer is going to continue to improve in the U.S. And in the future, foreign teams are going to beat the U.S. teams regularly enough that no one will be shocked any more when it happens.
Oh, the U.S. will generally be better than foreign teams, just as the foreign soccer teams will usually be better than the U.S. teams. But the U.S. can’t and won’t dominate basketball any more, simply by showing up.
I have a follow up question and I want to thank you all for your insight and response to theoriginal Q.
The follow up is based on a postulate: If basketball continues to improve on a global scale, and America is no longer the epicenter if the finest players with the sport improve overall? Will players begin to make less money, because all over the world there are more players of similar skill.
I’ll go ahead and answer it myself. I think the NBA players would in general hate to see the globalization of the sport for the exact reasons I mentioned. If the skills that pare routinely paid hundreds of millions of dollars are to be found at even four times the rate they are discovered now then not only does it become four times as difficult to disdinguish oneself, but your relative value is quartered. I think this would be great for the fans, more teams to cheer for, perhaps bring some real meaning to “World Championship” games as well.
What do you all think? (preparing for a move to IMHO)
I would disagree. If basketball’s quality increases throughout the world, then there will be a demand for more pro leagues in other countries. The European leagues would start paying more. Good players from Europe would have more incentive to stay home, although the NBA would still be the premier league (intentionally drawing a parallel to the English Premier League). But you would also see the Italian Basketball League turning into a Serie A, etc.
The vast popularity of soccer hasn’t brought down salaries. A worldwide recession has however.
IMHO, I think a significant factor is the prevelance of show-off “Hey look at me I’m a star!” style that has now saturated college as well as NBA basketball.
A good team will beat that style regularly. Argentina will probably beat the US again, assuming that the US gets that far (which I doubt). Also, it’s not the NBA: you can’t take 5 steps towards the basket and not get whistled. They don’t care how big your shoe contract is.
Get used to the US losing a lot in international play until the concept of “team” is brought back to the game.
Yugoslavia did too. No medals for the NBA this time.
The US team makes history as the highest saleried team of losers ever (defeating the NY Yankees).
Or did the US Olympic hockey team win that “honor”?
I doubt that the US Hockey players made more than the entire Yankee payroll. The Yankees have a huge payroll and hockey players don’t make that much, although there was some high priced talent.
There are only 12 players on Team USA in basketball, so that should keep costs down.
zen101, regarding your post above…
The NBA would have no problem with more players having good skills. If something makes the game better and gives the leage an opportunity to market to both the United States and an untapped foreign market, I would imagine David Stern would be doing a giddy dance every night before bed.
As for an evening out of talent, not going to happen. While the average talent base and overall talent base will continue to improve, you will always see outliers that lift the level of play.
And, as last night once again proved, a good team of good players should probably be favored over a collection of almost great players. I can’t stress enough how much better the game can be played by players that know their teammates, tendencies, and the rules in which the game is played. Yugoslavia has that, the US didn’t.
People should be happy about the US failure for 3 reasons. 1. It means the level and popularity of basketball is still strong and improving. 2. Perhaps this will open American players eyes to the fact that players with strong fundamental skills, an eye towards teamwork, and the desire to work on mid range shooting will tend to be successful. 3. Finally, the death of attaching the “Dream Team” moniker to every collection of 2nd rate NBA players that further defiles the memory of what was probably the greatest team ever assembled.
Alternatively, ftg, until the rest of the world gets contaminated with the “hey, look at me, I’m a star” philosophy of play (Probably leading to NBA-style no-defense, slamming, jamming, glass-shattering, always-triple-digit-scoring games – the TV producers are probably hoping for this to be the case).
Back in the dying days of “amateurism” in olympic-level B-ball there was a whole lot of gnashing of teeth about the unfairness of other countries’ (specially the Eastern Bloc) national teams being really thinly disguised pros. But the difference was not so much their being well-paid for it (heck, our top collegiates also made out quite well under-the-table), but their being part of an actual organized national varsity that would year in and year out seek out their best-of-the-best and train as a team. Meanwhile, Team-USA-Amateur had the disadvantage that every year the best of the NCAA would turn pro, so every year it had to be hastily reassembled. Now this excuse no longer exists – it should not be such a momentous task to assemble a real American national team. But since the NBA richly rewards individual performance (or showoffmanship) regardless of how the team is doing, it’s unlikely.
Well, at least Team USA 2002 was eliminated at the hands of one of the “big-name” teams, spared the real possibility of being embarassed in the semis by New Zealand (or Puerto Rico – the Kiwis knocking PR out was not a sure thing).
While some American pro basketball players may resent the large numbers of foreign players we’re seeing in the NBA today, you can bet David Stern loves it. In the long run, he’s always envisioned the "Naruonal " Basketball Association becoming an INTERNATIONAL Basketball Association.
Sure, right now, travel would be a nightmare. But I have no doubt Stern envisions an NBA team in Beijing, in Barcelona, in Rome, in many major cities around the world.
As we speak, Houston Rockets merchandise is flying off the shelves in Beijing and Shanghai, all because Yao Ming was drafted by the Houston Rockets. You think other teams aren’t eying the untapped China market, and hoping to get a piece of it? IF Yao Ming becomes a dominant NBA player, you can be sure other Chinese players will be following close behind.
David Stern has hoped for years to make basketball as big around the world as soccer. While he may not be able to pull THAT off, the fact remains, we’re seeing superb basketball players all over the world now.
Forty years ago, a squad of American collegians could dominate any team in the world. By 1988, of course, that had changed- teams in Russia, Yugoslavia and Brazil were more than a match for our best collegians. Then came the “Dream Team,” which dominated every other team on Earth. At the '92 Olympics, other players seemed too awed by the Americans (opponents seemed tickled pink to have Michael Jordan slam-dunk in their faces!). But a mere ten years later, foreign teams are now good enough to beat the NBA’s 3rd tier players.
A few years down the road, will foreign teams be able to match up with the BEST players in the U.S.? Probably not… but it’s hardly impossible.
To repeat my earlier comparison… 30 years ago, Brazil or Germany could have sent a team of benchwarmers, and still squashed the U.S. at soccer. Today, that’s not the case. Oh, Brazil’s best and Germany’s best soccer players are still much better than ours, but they actually have to TRY now! They can’t win just by showing up any more.
I think the U.S. will still dominate basketball at the highest levels, and Americans will remain the majority in the NBA… but only to the same extent that Canada still dominates the NHL. When I was a kid, 95% of the NHL’s players were Canadian. Today, maybe 55% are. I can foresee a day when a third of the NBA’s players are from outside the U.S.