rtrombone
08-27-2004, 06:04 PM
I don't think there's any denying that a team composed of the very best NBA players (Shaq, Duncan, KG, T-Mac and Kobe) would have fared much better than the squad the U.S. sent. Nobody could handle Duncan inside; the problem was that he was on the bench so much because of foul trouble. Shaq and KG would've given the U.S. two more options down low. The three of them couldn't all get into foul trouble, could they?
Besides Duncan's foul trouble, the big problem with the U.S. was their horrific defense. I mean what the hell, the game is as long as a college game but a team like Spain scores over 90 points while missing most of their 3-pointers? Did you see how many layups both Spain and Argentina made?
How would the Pistons have done? One thing's for sure: teams would've had difficulty scoring 80, much less 90 points against them. I think their defense alone would've made them strong contenders. Between Billups, Hamilton and Rasheed they would've come up with enough points.
In a team game, teamwork is more important than individual talent. That's what's so great about sports like football and basketball. One of my friends, who played college football at Cornell, related to me once how his Catholic high school team would annihilate city teams loaded with future D-1 players. None of his teammates was good enough to get a D-1 scholarship, but they were well-coached and played the game the way it's supposed to be played.
In the NCAA tournament, virtually every team is well-coached. Yet you still see small schools regularly upset more talented teams. Most of the time, it's not even that big of an upset. You better believe that UConn, as talented as they were, would've gotten their asses handed to them by any decent mid-major had they been forced into a game after just two weeks of playing together.
It takes MONTHS to install an offense in organized basketball. Defense, too, is very dependent on familiarity with one another.
There was a time when the U.S. could send pretty much anybody and breeze to a gold medal. The talent disparity was that great. That time has passed. But I'm a bigger fan now than ever.
Besides Duncan's foul trouble, the big problem with the U.S. was their horrific defense. I mean what the hell, the game is as long as a college game but a team like Spain scores over 90 points while missing most of their 3-pointers? Did you see how many layups both Spain and Argentina made?
How would the Pistons have done? One thing's for sure: teams would've had difficulty scoring 80, much less 90 points against them. I think their defense alone would've made them strong contenders. Between Billups, Hamilton and Rasheed they would've come up with enough points.
In a team game, teamwork is more important than individual talent. That's what's so great about sports like football and basketball. One of my friends, who played college football at Cornell, related to me once how his Catholic high school team would annihilate city teams loaded with future D-1 players. None of his teammates was good enough to get a D-1 scholarship, but they were well-coached and played the game the way it's supposed to be played.
In the NCAA tournament, virtually every team is well-coached. Yet you still see small schools regularly upset more talented teams. Most of the time, it's not even that big of an upset. You better believe that UConn, as talented as they were, would've gotten their asses handed to them by any decent mid-major had they been forced into a game after just two weeks of playing together.
It takes MONTHS to install an offense in organized basketball. Defense, too, is very dependent on familiarity with one another.
There was a time when the U.S. could send pretty much anybody and breeze to a gold medal. The talent disparity was that great. That time has passed. But I'm a bigger fan now than ever.