• Since we moved our URL please clear your browsers history and cookies and try logging in again. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience
  • Since we moved our URL please clear your browsers history and cookies and try logging in again. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience

USSR vs Yugoslavia in Eurobasket 2011.

pimpekaustas said:
http://archive.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/team/p/sid/2893/tid/379/_/1987_World_Championship_for_Junior_Men/index.html

you are bb analphabet, put any of todays NBA best player in europe and i wonder would they dominate all others like toni did in his time ;) i doubt it ;)
Click to expand...

Nothing special on dominating Europe. McAdoo and Dominique did it way past their prime.

Even lesser role player like Anthony Parker did it.

If Kukoc dominated NBA that would be something special.

What Dirk did, that's special. He played against the best, he won
an MVP and an NBA championship as the main man.
 
Last edited:
pohani komarac said:
in 88. majority of them were kids

89. and leatter didn't wining by 40, but with 15:D

of corse, dream team would be better, but leats assume they started sleepey like in 92. finals. could then much deeper yugo team surprise
Click to expand...

Yugo lost a game against Puerto Rico in 1990.

Dream Team beat everyone by 40 points without calling a timeout.

someone said it's an even matchup.

And someone actually said the 92 Yugo NT could have been the greatest team.

hypothetical stuff with bias opinion can't make you the greatest team.

FACT: Dream Team was undefeated with margin of 40 plus without calling a time out.

OPINION : Yugo NT could have benn unbeatable:rolleyes:. They lost to Puerto Rico.
 
Southpaw said:
Yugo lost a game against Puerto Rico in 1990.

Dream Team beat everyone by 40 points without calling a timeout.someone said it's an even matchup.

And someone actually said the 92 Yugo NT could have been the greatest team.

hypothetical stuff with bias opinion can't make you the greatest team.

FACT: Dream Team was undefeated with margin of 40 plus without calling a time out.
OPINION : Yugo NT could have benn unbeatable:rolleyes:. They lost to Puerto Rico.
Click to expand...

they called time out during finals when they were to relax at beginig and croatia took the lead

FACT: they needed to get more serius to beat croatia in finals



and that is what i'm saying. dream team was better then evryone by huge margin, but for sure they could lose from yugoslavia if they don't come out serius

yes, one lose from 89 to 91 is for rolling eyes, and that's before team eterd peek what should be period from 92-96
 
Southpaw said:
These Yugos comparison to Dream Team is a joke. They will play Dream Team 10 times and they will lose 10 times by average of 30 points. On their best day they will lose 15 points and at their worst they will get beaten up like 50 points. If Jordan was motivated enough, there's no one on that Yugo squad can stop him.
Click to expand...
You are not taking the factor "team" into account. Yugoslavia had been playing together for many years (the 67-68 born core, with Divac, Radja, Kukoc or Djordjevic, has been playing together since 1986 at least and they joined the senior NT in 1987). Despite the unbelievable amount of individual talent displayed by Yugoslavia (for European standarts), they stood out for their amazing team play.

This is like Argentina beating the USA in 2004, or every time a USA team built of NBA players has lost a game: were the opponents better players? No way. They played better as a team.

You're also forgetting the different level of preparation of each team. Yugoslavia used to focus a lot on these championships. The US Team went to Montecarlo to practice...

Furthermore, the Dream Team wasn't really ready for a serious game. Their Olympic Games was more of a series of exhibition games, and only struggled against Croatia in the first half of the final. Their solution? To defend harder on the ball and run the fastbreak, the same old recipe for every US team. With a Croatia struggling at the PG position that was easy. Not so sure against Yugoslavia.

My point is, they could have stood a chance. USA had so much more talent and would've been favourites, of course, but again, this is a team game.

Indeed, the 1996 Dream Team was supertalented as well, and they struggled mightly against Serbia and Montenegro (still called Yugoslavia). Not until Divac was fouled out that game was decided (the Yugo frontcourt was very decimated, as back up big Savic couldn't play due injury, I believe).

Perhaps 1992 was to early. But I do believe that in 1994, with a World Championship bound to be played in Belgrade, Yugoslavia would've prevailed.
 
wardjdim said:
Slightly off-topic? :D

That was the definition of off-topic ;)
Click to expand...
I'm referring to this:
Southpaw said:
Nothing special on dominating Europe. McAdoo and Dominique did it way past their prime.

Even lesser role player like Anthony Parker did it.
Click to expand...
Just to show how big the gap between "dominator" and "lesser role player" is. It's an ocean!

On a more serious note: If this player's name wasn't Anthony Parker and if he hadn't changed leagues before 06/07, nobody would raise an eyebrow. Statistical decline from 28/29 onwards is the rule.
 
I hadn't noticed that on Southpaw's post, although I am not surprised that he finds U.S. born players better than the rest simply because of their nationality. I was just hoping that he would have a couple of serious reasons for believing it, or at least something to back it with

By the way, in a yearbook before his senior year, Parker was presented as the best NCAA SF and a lock as a lottery pick. A poor senior year cost him a higher draft selection, a likely longer NBA career as something more than a good all-around role player or a spot shooter at some plays. So, the change of a player's judgement based on one season reveals weaknesses on the U.S. system as well. There are many NBA-level players not playing in the NBA and some non NBA-level players playing there. This is enough for a conclusion, I believe
 
wardjdim said:
I hadn't noticed that on Southpaw's post, although I am not surprised that he finds U.S. born players better than the rest simply because of their nationality. I was just hoping that he would have a couple of serious reasons for believing it, or at least something to back it with

By the way, in a yearbook before his senior year, Parker was presented as the best NCAA SF and a lock as a lottery pick. A poor senior year cost him a higher draft selection, a likely longer NBA career as something more than a good all-around role player or a spot shooter at some plays. So, the change of a player's judgement based on one season reveals weaknesses on the U.S. system as well. There are many NBA-level players not playing in the NBA and some non NBA-level players playing there. This is enough for a conclusion, I believe
Click to expand...


what reason?:rolleyes: SMH.:confused:

FACTS;

USA record on Olympic basketball 128-5. 13 golds, 1 silver and bronze. Even a strong team like Greece cant even medal.

1992 - Dream Team has a margin victory of 43.8


1960 = 39

1996- 32.3

2000- 21.6

2008 - 27.9.

No tell me a country that has margin of victory like that.

FACTS - USA in Europe

Since 2000, 33 players have been name in all Euroleage team, more than any country.

regular season MVP = 4 times. more than any country.

final 4 league MVP = 7 times, more than any country.

5 named to 35 greatest players - 2nd to Serbia. ( it should be 8 if you include Galis, Luyk and Brabender because they are americans)

Look Finley have the same scenario with Parker. He was drafted late because of poor senior season. The reality if minutes are earned in practice. You are not entitle to that no matter where are you drafted. Case in point Adam Morrison.
 
wardjdim said:
Ok, so just because we have in this forum people who haven't even watched the Yugoslavian team ever play, we will have to forget what common sense means

The Yugoslavian NT before 1992 is either the best team of all-time, or top-3 at worse. The other two are USA 2008 and USA 1992, in no specific order. Focusing on individual talent and what the Yugoslavian players (who would beat the best Spain possible 8 out of 10 times) did in the NBA is something that has nothing to do with the discussion

Southpaw, you just proved that if someone is from Philipinnes, they probably don't know much about basketball besides the NBA. Do you really understand the international rules? Have you watched this team playing?

NorCal, if someone is from the US could be far from understanding international basketball and especially during the period that this Yugoslavian generation was in charge. Yugoslavia in 1988 got half of this roster at ages 20-21. I think that when they were 24-25, they were better. Anyway the 3-year period 1989-91 was 3 golds, no losses, pure dominance and seriously, below their true prime. Take all the talent in the world, even with a better coach than Chuck Daly and I am not sure you can beat a continuously developing generation and a team dominant for so long, with the "no-one can beat us" mentality altogether

Anyway, it can be 50%, it can be longer, it can be less. But the discussion can only be on this level. Good note is that Serbia (World Champions 1998 and 2002, Euro Champs 1995, 1997, 2001) would stand no chance against them and same goes for Spain (World Champs 2006, Euro Champs 2009, 2001), despite both teams' great chemistry

pohani komarac, Bodiroga is of course the 2nd best SF of the past 20 years in Europe, but back then, as a teen, you can't compare his value to Perasovic who was a scoring machine and also a great passer, approaching his peak. Still Bodiroga would make a 2nd Yugoslavia team for sure. Look at his stats during the 1991-92 season http://bit.ly/qSvr4a I think he would at least contend as a 12th player in this roster



Regarding Toni Kukoc. In any other team, he would be a superstar. The fact that the Bulls didn't need him to be one to win so many titles proves their true value as a team. I pity the people who haven't seen him playing in Jugoplastika

Radja was a 20-10 machine, regardless the defensive liability. All-star level player

No need to get into further discussion about Savic or Zdovc and all the other players that the NBA fans don't know (not even by name). Just, when someone doesn't know a topic, hasn't watch a team playing or hasn't heard the names of the players, it's better not to post about it. A friendly tip ;)
Click to expand...

I actually think the 1996 USA team was better than the 2008 team.

And Kukoc was great but I wouldn't call him a superstar in the NBA. Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by superstar. But when Jordan wasn't playing Kukoc's numbers were good but not great. Check the stats-during Jordan's first retirement he averaged 15.7/5.4/4.6 on 50% FG and the year after Jordan and Pippen left Kukoc averaged 18.8/7.0/5/3 on 42%FG. The guy was a very good and underrated player but he never even made one all star team.
 
kukoc before he left to nba was better then petrovic. that was REAL toni kukoc. toni him self says he made mistake overweight him self to fast in start of his nba carer wich slowed him down

before mj comback i soaw some video of alex english discusing can toni become franchise player and evryone agreed he can but needs his own team. at tjhat time phill jackson was telling he will make toni bulls main playmaker. toni at that point had something like 16-5-4. and for sure his creativity sufferd a lot from gething weight, playing more at pf and in triangle.....but we will never know how would he end in difrent situation

anway the fact toni didn't play in all star doesn't mean he was less all-star zhand maglorie, okur and some others. or that dino radja didn't deserve to play all-star game infront of juwan howard. or petrovic in his last 2 seasons

but that was much difrent era

anway toni fo sure wasn't superstar player during his nba carer, bus sure was one-two steps away. similar like gasol was posting 20-10 in bad team, similar situation toni had in bulls and hawks where he was 19-7-5
 
wardjdim said:
Ok, so just because we have in this forum people who haven't even watched the Yugoslavian team ever play, we will have to forget what common sense means

NorCal, if someone is from the US could be far from understanding international basketball and especially during the period that this Yugoslavian generation was in charge. Yugoslavia in 1988 got half of this roster at ages 20-21. I think that when they were 24-25, they were better. Anyway the 3-year period 1989-91 was 3 golds, no losses, pure dominance and seriously, below their true prime. Take all the talent in the world, even with a better coach than Chuck Daly and I am not sure you can beat a continuously developing generation and a team dominant for so long, with the "no-one can beat us" mentality altogether

Anyway, it can be 50%, it can be longer, it can be less. But the discussion can only be on this level. Good note is that Serbia (World Champions 1998 and 2002, Euro Champs 1995, 1997, 2001) would stand no chance against them and same goes for Spain (World Champs 2006, Euro Champs 2009, 2001), despite both teams' great chemistry
Click to expand...

Sure Yugoslavia dominated like crazy in the late 80s-early 90s in Europe but by many posters admission it was during a period in Europe when very few teams were any good at all so I don't put a lot of 'weight' into those results.

I mean you have to take into account that the U.S. teams were winning every Olympics with college players. By that I mean you are telling me that the Yugoslavia team that in 1988 didn't win gold got so much better in 4 years that they would have been able to beat the best team the NBA has ever created when the Yugoslavia team had never been able to beat our college players before? Did they consistenly beat the other European teams by as much as the U.S. did in 1992? In looking at the results from the '89 and '91 Eurobasket Yugoslavia's margins of victory weren't anywhere as dominant as the Dream Team's. I just don't think you have that great of a case is all.
 
pohani komarac said:
kukoc before he left to nba was better then petrovic. that was REAL toni kukoc. toni him self says he made mistake overweight him self to fast in start of his nba carer wich slowed him down

before mj comback i soaw some video of alex english discusing can toni become franchise player and evryone agreed he can but needs his own team. at tjhat time phill jackson was telling he will make toni bulls main playmaker. toni at that point had something like 16-5-4. and for sure his creativity sufferd a lot from gething weight, playing more at pf and in triangle.....but we will never know how would he end in difrent situation

anway the fact toni didn't play in all star doesn't mean he was less all-star zhand maglorie, okur and some others. or that dino radja didn't deserve to play all-star game infront of juwan howard. or petrovic in his last 2 seasons

but that was much difrent era

anway toni fo sure wasn't superstar player during his nba carer, bus sure was one-two steps away. similar like gasol was posting 20-10 in bad team, similar situation toni had in bulls and hawks where he was 19-7-5
Click to expand...

I agree with that. And to my eyes, Toni looked like a better player than Petrovic. He could impact the game in more ways IMO.
 
You all forget the fact that we are talking about international ball here, not the NBA. What the NBA teams or players did on the one-on-one game doesn't really apply to international rules and, of course, it doesn't really mean much in international competitions

Truth is that all the USA players together were much more talented than the Yugoslavia ones. That's a fact. Yet, what's a non-fact is that all these players together, even with a lot of practice, they would be able to match with the best team in the world these years, let alone with them playing full team against them

I was watching basketball back then and I remember that the decision on USA to send NBA players (their 12 best indeed) in Barcelona was taken in 1991, before the Eurobasket, where the political conflicts cost Zdovc his participation in the final. I remember the reports that "Yugoslavia is expecting to match up with the USA stars in next year's final in order to get the Olympic gold"

In other words, back then, Yugoslavia was the team to beat. It's a bit difficult to understand if you haven't lived this era, but the USA team was created in order to win, not to dominate. The fact that both Soviet Union and (mainly) Yugoslavia were divided, it is the reason for their dominant performance in Barcelona. All the rest are in your imagination
 
wardjdim said:
You all forget the fact that we are talking about international ball here, not the NBA. What the NBA teams or players did on the one-on-one game doesn't really apply to international rules and, of course, it doesn't really mean much in international competitions

Truth is that all the USA players together were much more talented than the Yugoslavia ones. That's a fact. Yet, what's a non-fact is that all these players together, even with a lot of practice, they would be able to match with the best team in the world these years, let alone with them playing full team against them

I was watching basketball back then and I remember that the decision on USA to send NBA players (their 12 best indeed) in Barcelona was taken in 1991, before the Eurobasket, where the political conflicts cost Zdovc his participation in the final. I remember the reports that "Yugoslavia is expecting to match up with the USA stars in next year's final in order to get the Olympic gold"

In other words, back then, Yugoslavia was the team to beat. It's a bit difficult to understand if you haven't lived this era, but the USA team was created in order to win, not to dominate. The fact that both Soviet Union and (mainly) Yugoslavia were divided, it is the reason for their dominant performance in Barcelona. All the rest are in your imagination
Click to expand...

I don't understand the 'all the rest are in your imagination' comment. Isn't the whole thing a hypothetical and therefore in both of our imaginations?

If we handled this argument like a court of law and only 'introduced into evidence' the closest things we have to objective measures (margins of victory vs. teams that both U.S. and Yugoslavia played, value of players from Yugoslavia in NBA, etc.) and leave out any subjective measures, it clearly favors the argument that the U.S. was the better team. In the end the U.S. showed it during those Olympic games and the argument for Yugoslavia is all based on 'what ifs'.

Again, I don't mean to demean the Yugoslavia players, their team, or what they accomplished but I'm just trying to state my argument in as objective of terms as possible.

Also, I would assert that even though you wouldn't want to enter the NBA careers of Yugoslavia players 'into evidence', I think it is clearly a measure of the player's overall basketball level. You have to remember that back in the early 90s (and really up until last decade) the rules were closer to the international game and didn't favor as much 1 on 1 action as today's NBA. The biggest differences were the 'no zone defense rule', the difference in the shape of the key and the three point line but IMO those didn't make the international game and the NBA game that different.

In general, I believe the impact that the rule differences has on great players is overstated on this forum. A truly great player will be great no matter where he plays.

I guess we can go round and round with this all day. I will give it to you though wardjdim, you are arguing your side very well.
 
Last edited:
^. SMH. WTF. Does Olympics play under international rules? All your argument is based on hypothetical scenario. Using your logic, what would USA have done if they put their best players in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and even in 2008. What would have done if they practice and play together for years and NBA play under FIBA Rules. The fact that they don't and they still win consistently says about their talent.

So to argue hypothetically.

Even if they put USSR and Yugoslavia together, USA especially that Dream Team will and always be the team to beat. In fact they can put all the rest of the world and that Dream Team will be the team to beat. I am not gonna even think what they can do if they practice and play together for years and Magic and Bird were still on their prime.

Now talking about facts before the USSR-Yugoslavia break up

Yugoslavia won the 1990 FIBA with one Loss and average margin victory of 11.3.

US with college players won the 1986 FIBA with one loss and a margin of 11.8.

US with college players won the 1984 Olympics with 28.3 margin.

USSR won the 1988 Olympics with a Margin of 12.

Statistically USA college players held their own agains the so called powerful USSR and Yugoslavia before the breakups.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the conversation on how measurable the hypothetical matchup can be, there could of course be certain criteria

For example, I am watching the USA-Lithuania semi-final in the 2000 Olympics and there is an obvious (and constant) aggression of the Lithuanian bigs on the offensive glass that wasn't obvious in the previous USA opponents after 1992. Also, there is no lack of fear for the Lithuanian players to slash or pass the ball during their drives in order to distract the defensive focus, although the defensive bigs were Garnett and Mourning. In other words, basketball had changed a lot. It had become quicker and the way to beat the U.S. team was to get closer to their way of approaching basketball than to wait for them to play your style and beat them with team ball. After all, there was a challenge for the European NTs to get a team to beat under whole new circumstances. Finding ways to reduce the easy points through fast breaks and force a more tactical approach to the match, focusing on a possession-per-possession plan became more realistic as a view for international coaches, with a team playing a clearly superior game athleticism-wise

This point, however, is existing mainly because the 1992 team was lucky enough to not get a decent matchup in the Olympics. This way, the debate of "USA vs the Rest" was transferred from the "NBA vs Europe" to the NTs immediately, without interruptions and it was considered as common sense. No-one would doubt the 40+ margins that the U.S. team got in Barcelona without even trying. Add to that the NBA's clear superiority as a league and you don't need much to create a legend. Legends are not easy to overcome. And this one has many sides and it's rather convincing

The "no matchup" thing is what I call key here. And it might have given the U.S. three straight golds in the 90s, but these competitions are nearly living the "no matchup" dream rather than reality. If someone excludes the Olympics of 1992, then the fear against the U.S. team as a given "unbeatable" one severely diminishes

Genjuro's point about Serbia (Savic, starting PF indeed, and the team's 2nd scorer missing the final and Divac with 5 fouls mid-way 2nd half) is true. Back then, again, even with the living myth of the U.S. being incomparably better than the rest, the Serbian mentality was a winning one. Either because they were not allowed to play for 3 years or due to this champions' mentality, it was back in 1996 that Serbia made it clear that USA wasn't unbeatable for 30'. Divac being a big name in the NBA (thus being able to matchup with the U.S. bigs) was and remains a factor for this match's turning point, but there is a disregarded note here.. Even after 1999, when the transformation of international basketball was obvious, it wasn't so likely that USA would lose a match, as it was in this 1996 match. If you ask me why, there is only one reply and it's very clear. No-one had seen these players losing. Neither as Yugoslavia nor as Serbia. If it was common sense for the U.S. team not to lose, so it was for Serbia. Maybe someone can explain that it was a taboo, even then, for USA with NBA players to lose and it wasn't for Serbia, because USA existed and was beating everyone by more points


That's of course true, but good enough only to put on paper a favourite and an underdog. So, in this matchup, the rule of "no matchup" that existed before doesn't make much sense, if you ask me. I can accept that we have an equation with an x factor and a y factor and in 1996, USA as x is stronger of a factor than Serbia as y. But until then, it was only equations using an x factor and there was no y factor. And, if there was Yugoslavia in 1992, there would definitely be an x and there would also be a y, and the 1992 y would be stronger than the 1996 y and maybe equally strong or stronger than the 1992 x

To give it some more depth, in 2002, before the Olympics started and with the U.S. having got the first scares from Sydney, Divac had said the famous today "We don't think we can beat them. We know we can beat them" quote. This is not an accident and this is not the Yugoslavia of 1992. It is Serbia of 2002, with Divac way past his prime and the U.S. team suspected that they can actually lose

So, in my opinion, there are several ways of measuring things. The one is how teams approached the U.S. game. On this, several factors have played a part and they are well discussed here. Another way is the improvement of defence overall in Europe. A third factor is the lack of knowledge of international players by the U.S. teams. In other words, the understanding that there is more than the NBA and it's worth mentioning it. Somewhere there, one can place the stats of the players in their NBA teams, whether they are Yugoslavians or Americans. It's a less important factor than someone would think. Take the stats of any NBA successful player in international basketball in any of the important squads in international competitions and you will note that the stats are either similar or worse. Divac, as mentioned before, though the leader of the Serbian team and an important player of the Yugoslavian squads, he was never among the top scorers for them. This doesn't mean much really. It has more to do with the coach. On the other hand, Haddadi has more influence for Iran, because he is by far the team's best player. This is why Yugoslavia is Yugoslavia and Iran is worse than them

And, another thing. The 1992 dream team helped basketball a lot. Not by creating fans, of course or by creating the superiority feeling to the opponent. They just helped the other teams understand that basketball in Europe and basketball in the U.S. can actually come closer over the course of time. The 1992 team dominating and the 1994 team being clearly worse yet not possible to challenge yet gave an image of regression that was approached in the 1996 and 2000 competitions as "doable" by other teams, before Argentina, Serbia and Spain all beat them in 2002. If it wasn't for the 1992 team, it wouldn't get the rest of the squads trying to figure out what they need to do in order to improve and beat them at the end. And this is one of the parts of the previous decade's image of basketball. I am still not as sure that things would have been so good for international ball today, without three things:

1) The Yugoslavian team not existing in 1992, thus the U.S. team prevailing witout another "unbeatable" factor in the equation
2) The first wave of successful NBA players coming from Europe, thus breaking the original taboos before the mid-late '80s
3) The takeover of Euroleague from ULEB in 2000, which slowly helped basketball become more professional in Europe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top