Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 101 to 110 of 110

Thread: Stern: age limit on Olympics basketball

  1. #101
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,273
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleasant View Post
    First of all, I'm not NorCal so there's no need to lecture me about the East Coast, where I spent my high school and college years

    Next, you nitpick small parts of the post and ignore what I am trying to say. I am not underestimating the current group of young players; I just would rather have a handful of once-in-a-lifetime players than an abundance of merely good players. If the fake U23 team is "not even remotely" lesser than the actual 2006 bronze team, what does that even mean? That they're better? That they're equal? Why are you so insistent on believing that inexperienced American players would trample over the best other nations have to offer?

    Also, you are making cringe-worthy comparisons. Tyreke is LBJ? Tyreke is the exact player he was three years ago, a one-dimensional scorer who can't defend SFs his size, not a five-position talent. Lawson and Holiday are like Chris Paul? And... Johnny Flynn?! Maybe we watch different leagues my friend

    Last, I wonder about infrastructure. How can countries like Lithuania (3m pop.) or Greece (10m pop.) consistently field top international teams across generations of players? Lithuania provided talent to the USSR teams and has continued their basketball excellence since then, so I guess they are doing a rather good job of finding and cultivating talent out of their small population. I am not a fan of the AAU/NCAA development track, and often wonder if fielding youth teams for our pro teams would not be much better for developing our young talent, but that is a topic for another time

    Your collection of regional stereotypes proves nothing at all about development systems. Who in Oceania, a terrible FIBA classification idea, could challenge Australia? Vanuatu, surely? And, nobody challenges Angola and Nigeria? Well, Tunisia won the last African championship, and Nigeria has not been a traditional basketball powerhouse at all. Their talent this year mostly came from Nigerian-American players anyway, so their success in getting to the Olympics shows little about their domestic development programs. Also, Turkey plays in Europe, not Asia, so I don't know how they fit in to your analysis, as they are upstarts in European basketball and not a team that are in a position deserving challenge.

    All that being said, I agree that other nations (China, maybe Argentina) can point only to bursts of talent, rather than infrstructure of basketball development, for their success, but it's wrong to use this handful of countries to generalize about our vast world with its many nations and many basketball leagues
    My fault, got you and NorCal mixed up for a minute there.

    No, I didn't. I'm not one of those immature people who needs to do that. I read and responded to every single thing you said. I don't appreciate being accused of things I don't do by people who do it themselves.

    See, again with this "once in a lifetime" vs "good" stuff. You base this on what exactly? You think Melo's a once-in-a-lifetime player? Hell no he isn't. You keep jumping around. A Golden Generation isn't made up of a bunch of busts and a few gems. There are quite a few players who are much better than Melo. It's made up of many players who are that good or better, and plenty of them are. You said they were lesser. I said they aren't even remotely lesser. That's what it means. Don't try to act like I'm the one who brought the term "lesser" into it. You did.

    Never said he was LBJ, just the closest thing to him. One dimensional? This coming from a Melo booster? Tyreke is a franchise player, pure and simple. LeBron's role isn't to play every position. It's to be a point-forward and lockdown defender. Tyreke is the closest one offensively/skill/size wise to LeBron right now. Lawson and Holiday are like Chris Paul. I don't think you remember what Chris Paul was like in college or his first years in the NBA. Lawson has his talent and speed but is immature, as does Johnnie Flynn, and Jrue Holiday has his PG skills but not his offensive game as of yet. He's basically a poor-man's Chris Paul.

    I'm not a fan of that system either to be honest with you. It's part of what's wrong with our country basketball-wise. Players should be playing pick-up from the time they're teenagers, not playing AAU.

    Stereotypes? Huh? Secondly, Tunisia is in a completely different part of Africa. Their players are closer to Turkey's or Iran's than to Nigeria's. I put Turkey in the Middle East, not Asia. Maybe I should've put them in Eastern Europe. I'm not going by FIBA regions but by geographic ones. Tunisia and Nigeria produce very different players. Tunisia and Angola as well. Turkey may be in Europe but its players are much closer to those in the Arab world than in other places. Eastern Europe and Western Europe are entirely different basketball areas regardless of the fact that they're in the same FIBA region. It's the same way that the various parts of the US are very different from each other basketball-wise. Also, the teams I listed consistently win in their region. Nigeria is a power in Africa. Turkey is a power in the general Middle East area. Lastly, you pretty much proved my point by saying "who could challenge Australia in Oceania".

    Not generalizing about anything. I'll point out to you for a second time that I don't appreciate being accused of things I don't do, especially when it's by people who actually do those things. The fact is that even the strongest NTs have holes in them, and even in the countries with the strongest infrastructure, they still don't consistently produce the level of player the US does. Any country that wants to be number one in the world at basketball needs to be able to churn out a whole team of NT franchise players at least every five years. Canada and the UK are starting to do that because of the roots basketball has in their urban communities and the kind of player that produces but for the other countries, even the strongest NTs have more players who are potential than finished product. Even Lithuania, Greece, Spain, and especially Argentina have questions as to whether or not their young players will be able to take the next step and replace the players who are retiring or will in the future.

    Like I said, basketball as a whole needs to keep growing and improving in order for this to happen.

  2. #102
    Member Pleasant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    63
    Country: United States

    Default

    Let's re-focus the discussion

    1. We both agree that the USA has the deepest talent pool. I said (and you haven't yet disagreed) that this is a result of having a large population that ranks basketball as one of its top three most popular sports, meaning our talented young athletes need no convincing to dedicate their energies to the sport.

    2. We both agree that Melo is overrated, actually You focused on my grouping him as a part of a Golden Generation and ignored the part where I said that 2006 Melo was "at least a superstar or potential superstar" (which most would still have believed in 2006), but I admit I expressed this poorly.

    3. We both agree that Griffin and Harden are not ideal Team USA candidates.

    4. Now for source of disagreement: you thought my fake U23 team would have won gold in the Olympics. I disagreed, pointing out that what would have been the best U23 team since the 1980s - the 2006 Japan team, which was also bolstered by several solid role players and All-Stars - only managed to secure 3rd place, soundly losing in the semi-finals to Greece which was then annihilated by Spain. You seemed to reply to this by saying that my fake U23 team - Irving, Evans, Holiday, Griffin, Cousins - was better than the actual 2006 team of Paul, Wade, Durant, LBJ, Bosh, Howard? So you are trying to say that the fact that the 2006 team could "only" win bronze does not suggest that the fake U23 team could not do better and win gold, because the fake U23 team is better than the 2006 team was? Well, there is no way I can be open-minded on this point Still, that was a long response to what was just supposed to be an example to illustrate my broader point.

    5. Based on that, it seems to me that what we fundamentally disagree about is how big the gap is between the USA and other countries is now, and how that gap will change in the future. You focused on our unequaled talent pool, but the depth of the talent pool only gets you so far in round-robin tournaments. If we could field multiple teams, the depth of US talent vis-a-vis other nations would have more effect, but that is (I am sad to say!) not the case. But how cool would it be to see three Team USAs in play? If they can do it in badminton, why not in other team sports?

    Anyway, as I don't want to be accused of the ungentlemanly conduct of being a hypocrite, I'll explain what I meant when I said you were not addressing my main points. I had said:

    My thread-specific point is that the USA should always have the largest, deepest talent pool in the world, but it does not at all follow that the gap between the USA and the next-best country will always be wide, and it certainly does not follow that a U-23 team should be favored above excellent international teams.
    You didn't directly reply to that point. You just kept pointing out young and talented players to strengthen your point that I am underestimating recent generations of youngsters. Okay, so let's put aside the unfruitful comparison of the 2006 team with an imaginary 2012 U23 team. Does it follow that the USA will always be an unreachable target that will always be favored to win gold? Does your original contention, that a U23 team would win gold against senior national teams, follow from this? No.

    I also said:
    We have returned to top form, but now, just as in 2010 and in 2008, should not pretend in the future that we were unchallenged. We should only expect the world's best teams to continue to improve, and not fall back into the trap of taking our no. 1 position for granted.
    From what I can tell, your response to this was:

    I'm not saying that in the future, teams won't be able to beat the US even if we used our best players. I'm just saying that currently the case is that if we put the best team out there and play the best we can then there's no reason we should lose because the teams who have the athleticism to do that are still at least a few years off from being able to hang with us, let alone beat us.
    Okay, of course I can agree with that: with our large number of talented players, a well-assembled, well-coached team of our best should be favorites to win every tournament. I can't agree with this though:

    I have no doubt that every country is capable of fielding a team capable of beating the US one day but so far, nobody has.
    But Serbia, Puerto Rico, Lithuania, Argentina, and Greece did beat the US, and, for all the faults those teams had, these were not just accidents that we can dismiss. Americans forget that even the 2002 team was an All-Star-packed roster, and then the 2004 team was filled with All-Stars, former ROYs, MVPs, Finals MVPs, scoring champs, etc. - hardly a scrub team. Then, of course, even in our post-"Nightmare" era, a legitimately good Greece team beat a Colangelo/Coach K team. I can't see how, after those losses, especially in 2006, you (like vast majority of American fans) didn't learn what Stern and Colangelo did: it's not ever again going to be a cake walk to win gold, and you can't just assume that our second or third tier of talent is better than other countries' first tier of talent. Sometimes, our first team is hardly better.

    My point, again, is that the gap keeps getting smaller. It's unrealistic and arrogant to think we can send our fake U23 team and easily win gold! This really smacks of the "Oh, we can just send our third tier of talent and still win" attitude USAB had in 2002. It suggests a shallow understanding of international basketball.

    Basically, you think the gap is wider than I do. I think that's about it

  3. #103
    Senior Member Shawshank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Klaipeda
    Posts
    2,003
    Country: Lithuania

    Default

    Pleasant i agree with you.Its not 90s,when usa could name 12 nba players without thinking and win gold.If you usa gonna bring james,durrant and other their best players,yes usa gonna win.But if they will bring team without your best 10 players,im not sure they gonna win .I even think 2010 usa team wouldnt have won gold in this years olimpics.Your team were b team,but other countries played without their leaders parker,gasol,kirilenko,ginobili and so on nobody played in 2010.Same teams who played in 2010 WC in 2012 was no doubt stronger,because they added all missing pieces because its olimpics every atheletes wants to to be apart of it.
    Usa have best tallent pool in basketball no doubt ,but right now everybody knows how to play basketball and if usa will not take it seriuos they gonna be punished again.

  4. #104
    Senior Member NorCal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    972
    Country: United States

    Default

    Its being reported that FIBA rejected Stern's proposal to make the Olympics an U23 event:

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...tball-proposal

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,273
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleasant View Post
    Let's re-focus the discussion

    1. We both agree that the USA has the deepest talent pool. I said (and you haven't yet disagreed) that this is a result of having a large population that ranks basketball as one of its top three most popular sports, meaning our talented young athletes need no convincing to dedicate their energies to the sport.

    2. We both agree that Melo is overrated, actually You focused on my grouping him as a part of a Golden Generation and ignored the part where I said that 2006 Melo was "at least a superstar or potential superstar" (which most would still have believed in 2006), but I admit I expressed this poorly.

    3. We both agree that Griffin and Harden are not ideal Team USA candidates.

    4. Now for source of disagreement: you thought my fake U23 team would have won gold in the Olympics. I disagreed, pointing out that what would have been the best U23 team since the 1980s - the 2006 Japan team, which was also bolstered by several solid role players and All-Stars - only managed to secure 3rd place, soundly losing in the semi-finals to Greece which was then annihilated by Spain. You seemed to reply to this by saying that my fake U23 team - Irving, Evans, Holiday, Griffin, Cousins - was better than the actual 2006 team of Paul, Wade, Durant, LBJ, Bosh, Howard? So you are trying to say that the fact that the 2006 team could "only" win bronze does not suggest that the fake U23 team could not do better and win gold, because the fake U23 team is better than the 2006 team was? Well, there is no way I can be open-minded on this point Still, that was a long response to what was just supposed to be an example to illustrate my broader point.

    5. Based on that, it seems to me that what we fundamentally disagree about is how big the gap is between the USA and other countries is now, and how that gap will change in the future. You focused on our unequaled talent pool, but the depth of the talent pool only gets you so far in round-robin tournaments. If we could field multiple teams, the depth of US talent vis-a-vis other nations would have more effect, but that is (I am sad to say!) not the case. But how cool would it be to see three Team USAs in play? If they can do it in badminton, why not in other team sports?

    Anyway, as I don't want to be accused of the ungentlemanly conduct of being a hypocrite, I'll explain what I meant when I said you were not addressing my main points. I had said:



    You didn't directly reply to that point. You just kept pointing out young and talented players to strengthen your point that I am underestimating recent generations of youngsters. Okay, so let's put aside the unfruitful comparison of the 2006 team with an imaginary 2012 U23 team. Does it follow that the USA will always be an unreachable target that will always be favored to win gold? Does your original contention, that a U23 team would win gold against senior national teams, follow from this? No.

    I also said:


    From what I can tell, your response to this was:



    Okay, of course I can agree with that: with our large number of talented players, a well-assembled, well-coached team of our best should be favorites to win every tournament. I can't agree with this though:



    But Serbia, Puerto Rico, Lithuania, Argentina, and Greece did beat the US, and, for all the faults those teams had, these were not just accidents that we can dismiss. Americans forget that even the 2002 team was an All-Star-packed roster, and then the 2004 team was filled with All-Stars, former ROYs, MVPs, Finals MVPs, scoring champs, etc. - hardly a scrub team. Then, of course, even in our post-"Nightmare" era, a legitimately good Greece team beat a Colangelo/Coach K team. I can't see how, after those losses, especially in 2006, you (like vast majority of American fans) didn't learn what Stern and Colangelo did: it's not ever again going to be a cake walk to win gold, and you can't just assume that our second or third tier of talent is better than other countries' first tier of talent. Sometimes, our first team is hardly better.

    My point, again, is that the gap keeps getting smaller. It's unrealistic and arrogant to think we can send our fake U23 team and easily win gold! This really smacks of the "Oh, we can just send our third tier of talent and still win" attitude USAB had in 2002. It suggests a shallow understanding of international basketball.

    Basically, you think the gap is wider than I do. I think that's about it
    See this is more like it. Almost makes me regret lumping you in with NorCal but you more than earned it in that thread.

    What you and I disagree with is what constitutes both a good team and top-level talent. You're basing it on stats and "superstar" status (which isn't a real thing but a label put on certain players and not others) whereas I'm going by the actual players. It's the players that matter, not their stats. The US sent flawed teams over after 96 because our "best" players didn't play the right way all the time the way they did in the days of the Dream Team. Marbury and Iverson were idiots who played no defense. Melo is an idiot who plays no defense. We had a ton of skilled players but very few complete ones, and not enough of them to make a difference. The US started winning in 2008 because Iverson/Marbury were replaced by LeBron, Kobe, Bosh, Howard, Chris Paul, etc.. all players who play the game the right way in order to win. Melo played a much bigger role this year than in 2008, something I wasn't happy about but I'll admit he did a great job offensively. The point is that we lost to those teams because we didn't send over teams. We sent over an All-Star game.

    The best players don't come from AAU or any of those things. Derrick Rose is great because he's from Chicago. LeBron is great because he's from the Rust-Belt. Other guys come from elsewhere but are forced to play as well as East Coast/Rust Belt players do because they play against them. Iverson and Marbury were just stupid but unlike the dumb players today who try to play like them, both cut their teeth on hard-knock streetball courts and were dominant scorers because of it. Very few places in the world have that level of competition on their public courts. That's what churns out our best players. There are MANY players so much better than a lot who make the NBA but most of them either don't get hyped enough or are deemed too small for their position. These players would all be dominant in the International game. We have way too much talent in this country for only 30 major teams for them to play for. Other countries don't have the amount of that level of player to fill their own domestic leagues in a lot of cases. That's why the gap is currently still bigger than it seems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shawshank View Post
    Pleasant i agree with you.Its not 90s,when usa could name 12 nba players without thinking and win gold.If you usa gonna bring james,durrant and other their best players,yes usa gonna win.But if they will bring team without your best 10 players,im not sure they gonna win .I even think 2010 usa team wouldnt have won gold in this years olimpics.Your team were b team,but other countries played without their leaders parker,gasol,kirilenko,ginobili and so on nobody played in 2010.Same teams who played in 2010 WC in 2012 was no doubt stronger,because they added all missing pieces because its olimpics every atheletes wants to to be apart of it.
    Usa have best tallent pool in basketball no doubt ,but right now everybody knows how to play basketball and if usa will not take it seriuos they gonna be punished again.
    2010 wasn't a B team. It was simply a team.

    Quote Originally Posted by NorCal View Post
    Its being reported that FIBA rejected Stern's proposal to make the Olympics an U23 event:

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...tball-proposal
    I'm breaking my silence towards you to say that I am insanely happy this got rejected.

  6. #106
    Member Pleasant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    63
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CHBB View Post
    See this is more like it. Almost makes me regret lumping you in with NorCal but you more than earned it in that thread.
    Your opinion of me means very little, so don't worry about regretting it You're just so rude and petty. Why is that? You still didn't really address any points again, either, but I'm not expecting much anymore.

    Well anyway, FIBA's come down with a decision. It's a bit of a shame; I think the FIBA World Cup is a little more fun because (1) the audience's attention is solely on basketball and (2) having so many more teams means getting to see so many more players I don't usually have a chance to see. That said, the prestige and history of the Olympics is a hard thing to fight, apparently.

    For now, I can't wait for 2014

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,273
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pleasant View Post
    Your opinion of me means very little, so don't worry about regretting it You're just so rude and petty. Why is that? You still didn't really address any points again, either, but I'm not expecting much anymore.

    Well anyway, FIBA's come down with a decision. It's a bit of a shame; I think the FIBA World Cup is a little more fun because (1) the audience's attention is solely on basketball and (2) having so many more teams means getting to see so many more players I don't usually have a chance to see. That said, the prestige and history of the Olympics is a hard thing to fight, apparently.

    For now, I can't wait for 2014
    There you go earning your place with NorCal and the other disgraces yet again. What a fucking child playing these games you play because you can't ever refute anything anybody says or deal with being challenged. Way to show how much of a disgrace to basketball you are yet again.

    Sorry but I don't play these bitch ass games. I'm a grown ass fucking man, and if somebody insults, disrespects, or talks shit to or about me completely unprovoked in an indirect manner then I'm going to come right back in a much more direct one like a man does. Children act catty and indirect, not men. Bitch ass loser. Back to ignoring you I go. Definitely sorry I gave your dipshit ass the benefit of the doubt.
    Last edited by CHBB; 08-19-2012 at 11:21 PM.

  8. #108
    Member Pleasant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    63
    Country: United States

    Default

    Okay, sure

  9. #109
    Senior Member Bosnian 23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    342
    Country: Bosnia Herzegovina

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CHBB View Post
    There you go earning your place with NorCal and the other disgraces yet again. What a fucking child playing these games you play because you can't ever refute anything anybody says or deal with being challenged. Way to show how much of a disgrace to basketball you are yet again.

    Sorry but I don't play these bitch ass games. I'm a grown ass fucking man, and if somebody insults, disrespects, or talks shit to or about me completely unprovoked in an indirect manner then I'm going to come right back in a much more direct one like a man does. Children act catty and indirect, not men. Bitch ass loser. Back to ignoring you I go. Definitely sorry I gave your dipshit ass the benefit of the doubt.
    Umadbro?
    [SIGPIC]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/419WJmXXpOL.jpg[/SIGPIC]

  10. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    564

    Default

    No to age-limit for basketball for olympics. because the results is not real.
    ================================================== =========================================

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •