The problem is "that voting thing" exists in all major sports. FIBA was founded in 1931, 15 years before the NBA. I'm certainly not a close enough student of the game to say that FIBA changed the rules in 1931, or even to say what official interpretations might have been back then. Just looking at the timeframe, it is certainly at least possible that the FIBA rules are closer to the original, "proper", "real" rules of basketball than those currently used in the NBA. I'll do some digging to find out.
Argentina is only a medal favorite. Best teams other than USA are still in the Europe: Serbia-Monteago, Lithuania and Spain. A couple of days ago Lithuania beated Argentina by 18 pts. And today Serbia-Monteago beated Lithuania by 14 points.
The good news is now we can burn Stu Jackson at the stake. The angry villagers are pushing their way up to Dr. Frankenstein's castle with torches and sharp farm tools right now. Burn, you evil Monster.
Some interesting links: Brief history of the rules of basketball Brief overview (notes NCAA championship starting in 1938)
Oh ok. I've heard Argentina mentioned as one of the gold medal favorites in various articles and on TV, along with all of the teams you mentioned. I am surprised by the Serbia-Montenegro victory, since they're without Peja and Vlade (is Jaric still playing?). Anyway, my point was that if we sent out a team with our best players, we would still have an average margin of victory of 25+. C- Duncan PF- Garnett SF- McGrady SG- K. Bryant PG- Kidd Bench- Ray Allen, J. O'Neal, S O'Neal, V. Carter, Bibby, Brand or healthy Webber, and either Pierce, Iverson, or Redd as the last guy. I would bet that this team could beat the world's best by 20+ points. It's just a matter of getting the top guys to commit.
I don’t think it’s about talent. The US Team still has much more talent than any other team, but it takes more than talent to win. You have to have players with fire. Players that will go all out on defense. The US team does not play with nearly the same intensity level as the international teams.
This would be my thinking in putting together a team: SG - I like McGrady over Bryant, just because of the outside shooting. Id have Redd backing him up. PG - Pass on Kidd. His outside shooting is just too much of a liability in the Olympics, where zones are a huge factor. Bibby is a solid choice, and a pretty good 3 pt shooter. Give me Hinrich as a backup. SF - Garnett is the obvious first choice, just because he can do it all. Backup him up with Tayshaun Prince. PF - Duncan is the obvious first choice, for the same reasons as Garnett. Back him up with Lamar Odom. C - Miller is my suprise first choice. He can post up, and hit the outside jumper. Plus hes a pretty solid rebounder who isn't afraid to be physical, and his passing would be an asset.. Back him up with Jermaine O'Neal (although I certainly could start O'Neal with Miller backing him up). 11th and 12th men: Ron Artest and Kenny Thomas for their defense, decent offense and all around versatility. PG - Bibby/Hinrich SG - McGrady/Redd SF - Garnett/Prince PF - Duncan/Odom C - Miller/O'Neal or O'Neal/Miller Thats a pretty versatile team, that plays good defense (at least, most of them), can all shoot mid-range and beyond, rebounding ....toughness .....thats my team!
That quick overview points out 2 distinct things. One that the rules of the game are organic & have varied over time & place. There is no set "perfect" basketball, like all human endeavors it is an evolving thing. Second that the International game has adopted most of the NBAs rules already.
I know. I acknowledged that the world is catching up. My point was that we would still be able to dominate any of our opponents if we sent our best. Domination doesn't have to mean 40+ points. It can mean 20 or 30+.
You could have them on the court at the same time. I'm sure that in an olympic setting, they'd share the ball and work together. That way, you have more perimeter shooters than if you had a Garnett, Duncan, Miller frontcourt. Having Bibby, Bryant, and McGrady on the court instead would give Garnett and Duncan more room to operate.
Its not Kobe's selfishness that I would be concerned with, its his outside shooting. He doesn't have the long range that McGrady has and Kobe is much more streaky. Having both McGrady and Kobe on the team would be overkill. Thats why I picked some blue chippers and surrounded them with versatile skill guys.
To those who think that the U.S. will never send a fully-formed NBA team to the Olympics, maybe you should wait until the U.S. racks up a few losses or bronze medals in Olympic play in the coming olympiads. I bet many people never thought that they'd send pro players at all.
Basketball has changed a lot through the years. Both the rules and the interpretation of the rules. To give you some perspective the US beat Mexico 19-8 and Canada 25-10 the first time basketball was played in the Olympics in 1936. So to say that they are not playing our game is rediculous. We are not playing our game the way it was invented either. BTW, the score of the first game of basketball was 5-1. And James Naismith was Canadian. I have been playing basketball for 28 years and the game has changed a lot in that time period. Travalling, carrying, fouls are all interpreted differently even though the rules are basically the same.
Kobe's a pretty darn good outside shooter when he's not throwing up garbage and takes them in the context of the offense. He was streaky earlier in his career, but has gotten much more consistent these past two years. It's the hanging, twisting, fadeaways over 2 defenders and the 25 foot shots to beat the shot clock that are streaky. And the international 3 point line is more than 3 feet shorter than the NBA line, so Kobe would be very dangerous in international play. However, if you think having both of them is overkill, you could still bring one off the bench .
The Italian Job* *yep, stole the caption from espn's nba front page, but this pic fits way better, dontcha think?
