Basketball - Beijing

[PurelyAcademic]

Kolokotronis, your blind love for Team USA is preventing you from reading what I've been writing all along.

It was a flat out ass beating.

We're not in the American's league, especially THIS American team (not the '06 version).

Funny, the '06 team had been undefeated before they played Greece. This team is undefeated too. And many players on the '08 team were on the '06 team (and some were on the '04 team as well). Even with Team USA's win, they haven't proven ANYTHING. They will prove it if they make it to the gold medal game and win. It seems that you pretty much want to roll up the carpets and annoint them champions. In fact, why not give Team USA gold, silver and bronze, since they are head and shoulders above the world, like you say?

Funny how when we lose it was a "meaningless" game, but when we win we're an omadara.

If you read what I wrote carefully, I still predicted a Team USA win. I've never said that Greece is better than Team USA, but I have been saying that on any given night, Team USA risks losing, not just to Greece, but to any of the top-caliber teams in the tournament. After only three games, that assertion still stands.

And the fact is, this game was far, far bigger for Team USA than for Greece. The game was not meaningless for Greece, but it is relatively unimportant in the scheme of things. Greece's goal right now is to make the medal rounds. Team USA, however, has wanted this game since the day we beat them. This game has been talked about for MONTHS in the US. They had something to prove. The game meant more to them. A loss for Greece does not mean they won't make it to the medal rounds. But a loss for Team USA, while also not eliminating them from the metal rounds, would have been a huge, huge blow to the psyche of the "Redeem Team."

Fact is, the US has beaten three of Europe's four best teams by an average margin of 26 in a span of two weeks or so. And they've beaten China by 30 and Canada by 55. If it was Greece doing this, we would all be doing cartwheels down Syggrou and proclaiming ourselves the best in the world.

How many times do we have to say that friendly matches are meaningless? Team USA whooped Puerto Rico in a friendly before the '04 Olympics. Holland whooped Greece 4-0 before the Euro 2004. Wow, they beat Canada by 55! Big deal...tell me what tournament Canada is playing in again? They beat China by 30....so did Greece in 2006 in the Worlds. Drawing conclusions on the basis of friendly matches and a small sample of tournament matches is meaningless. You know what I draw conclusions from? The final results. And the final results in the three major tournaments prior to this for Team USA was 6th, 3rd and 3rd. Which leads me to...

The US has NOTHING to prove to anyone. They're the best team in the world with the best palyers in the world, by a WIDE margin.

Yawn. They had the best players in the world, by a wide margin, in 2002 and 2004 and 2006 as well. They didn't have the best team. Team USA, in 2008, must PROVE that it is the best team. That's why they play the games. Going 3-0, so far, in preliminary matchups proves that they are...3-0. They started undefeated in 2002 and 2006 as well. We saw where they ended up.

Good thing this wasnt played with NBA rules or else we would have lost by 40-50.

What does this have to do with anything? I wouldn't be so sure the margin would be much larger...those rules work both ways, and more and more Euros have played in the NBA, so those rules are familiar to them. It just seems you can't miss an opportunity to harp on the greatness of Team USA, no matter what a stretch it is.

Sadly, I don't think the Americans are playing anywhere near maximum capacity. They were horrendous from the 3 point line and beloe average from the line.

And this is sad because?

You are right that they are not playing anywhere near maximum capacity, but can they play near maximum capacity? It's one thing to be a 30 point per game scorer on your team in the NBA, where the team is built around you. It's another thing to be part of what is basically an all-star team. Team USA is still having many of the problems which plagued it in 2006 and before. Bad free throw shooting, terrible outside shooting, among other things. It might just catch up to them now, as it did then.

And jsut think, this team has only been togerther for two years and is comprised mostly of players under 26 years of age. Wait till the next Olympics when they add Derek Rose, Greg Oden, OJ Mayo, and Michael Beasely, among others.

Some of those players haven't proven themselves in the NBA yet, so it's far, far too early to annoint them as the next "chosen ones." And of course, they will be replacing other players on the team. And it's not even a given that they will want to be on the team or make the team. And if all those players join the team and replace existing players, that team won't have a chance to be together too long either. It's far, far too early to tell who will be on the 2012 team or even on the team for the 2010 Worlds. Heck, it's far too early to tell what will happen in this year's tournament. I'd put the fantasies aside if I were you and concentrate on the here and now.

If we can muster a bronze, it would be phenomenal.

A bronze would be a great success for this team, I agree. I would be very happy with it. I wouldn't phrase it as "muster"...a bronze isn't guaranteed, but it won't be a shocker either.

Then why were Spanoulis and Co. on the floor till the final whistle, while Coach K emptied his bench (Tayshaun Prince anyone?) and played a zone?

Spanoulis & co. were on the court until the end of the game against Germany, which we won handily. So what's your point?

Come off it man-every greek out there wanted to win this game. They're simply a LOT better.

Come off of what? Of course they wanted to win the game. But these guys are professionals as well. Team USA played better and at some point it was better to just move on and start thinking about the next game. This was far, far different from a knockout match where you let it all hang out on the floor in hopes of survival. And as I explained, Team USA had its own special reasons for wanting this match badly.

We're not going to catch lightning in a bottle twice and score 101 on them. Meanwhile, they pretty much scored the same amount of points as last time. 90+.

And they scored 78 against Angola. Again, your point is? Every game is far, far different. Basketball is a game where the final score and points scored per team can vary wildly from game to game, even with the same exact matchups. It's a fallacious argument to make.

Simply put, they underestimated us last time and weren't ready-not the case this time. Has nothing to do with whether or not WE wanted the game. When they want to play defense, its game, set, and match.

You're contradicting yourself. They scored 95 points last time. They actually led by double digits. They staged a 4th quarter comeback. They were undefeated up until that point, which shows that they had taken the rest of the competition pretty seriously up until then. And if they did, in fact, underestimate Greece then, who is to say the same won't happen again, with us or a different team, come time for the medal rounds when it's all on the line and the other team has nothing to lose? What we're hearing now about Team USA...how they are ready, how they are prepared, how they have been together, how they are familiar with FIBA rules, how they are better than the previous team....we heard in 2006 and we heard in 2004. In the end it was proven to be empty talk. This year, it hasn't been proven to be empty talk--yet--but they haven't proven that they are the best either. They will prove it when/if they win the gold.

[Kolokotronis]

Funny, the '06 team had been undefeated before they played Greece.

[Kolokotronis]

Yawn.

[Kolokotronis]

Some of those players haven't proven themselves in the NBA yet, so it's far, far too early to annoint them as the next "chosen ones."  And of course, they will be replacing other players on the team.  And it's not even a given that they will want to be on the team or make the team.  And if all those players join the team and replace existing players, that team won't have a chance to be together too long either.  It's far, far too early to tell who will be on the 2012 team or even on the team for the 2010 Worlds.  Heck, it's far too early to tell what will happen in this year's tournament.  I'd put the fantasies aside if I were you and concentrate on the here and now

.

You don't follow the NBA much, do you?

Oden was in the NBA last year. Rose, Beasely, and Mayo are in THIS year.

Oden wasn't on the team because of a serious injury. He's the dominant center the US lacks.

Rose will take 35 year old Jason Kidd's spot. The kid is already the best under 19 player on the planet.

Beasely and Mayo will probably challenge for Tayshaun Prince's spot. Maybe Carlos Boozer's as well. Both are MUCH better players coming out of college than either of the aforementioned two.

[Kolokotronis]

You are right that they are not playing anywhere near maximum capacity, but can they play near maximum capacity?  It's one thing to be a 30 point per game scorer on your team in the NBA, where the team is built around you.  It's another thing to be part of what is basically an all-star team.  Team USA is still having many of the problems which plagued it in 2006 and before.  Bad free throw shooting, terrible outside shooting, among other things.  It might just catch up to them now, as it did then.

That goes for EVERY team in the tourney.

Spanoulis, Diamantidis, Papaloukas, Fotsis, are also big stars in their respective rights on their own teams as well.

So what?

National teams, by definition, are all star teams.

The US shot terribly from the three point mark, below average from the free throw line, and still blew out the second best team in Europe by 23.

So what?

The difference is that they played defense like they meant it. And when they do that, its all over.

The US score 92 today, 95 two years ago. Not a big difference.

The difference was that they gave up 69 tonight, not 101.

[plato-ny]

Greece actually allowed less points against USA than in the previous match 2 years ago but the offensive output by Greece was much less...

[Kolokotronis]

That was the whole point Plato, the US (not greek) defensive performance.

When the US decides to put the clamps on you defensively, good night.

Nobody is going to stop them offensively. They scored 95 and 92 points in consecutive matches against Europe's supposed best defense.

The key is if they want to play defense.

I was listening to Doug Collin during the game, and he noted that we had 45 screen rools in our upset win over the US. How many did we hve tonight? K saw that Howard was having touble picking up the triler on the screen rolem he put in Bosh, and it was all over.

Same thing with ransition points. Hw many did we have tonight? I counted 2.

[PurelyAcademic]

THAT US team is NOT the same as this one. THAT team was together for all of a few weeks. This one for two years. THAT team didn't have arguably the best player on the planet, Kobe, THIS one did. THAT team didn't have two years to acclimate itself to FIBA basketball, this one did.

I believe that team was together for more than a few weeks as well. And it's funny how not being together wasn't a problem not just for the 1992 team, but the 1994, 1996 and 2000 teams. Sounds like a bunch of excuses to me.

And Kobe, while being arguably the best player on the planet, has less than arguably not been the best player on Team USA so far. And as I pointed out in a previous post, Kobe has a nasty little habit of not showing up for the really big games. Need I remind you of his less than stellar Finals performances against the Celtics and Pistons?

Two years or two weeks doesn't make a difference until they prove it on the hardwood in the games that really count. I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand.

Of course you predicted a US win. Its called covering your ass.

LOL. I can't win either way. If I pick a US win, I'm covering my ass. If I pick a Greece win, I must be blind to the greatness that is Team USA. You're hilarious.

Any given team can beat any other given team in any sport on any day.

So what?

Giannina beat Olympiakos in the Greek Cup two years ago.

So what?

We're not talking exceptions here, we're talking the norm.

And the norm has no bearing on the knockout matches, where it's one and out. That's where teams prove themselves, not in preliminary qualifying matches.

That has no bearing on who the best team in the tourney is-the US. Waiting for an upset is disingenious, to say the least. Nor is the winner of a tourney, especially one with a one game knockout phase, necessarily determinative of who the best team is.

The best team is going to be the one that wins, and that has not been determined yet. It seems that while you are accusing me of making excuses for the Ethniki, you're the one that's conveniently making excuses for Team USA. "They weren't ready." "The knockout phase doesn't determine the best team." Etc. Well, that's how the tournaments are played, like it or not.

Otherwise, the US Olympic hockey team in '80 would have been better than the star studded Russians. They weren't, not even close. The Americans caught lightning in a bottle that one night, much like Greece did against the US in '06. When the US puts its best on the floor and plays like they can, its all over for everybody else.

More excuses. Of course the US has the most talented team. But when you have failed to reach the gold in THREE CONSECUTIVE tournaments, that is not a fluke, like it or not. You're the one that's being disingenuous by pretty much awarding the gold medal to Team USA before the knockout phase has even begun. It seems that a lot of lightning has struck since 2002....

Tell me when the "real" games against the "real" teams start so I can wake up.

The final result was a 23 point win for the US today.

In a "real" game.

care to wager on any other "real" games?

It's an absurd notion to compare one match out of five in the group phase, with the one-and-out knockout matches, where the real pressure is. That is like comparing the NBA regular season with the NBA Playoffs. So many teams, year after year, put up huge numbers in the regular season, and then fizzle out in the playoffs. The playoffs are where the real winners shine, and in the Olympic basketball tournament, the "playoffs", if you will, are the knockout matches. You're drawing your conclusions based on all the hype surrounding this team (some of it which seems to be of your own creation), the result of some meaningless friendlies, and three preliminary round matchups. I prefer to take in the whole picture.

Of course, knowing you, if Team USA does win the gold (which they very well might, of course, I've never denied that), you'll use that as a basis to unilaterally prove how you were absolutely right about everything. I'll start yawning from now...

But I also said best TEAM, this year.

The previous US teams weren't prepared enough to compensate for the FIBA differences in the game. This one is MUCH better prepared. No two week training camps and lets go. No second tier NBA'ers like in Indy. Not totally prepared, but getting there. Hence, the difference in talent/ability and not the FIBA nuances are the determining factors in these games, so far.

And the longer this team plays together, the greater the margins of victory will be.

Yawn........................

Yes, and the best team is determined once all the games have been played, not after 3/5 of the first round of the tournament.

It's funny how in 2006 and 2004 the media were all harping on how prepared the team was, how they learned from their past mistakes, how they were ready to handle FIBA competition, blah, blah, blah. Exactly the things you are repeating over and over again now. It's all empty, hollow words until they prove it.

And in Indy, I beg to differ...most of those players were NOT second tier NBAers, unless NBA Finals MVP Paul Pierce (who outplayed Kobe this year) was second tier. Not to mention THEY WERE PLAYING AT HOME!

You don't follow the NBA much, do you?

Oden was in the NBA last year. Rose, Beasely, and Mayo are in THIS year.

Oden wasn't on the team because of a serious injury. He's the dominant center the US lacks.

Rose will take 35 year old Jason Kidd's spot. The kid is already the best under 19 player on the planet.

Beasely and Mayo will probably challenge for Tayshaun Prince's spot. Maybe Carlos Boozer's as well. Both are MUCH better players coming out of college than either of the aforementioned two.

Greg Oden was in the NBA last year, except he was injured and missed the entire year. Rose, Beasley and Mayo were just drafted and will be starting their NBA careers this fall. Don't you think it's a tad early to annoint them as the next great ones until they actually play a game or two? How many times have we seen superstars that were hyped up in the draft come in and have mediocre NBA careers? Let them play a little bit first and then we'll talk.

Not to mention that by adding these players to the team, you'll be replacing older players, which means that the team will not have been together for years, as you say the current team has. And looking at the track records of past NBA starts, like Garnett, who "retired" from international competition, and Duncan, who wimped out of international competition because he didn't get favorable treatment from the refs...it's no given that these new potential superstars will stick around on Team USA or not. You are jumping the gun way too early on these guys.

Honestly, though, your posts are making you sound like you are trying out for a PR position on Team USA, or even Team China...I am sure a team like that would appreciate someone who always toots the company line and has nothing but positive, glowing things to say about the team, now, tomorrow and forever. You see no wrong, you hear no wrong, you say no wrong.

That goes for EVERY team in the tourney.

Spanoulis, Diamantidis, Papaloukas, Fotsis, are also big stars in their respective rights on their own teams as well.

So what?

National teams, by definition, are all star teams.

The US shot terribly from the three point mark, below average from the free throw line, and still blew out the second best team in Europe by 23.

So what?

The difference is that they played defense like they meant it. And when they do that, its all over.

The US score 92 today, 95 two years ago. Not a big difference.

The difference was that they gave up 69 tonight, not 101.

Yes, you are right, but only to an extent. You can't compare the "star power" of even a Fotsis or Spanoulis with most of the guys on Team USA. Most of these European players are stars in their own right, but very few of them are "the man" on their teams. And looking at the rest of Greece's roster...the likes of Glyniadakis, Vasilopoulos, etc....these guys are basically not even big stars on their teams. They are good players but not superstars. On Team USA you have a collection of mostly superstars plus Tayshawn Prince.

Team USA's miscues from three point land and the free throw line were made up for by the fact that they got the ball inside and scored on fast break opportunities. But what will happen if their defensive intensity is not there in one game, resulting in fewer easy opportunities? What will happen if the other team, say Greece, has a great shooting night from the field? You seem to think that Team USA can just turn on their engines at will, but if you have followed basketball as much as you claim, you will know that it's not always that easy.

And since you insist on comparing scores from completely separate basketball games, let me point out that in 1996, your beloved Chicago Bulls went 72-10. However, one of those 10 losses was by the score of 104-72 to the New York Knicks, who had only won 47 games that season and who had changed coaches just a few days earlier. I also recall the Bulls losing one or two games to the then-lowly expansion Toronto Raptors. This shows two things: 1) Anything can happen in basketball, and 2) You can't use past scores as a comparison between two games. In a playoff series that goes 7 games in the NBA, you might see some games go down to the final basket, and some games be a 20 or 30 point blowout...between the same teams, in the same two weeks of play. Each game is different, much different. That's why we shouldn't draw conclusions from Team USA's three wins...yet.

[paxiotis7]

To tell you the truth I was not too impressed with the US team. They were coming out gunning for this game and played their hearts out. They wanted this game really badly as revenge. And imo the greeks didnt play with enough heart. They didnt show like they wanted to be their as badly as any other going up agasnt The Dream Team. As for the Us though, they wanted this game really badly. For revenge. The Us national team watched the tape of the 06 game 43 times. This was the big game for the us. And they played their best game of the olympics. But i dunno, imo they didnt do THAT well. If this game was a knock out game greece would take it way more serious. To the us this was more of a championship game then it was to the greeks. I dont know to discribe what I mean, but after the game i thought the us wanted it more. That that the us beat greece and acheved their goal, theyre going to take greece lighter later on in the tourney. My opinion is that this usa team is talented, but will choke.

[PurelyAcademic]

To tell you the truth I was not too impressed with the US team. They were coming out gunning for this game and played their hearts out. They wanted this game really badly as revenge. And imo the greeks didnt play with enough heart. They didnt show like they wanted to be their as badly as any other going up agasnt The Dream Team. As for the Us though, they wanted this game really badly. For revenge. The Us national team watched the tape of the 06 game 43 times. This was the big game for the us. And they played their best game of the olympics. But i dunno, imo they didnt do THAT well. If this game was a knock out game greece would take it way more serious. To the us this was more of a championship game then it was to the greeks. I dont know to discribe what I mean, but after the game i thought the us wanted it more. That that the us beat greece and acheved their goal, theyre going to take greece lighter later on in the tourney. My opinion is that this usa team is talented, but will choke.

Hi Paxiotis,

That's exactly what I've been trying to say. The US media has been writing about this matchup for months. They had the date circled on their calendar for quite a while now. All ESPN and NBC are talking about is how this is the "Redeem Team", and when they talk about what they are redeeming themselves from, the first thing that is pointed out is their loss to Greece. They needed this game, they wanted this game, and they won this game. For Team USA, it had more importance than any other first-round matchup, even the one that is coming up against Spain.

For Greece, this game did not have that same significance. Sure, you want to get up for a big opponent and you want to beat them, but at the same time, this isn't the medal rounds, this isn't the semifinals, and Greece isn't trying to redeem itself from anything really. If Team USA lost this game, things could conceivably have spiraled out of control for them, much the same way they collapsed after losing to Argentina in 2002 and after losing to Puerto Rico in 2004.

Unlike Kolokotronis, I'm waiting for the medal rounds to make a judgment, both for the Ethniki and for Team USA. I'm not cheerleading, I'm not anti-anyone, just trying to keep things in some perspective.

[loup]

Greece was off today, they will have to shoot much better than this to get a medal.

For our opponents, I thought Bosh played very well today and showed heart eating that charge against Big Sofo, whose touch was off today.

Fotsis and Diamantidis will have to step it up.

I'll tell you one weakness that I saw on the US, that hopefully we can take advantage if we see eachother again: they can be beaten off the dribble especially when they rotate defenders like they do. LeBron Wade and Carmillo (and even Kidd) are not QUICK defensively. Some of them are good defenders and FAST, but do not move QUICKLY. There were a few times that Spanoulis and Zisis, even Papaloukas beat them easily off the dribble.

I'm not sure that we will necessarily beat China, they are a decent team that will be pumped by the crowd. I think the Chinese will beat Germany, so our game vs them will be for 3rd and 4th place. either way we are going to have a rough quarterfinal game, Lithuania and Argentina are tough teams

:gr:

[Kolokotronis]

And Kobe, while being arguably the best player on the planet, has less than arguably not been the best player on Team USA so far.  And as I pointed out in a previous post, Kobe has a nasty little habit of not showing up for the really big games.  Need I remind you of his less than stellar Finals performances against the Celtics and Pistons?

And he's still the best player on the planet. What you tend to dismiss is that Kobe was winning NBA championships while guys like Papaloukas were battling Marousi and Pagkrati. And don't give me the ole Shack routine. What has he done without Kobe?

Kobe took a mediocre Laker team this year and carried it on his back. The guy that disappeared in the finals due to the physical beating was Gasol. The Celtics are just a flat out better team. No crime in that.

[Kolokotronis]

Two years or two weeks doesn't make a difference until they prove it on the hardwood in the games that really count.  I don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand.

LOL!!!

They don't have to prove it to anybody.

They're the best team on the planet.

Typical Greek mentality, just dismiss it when you get humiliated and say, wait till it really counts. If it really counts, they smoke us by 30.

The games DO count now. Otherwise they wouldn't play them. Or are you going to give me the typical dp bullshit we're playing for the 3rd place in our group?

Sure you are.

That makes a lot of sense.

We'll tank the preliminary round so that we can get a WORSE draw in the knockout stage. Brilliant. You're a regular Archimides. LOL!

If we could win now, we would. We can't. So we don't. What's so hard to understand about that?

Not sure what is going to change between now and then, outside of us (and the rest of the field) hoping for a miracle.

btw, you really just didn't make the asinine comment about two weeks and two years not making a difference, did you? have you seen a psychiatrist lately? You think ANYONE can put together a top flight team in TWO WEEKS? You think you can learn how to play team defense, your offensive sets, and whatever full court, 3/4 court, and half court defenses you're going to employ in 2-3 weeks?

Kala, ton magkioro i ton m@#$ka mas kaneis?

[Kolokotronis]

Lightning struck for whom?

Is it the rest of the world v. the US now?

What you fail to mention is that you're talking about three different teams. Not the case with any other NT in the Olympics.

You really want to tell me that Reggie Miller's team is the same one as today?

Or the Allen Iverson led team is the same one as today?

Even the last worlds team is different. And not just in players, but in prep time.

Doug Collins mentioned today that the core of the Greek NT has been together for SEVEN years!!! Thsi US team has been together for less than two.

[Kolokotronis]

It's an absurd notion to compare one match out of five in the group phase, with the one-and-out knockout matches, where the real pressure is.  That is like comparing the NBA regular season with the NBA Playoffs.  So many teams, year after year, put up huge numbers in the regular season, and then fizzle out in the playoffs.  The playoffs are where the real winners shine, and in the Olympic basketball tournament, the "playoffs", if you will, are the knockout matches.  You're drawing your conclusions based on all the hype surrounding this team (some of it which seems to be of your own creation), the result of some meaningless friendlies, and three preliminary round matchups.  I prefer to take in the whole picture

It's much more absurd to compare a one and done knockout playoff to a best of seven series.

That's where your analogy is out of kilter.

The Celtics lost a game to the Lakers in the Finals thsi years, didn't they?

Imagine if you were to take that one game as a barometer of who was better. You would totally disregard what happened in the rest of the series.

Real winners win over the long haul, not necessarily in one and done tourneys.

BTW, if the US isn't the best team in the world, who is?

[Kolokotronis]

Of course, knowing you, if Team USA does win the gold (which they very well might, of course, I've never denied that), you'll use that as a basis to unilaterally prove how you were absolutely right about everything.  I'll start yawning from now...

Well, which one is it, will they win the gold or not?

Yes or no?

Are they the best, or aren't they?

And if they aren't, who is?

You're starting to sound like the Fos newspaper. If Oly is interested in a player, he's the second coming of Maradona. If he goes elsewhere, they didn't really want him in the first place.

I don't have to prove I'm unilaterally right. Everyone but the Greek "philosophers" agree with me, including the bookmakers.

[Kolokotronis]

And in Indy, I beg to differ...most of those players were NOT second tier NBAers, unless NBA Finals MVP Paul Pierce (who outplayed Kobe this year) was second tier.  Not to mention THEY WERE PLAYING AT HOME!

Yes, 35 year old creaky kneed Reggie Miller was an NBA superstar then. LOL!

Pierce couldn't make this years team. Enough said.

[Kolokotronis]

Greg Oden was in the NBA last year, except he was injured and missed the entire year.  Rose, Beasley and Mayo were just drafted and will be starting their NBA careers this fall.  Don't you think it's a tad early to annoint them as the next great ones until they actually play a game or two?  How many times have we seen superstars that were hyped up in the draft come in and have mediocre NBA careers?  Let them play a little bit first and then we'll talk.

Not to mention that by adding these players to the team, you'll be replacing older players, which means that the team will not have been together for years, as you say the current team has.  And looking at the track records of past NBA starts, like Garnett, who "retired" from international competition, and Duncan, who wimped out of international competition because he didn't get favorable treatment from the refs...it's no given that these new potential superstars will stick around on Team USA or not.  You are jumping the gun way too early on these guys.

Not many 1-4 picks flop.

I've been watching Rose since he was a freshman in high school. He's the best point guard I've seen come out of Chicago, and I went to high school with a guy named Isaiah Thomas. He could play a little bit, you know.

Funny how everybody hypes Ricky Rubio, and Rose is flat out a better player all around. No contest.

The guys they will replace are REPLACABLE parts, not integral members of the team.

Not sure what Garnett or Duncan have anything to do with anything, but if garnett were playing, he would be the best player in the tourney outside of the US guys.

[Kolokotronis]

Yes, you are right, but only to an extent.  You can't compare the "star power" of even a Fotsis or Spanoulis with most of the guys on Team USA.  Most of these European players are stars in their own right, but very few of them are "the man" on their teams.  And looking at the rest of Greece's roster...the likes of Glyniadakis, Vasilopoulos, etc....these guys are basically not even big stars on their teams.  They are good players but not superstars.  On Team USA you have a collection of mostly superstars plus Tayshawn Prince. 

Team USA's miscues from three point land and the free throw line were made up for by the fact that they got the ball inside and scored on fast break opportunities.  But what will happen if their defensive intensity is not there in one game, resulting in fewer easy opportunities?  What will happen if the other team, say Greece, has a great shooting night from the field?  You seem to think that Team USA can just turn on their engines at will, but if you have followed basketball as much as you claim, you will know that it's not always that easy.

And since you insist on comparing scores from completely separate basketball games, let me point out that in 1996, your beloved Chicago Bulls went 72-10.  However, one of those 10 losses was by the score of 104-72 to the New York Knicks, who had only won 47 games that season and who had changed coaches just a few days earlier.  I also recall the Bulls losing one or two games to the then-lowly expansion Toronto Raptors.  This shows two things: 1) Anything can happen in basketball, and 2) You can't use past scores as a comparison between two games.  In a playoff series that goes 7 games in the NBA, you might see some games go down to the final basket, and some games be a 20 or 30 point blowout...between the same teams, in the same two weeks of play.  Each game is different, much different.  That's why we shouldn't draw conclusions from Team USA's three wins...yet.

First and formeost, I was in Athens last year the night PAO beat CSSKA for the Euiropean championship. I was actually staying at my cousins in Pagkrati a few blocks away fromwhere CSSKA's hotel was.

There was NO DOUBT in that game that Diamantidis and Papaloukas were THE MEN on their repsective teams. It was almost a battle of their two wills. So while they might not be at the top tier NBA level, nonetheless, relatively speaking, they're still HUGE stars in their own country and on their own teams.

You give me a lot of IF's. Well, IF my grandma had a pair of stones, they would call her grandpa. IF the USA charter bus fell off a cliff, then they probably wouldn't win the gold. If, if, if, if.......

Nonetheless, if you read my posts, you'll see that I say this team is nowhere near hitting on all cylinders, yet IF they play defense as they have so far, it won't matter.

And you're right, ANYTHING can happen in basketball, as in any sport. But to bank on it is a stretch, to say the least. I know you're simply trying to stir the pot a bit, alla auto to teleutaio itan kai ligo xontro. Kopse kati.

[Kolokotronis]

I'll tell you one weakness that I saw on the US, that hopefully we can take advantage if we see eachother again:  they can be beaten off the dribble especially when they rotate defenders like they do.  LeBron Wade and Carmillo (and even Kidd) are not QUICK defensively.  Some of them are good defenders and FAST, but do not move QUICKLY.  There were a few times that Spanoulis and Zisis, even Papaloukas beat them easily off the dribble.

Oh boy are you mistaken here.

The reason they rotate is because they overplay the passing lanes, and they rotate only if they're beat. There's no other reason to rotate.

If they play us straight up, they absolutely shut us down.

If they gamble and overplay the passing lanes, we might occassionally beat them off the dribble.

Outside of the last five minutes of garbage time, I counted only once when we beat them off the dribble, and that is when Kobe overplayed Spanoulis to his left hand. Once Paul stuck Spanoulis, that was the end of the drives to the hole.

There isn't a defender alive who won't get beat off the dribble ocassionally. That doesn't mean its a weakness in his game. In the US case, its simply a matter of them trying to force the issue by overplaying.

The US has the quickest and fastest guards on the planet. No contest.

p.s. Jason Kidd is 35 years old.

[loup]

I saw a Greek team that drove the lane several times fairly easily.

LeBron is not that quick footed, he is fast and powerful but amazingly there are quicker humans in the world.

Kobe is quick, although he reaches in too much

Wade is somewhere in between

Anthony is overweight and doesn't move his feet on D

If the 4 of them are on the court together, there will be players on opposing teams - Argentina, Spain and Greeece - that are quicker

Don't worry file I dont doubt the US is better

I only wish that Horace Grant (or even Harvey for that matter) was available to complete the perfect squad. ;)

[loup]

Kidd is 35 but he is not too old to be a m#$%!

I guarantee he doesn't shoot all tournament, including their bronze medal game against Spain, just to show how unselfish he is.

I'm surprised Paul has not taken over as the PG, he is a great talent.

[PurelyAcademic]

Well, which one is it, will they win the gold or not?

Yes or no?

Are they the best, or aren't they?

And if they aren't, who is?

You're starting to sound like the Fos newspaper. If Oly is interested in a player, he's the second coming of Maradona. If he goes elsewhere, they didn't really want him in the first place.

I don't have to prove I'm unilaterally right. Everyone but the Greek "philosophers" agree with me, including the bookmakers.

I've said over and over again that Team USA is a favorite for the gold, but they are not a lock. Do you have trouble reading, perhaps? Unlike you, I don't come to conclusions after three games. Oh, and those bookies...we all know they're never wrong! :rolleyes:

Yes, 35 year old creaky kneed Reggie Miller was an NBA superstar then. LOL!

Pierce couldn't make this years team. Enough said.

Pretty convenient that you picked the oldest guy on the team. Kidd is 35 years old as well and he is on this year's team. Last I checked he hasn't led the Nets anywhere in the past few years either.

Just because Pierce didn't make the team doesn't mean he didn't deserve to make the team. Unless you want to make the argument that Tayshaun Prince is a better player than Pierce. Prince was likely chosen because he is a defensive specialist, whereas the team was already loaded on offense.

Not many 1-4 picks flop.

I've been watching Rose since he was a freshman in high school. He's the best point guard I've seen come out of Chicago, and I went to high school with a guy named Isaiah Thomas. He could play a little bit, you know.

Funny how everybody hypes Ricky Rubio, and Rose is flat out a better player all around. No contest.

The guys they will replace are REPLACABLE parts, not integral members of the team.

Not sure what Garnett or Duncan have anything to do with anything, but if garnett were playing, he would be the best player in the tourney outside of the US guys.

Kwame Brown, Michael Olowokandi, Stromile Swift, Shawn Bradley, Chris Washburn, Danny Ferry, Adam Morrison, Shaun Livingston, Darko Milicic, Jay Williams, Mike Dunleavy Jr., Eddy Curry, Marcus Fizer, Raef LaFrentz, Antonio Daniels, Billy Owens. Do these names ring a bell? This is only a partial list of NBA draft flops, from positions 1-4, and only going back to the 90s.

Garnett, like I mentioned, "retired" from Team USA. Duncan "retired" as well, apparently over the officiating and lack of star treatment he was getting. Who is to say that more players' egos won't get in the way sooner or later?

First and formeost, I was in Athens last year the night PAO beat CSSKA for the Euiropean championship. I was actually staying at my cousins in Pagkrati a few blocks away fromwhere CSSKA's hotel was.

There was NO DOUBT in that game that Diamantidis and Papaloukas were THE MEN on their repsective teams. It was almost a battle of their two wills. So while they might not be at the top tier NBA level, nonetheless, relatively speaking, they're still HUGE stars in their own country and on their own teams.

They're not THE MEN in the same sense as a Kobe, a LeBron, a Chris Paul, or a Dwayne Wade, however. Which isn't diminishing them at all, because I think very highly of both of those guys, they are among my favorites. But they contribute to the team in a different way than those aforementioned NBA superstars.

You give me a lot of IF's. Well, IF my grandma had a pair of stones, they would call her grandpa. IF the USA charter bus fell off a cliff, then they probably wouldn't win the gold. If, if, if, if.......

No, I said that they may run into a team that defeats them in the medal rounds. What is so inconceivable about that? Esu mou les istories gia agrious.

Nonetheless, if you read my posts, you'll see that I say this team is nowhere near hitting on all cylinders, yet IF they play defense as they have so far, it won't matter.

And you're right, ANYTHING can happen in basketball, as in any sport. But to bank on it is a stretch, to say the least. I know you're simply trying to stir the pot a bit, alla auto to teleutaio itan kai ligo xontro. Kopse kati.

I'm not banking on anything. I think my posts have indicated that. If anything, it has been you that has all but given the gold to Team USA already.

[drakos13]

only a gold will settle the arguements....IMO

Big games do matter...I dont think USA will crumble in big games this time, because this year the pressure is on them so they are all big games for them...

I think were going to see a Spain USA final, and only then can we decide...Spain has more experience in pressure, but theyve also not faced USA before. If Spain is on their top game, then USA will have to be on theirs to win.

USA this year is much better than the one in 06. After seeing the differences, its no wonder why could beat them in 06 . One day it will happen again... :gr:

Were still not eliminated and still up for a bronze medal. And since Greece has not even a bronze this olympics, it would be something big. And Greece never got a medal in Olympic Basket (although MundoBasket is virtually same tourney) so start with 1 foot in the door.....

KKtronis - of course we got excited to beat USA and call them omadara.....we beat USA and were going for finals.....live it up man!

Anyways.......the point now is CHINA......tough game being away, but we should definitley win. I saw them play Spain only 2nd half and you really had to wonder how the hell they got in front...

[drakos13]

Papaloukas NBA seriously? At this age???

Hes almost finished. Not starting anymore for Greece, CSKA and not the player he used to be. 

Anyways today play USA....Hopefully we upset them..and maybe then they can learn to at least shut their mouths !  Dont see it happening today. Were underprepared, we dont need it....Recipe for disaster, I hope it just stays competitive.

Ah, the excuses are starting already.

I thought you said this Greek team was ready? You know, how we drubbed everyone preceding this tourney, how we've added better players, etc......

The US is terrible. Haven't won anything in 8 years.

No IQ. No skills.

Why would they be favorites over us?

btw, I said Papaloukas game is more suited to the NBA. He might be on the downside of his career, but he's still more suited for the NBA than the undersized combo guard Spanoulis.

Why would he be too old at 31? Jason Kidd is 35.

I dont remember ever saying they don't have skill. Not having skill and not having class are two different things. If you cant distinguish the two...Thats your problem, not mine. As for not being skilled, not being favourites. These have only ever been your words. Same doings with PurelyAcademic now. Putting words in mouth, assuming etc ---- is it neccesary???

Im not keen on people ranting and raving about a team as the best with no gold in 8 years. Is there anybody who finds that unreasonable? Go earn it, come back and I will shake your hand and say they are the best man...

BTW I was finally convinced by Giannakis this July, only for us to abandon warm up matches and see us out of form again. I was over optimistic I can see now, though were still medal worthy, I wont lose faith just because we lost the two top teams in the tournament. A bit of daydreams, to think this team had it for gold though...

Jason Kidd is Jason Kidd hes been around forever in that league. Papaloukas at his age isnt going to adjust to a more competitive league that plays 3 games a week esp when his game is already dropping. Its a huge adjustment and I cant see that happening.