We once had one of the greatest guards in the world in Joe Bronson. Today, we don’t have an elite player at any position.
If he was so great, why wasn't he so good? I mean certainly an "elite" player should have shot better than 39% in season 16. And the big games against Poland? 14/37. Yikes. I don't know how to define "elite" anymore, because ESPN ruined the term, but I think our players are significantly closer to the best than in season 16. The difference between Zita and Tanner/Moore and Urbanek and Nielsen is smaller than the difference between Wisniewski, Turbato, Tapia, and Gornitz and whoever the hell we sent out at PF and C in season 16. Oh yeah, and we played Grubbs at SF against Zuya vs. Spain.
Just scanning the TL, there are currently 33 players with at least 12 IS and 17 OD, I see a Slovenian guard with 18 OD and 20 IS, a Honk Kong guard with 19 OD and 17 IS, a Hungarian guard with 18 OD /15 IS /13 ID, a Polish guard with 18 OD /15 IS /16 ID, a Chinese guard with 20 OD / 15 IS / 14 ID. We don’t have a single guard that can defend these players, and very few that can score efficiently on them.
Here was season 16: Just scanning the TL, there are currently 600 players with at least 18IS. I see a Chilean big with 20+IS, another Chilean with 13JS, 13DR, and 19IS, a Polish big with 20IS, 19ID and 17RB, and an Italian big with 20IS, 18ID, and 20RB. We don't have a single big that is worthy of washing these guys balls.
As for Poland, if I recall, they didn’t win gold with vastly superior talent. They had HCA and were able to TIE virtually every game they played, in the same position the USA would have been similarly dominant.
Yeah, except when they came back with the same players at the next worlds and won gold again without HCA.
I think you're trying to argue (correct me if I'm wrong) that we had one of the best rosters in season 16, and since then everyone else has passed us by. I think we were way behind in season 16. We're closer to the best now, but we still have a ton of work to do.
This is all tangential to the point though. Whether or not we were better off or worse off in the past, you said in your speech your goal is to make the semi-finals,
I'm a few beers down, but if you could find where I said that in my speech and quote it here, that'd be great. I believe I said "competing for a semi." That's different.
China made a commitment to conserving enthusiasm last season. At the risk of advancing with three losses, against a certain CT, they TIE’d, defeated us, and advanced to the semi finals, ultimately falling to Poland. If the US were in a similar position, would you handle things differently?
No. I think the only chance you have at "competing for a semi" is to carry as much enthusiasm as you can into round two. I was pretty clear on the offsite with my stance to TIE game 1. I can't imagine a scenario where a team can "compete for a semi" and normal more than 1 game in the first round. They'll get crushed in round 2.
Last edited by magiker at 9/20/2013 2:41:30 AM