BuzzerBeater Forums

[q
]USA 53 63,1% 63,1% 63,1% 63,1%
Canada 3 3,6% 3,6% 3,6% 3,6%
France 9 10,7% 10,7% 10,7% 10,7%
Serbia 8 9,5% 9,5% 9,5% 9,5%
Greece 3 3,6% 3,6% 3,6% 3,6%
Germany 2 2,4% 2,4% 2,4% 2,4%
Australia 2 2,4% 2,4% 2,4% 2,4%
Spain 4 4,8% 4,8% 4,8% 4,8%


OK, current results are expected. I just thought Serbia would have more votes because we have more than 8 managers but...

I mean, Spaciulis

almost right but that is my last name and it's Lithuanian

I just thought Serbia would have more votes because we have more than 8 managers but

... but most of us voted realistically

Last edited by spaciulis at 7/12/2024 7:12:54 AM

almost right but that is my last name and it's Lithuanian

at first, I thought it is Lithuanian but then Spanulis made confusion. Sorry about that.

Yes, it is crazy, and I don't like it...

I want Serbia to stay like it is, to play with our players and that's it. Buying no one, and getting real results with Serbs, whatever they will be. That sounds fair to me...

That sounds fair to me

Agree. However, now rarely anyone remembers that without Randolph, Slovenia would never even reach the finals of Euro 2017th. But everyone knows they were the champions that year, right?
Also the case with Lorenco and Spain - they would probably not reach the finals without him but all we remember is that Spain the champion now.

So what would you choose in that case? A dominant (or complement) player and win the gold or no naturalized ones and maybe win some medal (if any)?

Easy question, no naturalized

No naturalised ones, in the sense that he/she won't take the place of some young player. So you are investing in your youth as well but also respecting players who played earlier for NT, that they leave and feel their country.

Like, would you let Lorenzo play for Serbia instead of Topic?

Why did Red Star Belgrade win the last 8 games against Partizan, and was worse in the Euroleague?

I knew answers from both of you. I still think the answer is not easy at all.
Simplifying it with the choice of "either Brown or Topic" is a spin. noone said there is no room for development of young talents in case you have a naturalized player on the same position. But I dont want to discuss that spun topic.

I'm just saying teams are doing everything allowed (and sometimes even what is not allowed) to have a better result. Especially when they have a chance to win the gold. Slovenia's team from 2017th and also from today is the perfect example. They had Dragic in year or two before the senior years. They had teenage Luka. They needed some big guys in order to be competitive on a high level. Otherwise Dragic's potential would not have been used to the max. And they didn't do anything illegal. Same is now with prime Luka and no medals yet ...

From our national team point of view - if everyone (except some of course) are taking the advantage of the naturalized player, why should not we do it? Its like FIDE changes the rule of chess allowing the king to move up to three squares around and we say no no no, we will just be playing according the old rules. Then why are we arguing if Jokic or some other players wont play (because we will have less chances to win) if the federation has made the decisions up in front in a favor of putting the team in a disadvantaged position?

Or even better - if we would have a stronger chance to win the Euros, Worlds or Olympic medals (and golds of course) now when Jokic is playing, wouldn't it be a waste of his potential if we don't do everything allowed to support him ? For example, invite A.Gordon to play for Serbia NT. I'd like more if would have that type of the player in NT but we do not have. That one big guy would have made a strong diff in the world's finals last year against Germany.


So it is easy to say "NO" from the comfort of our livingrooms especially for national teams who already have a strong lineups. in general, there is no easy answer to this topic

I agree with that, as you probably got from my previous posts...