U.S. National Team, Meet Chicken Little - RealGM

[CeltsSteve@xxxxxxx]

U.S. National Team, Meet Chicken Little

By <A HREF="mailto:broomkevin@hotmail.com";>Kevin Broom</A> - 6th September,
2002 1:28 PM


All this consternation over a mildly interested U.S. team losing to a pair of
highly motivated, steadily improving, cohesive international teams. Go back
to the coop Chicken Little before someone cuts off your head. The sky is not
falling.

When FIBA b basketball's international governing body b decided to permit
NBA players in 1992, the level of play was sure to rise. The best way to
improve is to play an opponent demonstrably better. Against the original
Dream Team, internationals were star struck. They posed for photos before
games and sought autographs after. They made no genuine attempt to win games
because they knew they could not.

Just four years later, that had changed. Internationals competed and played
to win. Even though they got their tails kicked, the attitude change was
notable. The world inched a little closer to the U.S. level at the 2000
Olympics, but the talent difference remained a veritable ocean.

The U.S. team was ripe for upset at these World Championships. The best
players b Shaq, Kobe, McGrady, Vince, Kidd, Webber, and Iverson, for example
b
 stayed home for myriad reasons. The roster was still stocked with
considerable talent, but the players viewed the tournament almost as an
annoyance. With just two weeks of practice, they cruised through early games.
The Chinese, German and Russian teams stayed close for awhile, but the U.S.
ultimately pulled away not by ramping up the intensity for a few minutes, but
by virtue of vastly superior overall talent.

Basketball is truly a team game. It can be dominated by a single overwhelming
talent because there are relatively few players on the court, but winning
teams generally find a way to play as a unit. Michael Jordan, perhaps the
game's most dominant presence, didn't win a championship until he learned to
rely on contributions from guys like Bill Cartwright, Steve Kerr, John Paxson
and others.

But, the U.S. has never had a true national basketball team. For decades, the
U.S. won international competitions by sending college all-star teams. Since
1992, it has been enough to send NBA stars.

In other countries, teams develop over years. The core components for both
Argentina and Yugoslavia have been playing together for years.

Despite the much ballyhooed fundamental training programs employed outside
the U.S., I don't buy for a moment the notion that this U.S. team is
deficient in the basketball basics. Even without the super-elite players, the
roster was well-stocked with premiere ball-handlers, passers, shooters,
rebounders and post scorers. This isn't a group of players that "gets by" on
athletic ability. With the exception of Ben Wallace (one of the world's best
defenders), this group is comprised of highly skilled players. Winning
basketball games is not an American birthright. Even so, a team stocked with
second tier talent b and properly motivated b should be more than enough
to
win international tournaments.

The world is getting closer, however, and the U.S. could make some changes if
it wishes to extend its hegemony. At base, the U.S. needs to establish a true
national team. Stop changing coaches and players for every tournament.
Instead, pick a coach b any coach b and put him in charge of the national
team. Larry Brown, Rudy Tomjanovich, Phil Jackson or Doug Collins would all
be good choices. Or pick a young up-and-coming coach like Brian Winters. Just
pick someone and let him do the job for awhile to create a true national
system.

The next step is establishing a core group of players. This year's group is
actually a good place to start. If the superstar players don't want to
participate (or can't), then build the team around guys like Paul Pierce,
Andre Miller, Shawn Marion and Elton Brand. Have them play in all the
international tournaments, not just the "big ones". There should be a
foundation of six to eight players who play together frequently. And players
must have defined roles.

Finally, prepare the team properly. Teams are built over time by playing in
live games. Two weeks of practice is enough for basic familiarity, but not
enough for players to learn all the nuances of true team play.

Making these changes probably aren't necessary in the near term. The U.S.
talent advantage remains large, and an all-star group playing hard will win
most international games. If the U.S. wants to remain dominant into the
distant future, it may be time to learn something from their foreign
competitors.

One thing is abundantly clear: the U.S. isn't winning anything just by
showing up. To remain basketball kings, the players will at least have to
compete.