| Home | Back |
The US crashes out of another international basketball tournament, and once again excuses are found by the media and the fans to explain how the best players in the world were unable to win as a team. How many times do they have to lose before we question whether they are in fact the best players in the world?
Supposedly, the NBA players are superior athletes because they can run faster and jump higher than their opponents, and have dazzling ball handling skills and one-on-one moves. Running and jumping are important to basketball, but this is not a track and field event (and those are decided by who has the best steroids and masking agents, anyway; currently, the U.S. is #1). Dribbling and dunking are also useful, but of limited effectiveness; any high schooler knows that dribbling should be your last option, if neither a pass nor a shot is available. If a player can not shoot consistently from the perimeter or from the free throw line, and has very limited passing and defensive ability, then how can he be considered a great player?
Over the last decade, basketball fans, with prompting from commercials and video games, have re-defined basketball greatness in terms of great offensive one-on-one moves, with little regard for a player's ability to pass and shoot, which was a staple of the Celtics and Lakers teams of the eighties, and every high-caliber team before then. The NBA has attempted to artificially aid offense by rules changes, as well as by their systematically corrupt refereeing, which allows designated superstars to palm the ball, double-dribble, or travel in order to make a spectacular, crowd-pleasing offensive move. It is also a poorly kept secret that star players are given much greater benefit of the doubt in foul calls, a fact that every commentator affirms as though there were nothing wrong with this. Although international referees are far from perfect and impartial, there is no special treatment given to a player on account of his status, which is of less concern to FIBA than the marketing-conscious NBA.
Despite the NBA's emphasis on offense, team offensive capabilities have actually diminished over the last fifteen years, as most offensive setups simply involve one-on-one moves by star players or quick jump shots with little ball movement. Most possessions do not involve an offensive scheme, and set plays are generally saved for the last minute of the game. Some coaches will not even use a set play in a game-deciding moment, instead simply asking their star to score a basket. In the 2006 World Championships, Team USA astonishingly had no offensive scheme, but relied entirely on player improvisation. In hindsight, it might have been nice to have a few set plays to fall back upon when quick jump shots stop falling. Greece, on the other hand, like other high-caliber teams such as Spain and Argentina, used elaborate offensive schemes for most possessions, passing the ball quickly until an opening was found in the defense.
It has been repeatedly argued that the US team has had an insufficient amount of time to play together. This is at best a partial truth, as none of the other international teams stay together throughout the year. Players are committed to their respective clubs, often in different countries. However, since European leagues teach and practice team basketball throughout the year, it is easy for players who have been separated during the season to gell as a national team. In football (soccer), team play is even more critical, yet international players are able to integrate in a matter of weeks because they already know how to play as a team in their respective clubs. Since the NBA emphatically does not practice team basketball, especially on the offensive end, their players are confused and disoriented when facing a well-integrated international squad.
Not to overstate the case, we should note that the US can still beat most international teams, but it has difficulty with the elite teams that have arguably inferior raw physical talent, but a better team game, and I would argue, better complete players. This is not Harlem Globetrotters basketball, so the quality of player is determined by his ability to contribute to a win, not his dribbling tricks. Ball-hogging one-on-one offense helps a player's statistics and his endorsement contracts, but not his team if he is shooting considerably below 50% from the field. In the NBA, 50% shooting is considered extremely high, and is usually enjoyed only by centers who feast on layups and dunks, whereas in Europe, teams shooting over 50% are fairly common, despite the more elaborate defensive schemes.
Some Americans are incapable of praising others without giving a backhanded compliment to themselves, as is the case when the success of the international game is credited to the NBA's success at promoting the game and teaching it to the world. This belief that the international game was learned from the Americans is in contradiction with the belief that the US has superior athletes. If the rest of the world learned the game the way it is played in the NBA, there is no way they could beat NBA players with lesser athletes. They win because they have learned to play better than the NBA, a fact that has been proven by the success of the Phoenix Suns, who use European-style offense and have been the most prolific scoring team in the league.
The superiority of the NBA game, routinely asserted as obvious fact, does not hold up well against facts that might test it. Not only do we witness its repeated failure in international tournaments, but increasingly, quality players remain in the European leagues. The Greek national team that defeated the US did not have a single NBA player, evidencing the quality of its league play. International players come to the NBA primarily for money, not necessarily because the quality of play is superior. Since there is greater depth of talent in the US, it is reasonable to infer that the talent level of an NBA team is superior to that of an average European team, but as we have seen repeatedly, better talent does not make a better team, or even a better player.
When we realize that basketball talent involves more than ball juggling skills, fancy footwork, running and jumping ability, we might appreciate that our assessment of NBA talent is exaggerated. Take away the marketing and overhyped streetball skills, and we are left with very flawed players who lack the concentration to consistently hit free throws, which are designed to be easy.
The success of international basketball against the US is attributable not only to a decline in the NBA game over the last fifteen years, but also to better coaching and development in other nations. The 1992 Dream Team did not teach the rest of the world how to become better players, but certainly made clear the need for a more physical style of play, a key to the success of the no longer intimidated international players. Marketing of basketball creates a larger fan base, and eventually a larger talent pool. A few NBA coaches have even gone abroad to spread their knowledge of the game. Yet it would be erroneous to attribute the success of the international game primarily to the Americans, as these efforts were only drops in the bucket compared with the enormous resources that other nations invested in the development of the game. It must not be forgotten that international basketball has a history older than the NBA. Europe did not learn the game overnight, but already had a long legacy of coaching methods and tactics before the Dream Team was even a thought. The Dream Team and the subsequent promotion of basketball abroad did help generate greater interest in the game, allowing better resources to be committed to its development. Yet the European coaches did not imitate the Americans, so much as integrate physical play with their sophisticated schemes and increasingly talented players. Yugoslav coaches brought their systems to the best clubs of Europe, and helped lead a reform of the leagues that emphasized faster, more intense play, as well as greater resources for teaching the game.
The elephant in the room that nobody wishes to acknowledge is that the talent gap has closed. The best passers and shooters in the world are increasingly European and Argentinian. Most of these players would not get a second look in the NBA, since they would be useless in a one-on-five offense, but gradually the league is opening its eyes to players it would not have considered even a few years ago. Many Americans are loath to acknowledge this parity in talent in part because of a benevolent racism that regards blacks as inherently superior athletically, as Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon has commented. It is scarcely believable to them that skinny white men can compete with muscular black men, forgetting that this is basketball, not a body-building contest. This unspoken racial bias may discourage the majority white population from pursuing basketball, needlessly shrinking our talent pool so it is comparable to that of much smaller nations. Talent at basketball involves passing and shooting as well as dribbling and sprinting. Our fixation on only a few crowd-pleasing aspects of basketball has resulted in an emphasis on two-dimensional players who lack many of the game's fundamental skills, yet are regarded as superstars regardless. The international game disregards the hype and forces our team to show substance, which it has with only mixed results.
A common and increasingly implausible excuse for USA Basketball's failures at international tournaments is that the best players were not selected to the team. This excuse hardly applies to the 2004 Olympic team led by Tim Duncan and Allen Iverson, and ignores the fact that the recent "Dream Teams" have had far more superstars than the international teams that defeated them. No one thought the 2006 team was short on talent, being led by three of the best players in the league, but after the defeat there resurfaced the old complaints that many of the best players were missing. Anyone who thinks an aging Shaquille O'Neal or a ball-hogging Kobe Bryant would have helped completely misunderstands international team basketball. Additional superstars would only take away offense from other superstars, unless they learned to collaborate in offensive schemes with a heavy reliance on passing and good shot selection. Other nations have also had to compete with some of their best stars (e.g. Spain without Gasol in the 2006 final) yet are able to fill the gaps because their game plans are less dependent on individual one-on-one skills.
The weakest excuse, saved for last, is that the international rules are different from the NBA, making it difficult to adjust. They are not that different, and some of them, such as permitting offensive basket interference, should actually help the Americans. The biggest difference might be allowing a full zone defense, yet this is easily countered by good passing, for teams that are willing to pass.
This last USA squad was dedicated and selfless in its play, but it had no offensive scheme and was limited to man-on-man defense, while their Greek opponents changed defensive schemes repeatedly througout the game. The American defense was repeatedly burned by the same pick-and-roll play, and did not adjust, conceding 101 points to a Greek team that would be held to 47 points by Spain in the title game. Our relatively anarchic brand of basketball is a product of a failed coaching philosophy that has led to mediocre league play. We have the potential to correct this situation, by imitating the more integrated, sophisticated brand of basketball that can be found in many collegiate programs, where zone defenses prevent individuals from taking over a game, and coaches have more authority over their players. Even at this level, however, there is a lot of poor shot selection by players more concerned with showing their stuff than getting the best shot for their team. Here, he is a superstar talent, while in the rest of the world he would be considered a liability. This difference in philosophy is perhaps the most succinct explanation for the recent decline of the NBA game with respect to the international game. Fortunately, the influx of international players and coaches into the NBA, creating elite teams in San Antonio, Dallas, and Phoenix, just might save the league from itself.
In the past two years, there have been important developments in the NBA and USA Basketball, resulting in a reassertion of American primacy in basketball. In the NBA, the Boston Celtics were able to dominate the high-offense Western Conference teams with superior defensive intensity, culminating in a six-game destruction of the Los Angeles Lakers in the finals. International players are still maligned as being relatively "soft" on defense, a weakness that USA Basketball would exploit to good effect, once they got their own house in order.
The key to restoring the U.S. to basketball supremacy has been emphasis on team defense and curtailing the tendency to play one-on-one ball. Coach Krzyzewski was able to achieve these goals to an astonishing degree, as stars of the magnitude of Kobe Bryant cheerfully sacrificed their offense for the good of the team. American athleticism was put to better use on defense, as players used their length to force turnovers and increase their number of possessions, important in games where they were outrebounded. In the one game where the Americans failed to play good defense, the final with Spain, they were pushed to the limit and nearly suffered an upset. Fortunately for the U.S., Spain was just as inept defensively, allowing transition layups after made baskets, and leaving three-point shooters completely uncontested. If the Spanish wish to regain their crown, they will have to develop their defense as well as they have done with their offense.
The limitations of European-style, offense-oriented basketball can also be seen in the NBA, where the Phoenix Suns have repeatedly failed to break out of the Western Conference playoffs, resulting in the termination of coach Mike D'Antoni. Ironically, D'Antoni was an assistant coach on the gold medal winning USA team. Though his coaching philosophy has encountered an achievement plateau in the NBA, European-style offense can still play an important role when it is complemented by defensive intensity. As with the Celtics, much of Team USA's offense fed off of its defense. The teams that can repeatedly achieve this virtuous synthesis, either at the league or international levels, can expect the most consistent success.
Notwithstanding the reassertion of U.S. basketball primacy, the fact remains that the talent gap has closed. Had the Spaniards been a bit more competent defensively, and a little less naive on their outlet passes (apparently unaccustomed to players with great stealing ability), they could easily have won the gold medal. Defense, in some ways, is easier to fix than offense, as it depends more on effort than talent, which is why players who are poor defenders are considered "soft." USA Basketball was smart enough to select players who were not merely all-stars, but were also good defenders and could work well as a team. The effacing of individual achievement, shown from the barely-legible names on jerseys to the placing of all the medals around the coach's neck, is perhaps the most important lesson learn from Team USA's previous humiliations.
It remains to be seen whether all the lessons learned by Team USA will be transferred to the NBA. When a player returns to a team where he is the only all-star, the temptation to go one-on-one every possession may return. There are other stars who were not selected to the team precisely because of such bad habits. Other weaknesses, such as the atrocious free throw shooting displayed even by Team USA, remain to be addressed. More important perhaps than any reform among individual players is how teams as collectives are organized. It is perhaps telling that the gold medal coaching team included two college coaches and a former European coach. Hopefully, their team-oriented, top-down discipline can be successfully transferred to the NBA, where teams are too often run by superstars. Now that it is seen that success is to be had in selflessness, change could be in the air.
© 2006, 2008 Daniel J. Castellano. All rights reserved. http://www.arcaneknowledge.org