View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
miller40
Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 1334
Back to top |
Posted: 11/12/19 3:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
Let's remember that Bird and Taurasi have played little competitive basketball for months, and are well aware that nothing they're doing now matters except in terms of getting back into game shape.
If they do get back to 100% of what they are now, they will be much better than we have seen, and plenty good enough to deal with the quickness they'll see at the Olympics. |
And you're feeling confident 40 year olds (or nearly 40 year olds) will be ready to go at 100% of what they are now?
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 24397 Location: London
Back to top |
Posted: 11/12/19 5:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Howee wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
Let's remember that Bird and Taurasi have played little competitive basketball for months, and are well aware that nothing they're doing now matters except in terms of getting back into game shape.
If they do get back to 100% of what they are now, they will be much better than we have seen, and plenty good enough to deal with the quickness they'll see at the Olympics. |
....AS WILL BE: Courtney Vandersloot, Sabrina Ionescu, Kristi Toliver, Ruthy Hebard, Kayla McBride, Arike Ogunbowale, Natasha Cloud, etc., ETCETERA.
How hoggish is it to use your tenure to get a 5th Gold Medal, when so many deserving players haven't had their first one?? People who endorse them are merely sentimental fans, and no one can say their skill sets are irreplaceable. Just plain ol' Homerism for The Ol' Gerlz. |
But alternatively, if you look at it from their perpective, you can see why they'd think "why should I pull myself out of consideration?" The people in charge of picking the team are essentially saying "we still want you". If the swimming federation were telling Michael Phelps they wanted him on the team, then he'd be on the team (if he wanted) and there'd be no real issue. USA Basketball aren't saying "well we kinda have to pick them because of their history, until they tell us they're finally retired". We've already seen with Parker that they're not afraid to leave behind star players if that's what they want to do. So if I'm Bird or Taurasi, and I still think I'm a good basketball player (which I'm sure both of them do), my angle is "Why the hell shouldn't I get gold #5 if they still want me on the team? Apparently I'm still good enough." Fuck it, I'll stick around for #6 if they still want me. |
|
mayajustwins
Joined: 14 Sep 2019 Posts: 26 Location: Twin Cities
Back to top |
Posted: 11/12/19 5:11 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I still go with the fact that no one should be allowed to get a chance at a 5th Gold, since Teresa Edwards only got 4. She is the greatest Team USA player of all time, and has still played over 70 more games for Team USA than either Sue or Diana. She could have played in 2004, since she led the Lynx to their second playoff berth that year, but didn't. They should show the lady who helped create the market for US professional women's basketball, and who mentored the Team USA members who mentored Sue and Diana, the respect that she has earned.
_________________ I can actually imagine making WNBA money, that's why I follow them.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67050 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 11/12/19 5:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mayajustwins wrote: |
I still go with the fact that no one should be allowed to get a chance at a 5th Gold, since Teresa Edwards only got 4. |
Edwards played in five Olympics. Why should other players be limited to four?
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12569 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
Posted: 11/12/19 5:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mayajustwins wrote: |
I still go with the fact that no one should be allowed to get a chance at a 5th Gold, since Teresa Edwards only got 4. She is the greatest Team USA player of all time, and has still played over 70 more games for Team USA than either Sue or Diana. She could have played in 2004, since she led the Lynx to their second playoff berth that year, but didn't. They should show the lady who helped create the market for US professional women's basketball, and who mentored the Team USA members who mentored Sue and Diana, the respect that she has earned. |
_____________
_________________ 3-Time WNBA Champion-3-Time National Champion-4-Time Olympic Champion....And Yes DT "We Got Confeti" lol
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 11/12/19 7:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think it would be a bit different if the 3 in question had all played in the WNBA in 2019 and showed they still could play at a high level. Instead they either sat out our pretty much sucked this season and they are just getting invited on the basis of past achievements. Suddenly they are all healthy and ready to go. Then they get beat by a bunch of college girls. No evidence they belong. For them it all about the Olympics - it's the only place a WNBA player can go and feel important in the world of sports. Of course it is in the event that is mainly comprised or sports no one cares about 99% of the time.
|
|
WNBA 09
Joined: 26 Jun 2009 Posts: 12569 Location: Dallas , Texas
Back to top |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15754 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
Posted: 11/12/19 9:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Richyyy wrote: |
Howee wrote: |
ClayK wrote: |
Let's remember that Bird and Taurasi have played little competitive basketball for months, and are well aware that nothing they're doing now matters except in terms of getting back into game shape.
If they do get back to 100% of what they are now, they will be much better than we have seen, and plenty good enough to deal with the quickness they'll see at the Olympics. |
....AS WILL BE: Courtney Vandersloot, Sabrina Ionescu, Kristi Toliver, Ruthy Hebard, Kayla McBride, Arike Ogunbowale, Natasha Cloud, etc., ETCETERA.
How hoggish is it to use your tenure to get a 5th Gold Medal, when so many deserving players haven't had their first one?? People who endorse them are merely sentimental fans, and no one can say their skill sets are irreplaceable. Just plain ol' Homerism for The Ol' Gerlz. |
But alternatively, if you look at it from their perpective, you can see why they'd think "why should I pull myself out of consideration?" The people in charge of picking the team are essentially saying "we still want you". |
Answer: "Cuz you've done it 4 times. Can you set your ego aside and make room for The Future?" [example: Pondexter, Whalen]
Richyyy wrote: |
If the swimming federation were telling Michael Phelps they wanted him on the team, then he'd be on the team (if he wanted) and there'd be no real issue. |
False equivalence. An INDIVIDUAL sport demands everybody truly *earn* their spot. If Mike can approach his 4:03 in the individual medley when he's 70, let him do it: he's excelling at something in a way no one else can approach. NOT the same scenario.
Richyyy wrote: |
USA Basketball aren't saying "well we kinda have to pick them because of their history, until they tell us they're finally retired". We've already seen with Parker that they're not afraid to leave behind star players if that's what they want to do. |
You point out Parker, whose example clearly illustrates that Politics can play a role here. To pretend that it doesn't play a role for Bird and Taurasi, in the opposite way, is spurious.
Richyyy wrote: |
So if I'm Bird or Taurasi, and I still think I'm a good basketball player (which I'm sure both of them do), my angle is "Why the hell shouldn't I get gold #5 if they still want me on the team? Apparently I'm still good enough." Fuck it, I'll stick around for #6 if they still want me. |
I can hear that, and....that's pure ego, to me.
pilight wrote: |
mayajustwins wrote: |
I still go with the fact that no one should be allowed to get a chance at a 5th Gold, since Teresa Edwards only got 4. |
Edwards played in five Olympics. Why should other players be limited to four? |
I trust you're playing Devil's Advocate here; you (of all people) know that Team USA was not inundated with the embarrassment of talent we now have. Katrina was desperately NEEDED at a time when that level of talent was not nearly so abundant.
_________________ Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67050 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 11/12/19 10:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Howee wrote: |
pilight wrote: |
mayajustwins wrote: |
I still go with the fact that no one should be allowed to get a chance at a 5th Gold, since Teresa Edwards only got 4. |
Edwards played in five Olympics. Why should other players be limited to four? |
I trust you're playing Devil's Advocate here; you (of all people) know that Team USA was not inundated with the embarrassment of talent we now have. Katrina was desperately NEEDED at a time when that level of talent was not nearly so abundant. |
When we did the thought experiment of limiting players to one Olympics, most people seemed to think my proposed rosters would have done as well as the actual ones did.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010 Posts: 16464 Location: Holland
Back to top |
|
miller40
Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 1334
Back to top |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005 Posts: 11183
Back to top |
Posted: 11/13/19 10:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
It is an interesting decision, no question ...
Bird and Taurasi, if healthy, will be solid players at the Olympic level in 2020, and experience does matter. As pointed out, if the Selection Commitee feels they are two of the best 12, then they should be there.
But then there's the real issue: Are they two of the 12 players who will make up the best team? (Not two of the best 12 players, because that's a different list.)
I don't have a strong opinion on this, as I think they can still help win a gold, but there may be others who could help more. Then again, what will their role be? Are they going to play 30 minutes a game? Or are they spot players, maybe even starting, but getting 15 to 20 minutes? In the latter role, they might be the best picks, given their experience, leadership and still solid skills. But maybe it would be better for some young guns to get those minutes, even if it makes the team somewhat less effective.
Finally, there is the issue of promoting the sport, and from a marketing angle and casual fan interest, Bird and Taurasi will get a lot more attention than younger players who have no resonance with a wider audience.
Tough call ...
_________________ Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
mmaniac
Joined: 15 Aug 2005 Posts: 825 Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Back to top |
Posted: 11/13/19 12:46 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I think the fall US national team tour is a great marketing idea
1. You get to see name players who missed the W season
2. You get to see some of the new talent
3. The colleges get more exposure
4. The college players get a taste of what is at the next level
Regardless of who you think should be on the team, the whole point was exposure, just like the team did in 1996. The US has an abundance of talent and everyone likes a winner. Losing to Oregon could be the best think that to this team, reminds me of when Team USA lost in the World Championships. Everyone got refocused and that is why there is this dominance. If there wasn't the talent pool that exists, we'd never talk about whose not on the team. Also the loss generated more interest on news channels then their wins have.
I can't wait to see them play on Thursday
|
|
Randy
Joined: 08 Oct 2011 Posts: 10911
Back to top |
Posted: 11/13/19 1:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ClayK wrote: |
It is an interesting decision, no question ...
Bird and Taurasi, if healthy, will be solid players at the Olympic level in 2020, and experience does matter. As pointed out, if the Selection Commitee feels they are two of the best 12, then they should be there.
But then there's the real issue: Are they two of the 12 players who will make up the best team? (Not two of the best 12 players, because that's a different list.)
I don't have a strong opinion on this, as I think they can still help win a gold, but there may be others who could help more. Then again, what will their role be? Are they going to play 30 minutes a game? Or are they spot players, maybe even starting, but getting 15 to 20 minutes? In the latter role, they might be the best picks, given their experience, leadership and still solid skills. But maybe it would be better for some young guns to get those minutes, even if it makes the team somewhat less effective.
Finally, there is the issue of promoting the sport, and from a marketing angle and casual fan interest, Bird and Taurasi will get a lot more attention than younger players who have no resonance with a wider audience.
Tough call ... |
If Taurasi gets injured she can always sit on the bench and get technical fouls.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15754 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
Posted: 11/13/19 3:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mmaniac wrote: |
I think the fall US national team tour is a great marketing idea
1. You get to see name players who missed the W season
2. You get to see some of the new talent
3. The colleges get more exposure
4. The college players get a taste of what is at the next level
Regardless of who you think should be on the team, the whole point was exposure, just like the team did in 1996. The US has an abundance of talent and everyone likes a winner. Losing to Oregon could be the best think that to this team, reminds me of when Team USA lost in the World Championships. Everyone got refocused and that is why there is this dominance. If there wasn't the talent pool that exists, we'd never talk about whose not on the team. Also the loss generated more interest on news channels then their wins have.
I can't wait to see them play on Thursday |
Excellent points. The 'series' is awesome.
_________________ Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010 Posts: 16464 Location: Holland
Back to top |
|
so-many-pickles
Joined: 17 May 2018 Posts: 99
Back to top |
Posted: 11/14/19 6:06 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
mayajustwins wrote: |
I still go with the fact that no one should be allowed to get a chance at a 5th Gold, since Teresa Edwards only got 4. She is the greatest Team USA player of all time, and has still played over 70 more games for Team USA than either Sue or Diana. She could have played in 2004, since she led the Lynx to their second playoff berth that year, but didn't. They should show the lady who helped create the market for US professional women's basketball, and who mentored the Team USA members who mentored Sue and Diana, the respect that she has earned. |
That's a pretty nonsensical argument.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15754 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
miller40
Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 1334
Back to top |
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010 Posts: 16464 Location: Holland
Back to top |
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15754 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Luuuc #NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 21951
Back to top |
Posted: 11/15/19 10:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
To me, a basketballer being in their prime refers to the peak of their powers as a player, which does not necessarily correspond to them being in their best physical shape.
Actually it seems surprisingly common for players to neglect their conditioning while they're at the top of their games, and only start taking care of themselves once they start to decline or suffer a lot of injuries.
_________________ Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
Michelle89
Joined: 17 Nov 2010 Posts: 16464 Location: Holland
Back to top |
Posted: 11/18/19 7:26 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Luuuc wrote: |
To me, a basketballer being in their prime refers to the peak of their powers as a player, which does not necessarily correspond to them being in their best physical shape.
Actually it seems surprisingly common for players to neglect their conditioning while they're at the top of their games, and only start taking care of themselves once they start to decline or suffer a lot of injuries. |
This
_________________ "Sue Bird and Lauren Jackson were and are the dynamic duo. They're the one-two punch. They're all the clich�s possible to describe people that perfectly complement each other, who make each other better and also bring out the best in the team." �Karen Bryant
|
|
|
|