RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

2018 Team USA
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 21, 22, 23  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 15406
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 3:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
ClayK wrote:
There's always a tension between winning tonight and building for the future ...

For example, if I were the Sparks and magically had had a choice between having Sue Bird as my point guard this year, or Chelsea Gray or Odyssey Sims, I would have taken Bird in a heartbeat if I wanted to win this year.


Well THIS year, Diggins dragged a far weaker less talented Wings team to a better record than Bird's Storm.

Both Diggins and Gray were voted to All WNBA teams. Bird wasn't.

Are you sure your heartbeat choice isn't based on reputation and nostalgia rather than actual current performance?


That says more about their numbers then about Bird. If you look at Birds numbers alone then you would never guess that she is the oldest player in the wnba and those numbers still prove that she is still one of the best pure PG's in the game.

Keep telling everyone that they need to get rid of the old players. As long as Bird doesnt play like one and keeps up with most of them if not all then she deserves a spot on that team because she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..



_________________
"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
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12725



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 3:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

#Occasionalwnbafan wrote:
I'm not buying the Sims over Diggins-Smith because she plays better D argument. Team USA has went with Bird backup by Whalen for years, why would defense be important now? Also if you have Curry or Westbrook on a team full of stars do you expect them to become passers all of a sudden? Having a scoring guard lead team USA isn't a bad ideal. Unlike Griner, EDD, Parker, Charles, Sims and others Diggins-Smith has never had a great pro coach, yet she still lead an up and down Wings team to the playoffs, a better finish then teams with/ who has had multiple all stars, and she had the Shock in a position to get a top seed out west before she got hurt in 2015. All that said Diggins-Smith has been a great pro, and has earned her spot on a USA team.


Well evidently it can't happen. Who deserves it is irrelevant. According to some, Bird has squatter's rights until she gets tired of stuffing her trophy case, even if that's four or five Olympics from now.


AllOnePlanet



Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Posts: 12



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Dave, regarding the podcast, Callan stated that players from the previous Olympic team will be on the next team if they're still playing b/b and haven't chosen to step aside. This is when you could have followed up by asking about Candace not being on the team in 2016, since she would have been on it according to Callan's statement. It would be fair to ask about that discrepancy.

Also, given Callan's statement, I see little hope for "new" players to make the Olympic team because Callan said that 11 players from 2016 want to play.

The other question I have is based on your post here about Catchings. My question is why wouldn't Nneka replace her in 2016, if you compare how well each was playing then? Just because someone hasn't been chosen for the Olympic team in the past doesn't mean they haven't participated in USA b/b and given a lot.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12725



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michelle89 wrote:
she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..


Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.


dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:09 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Why not just ask straightforward questions? Why do you make such an effort to use loooong leading questions to try to get guests to sign on to your point of view?

I'd prefer to hear THEIR view in response to a balanced open ended question. We all know how you feel about it.

And yes, we do disagree.

This interview wasn't unique in your reliance on speachmaking and long leading questions, by the way. I think your interviews could be better if you'd give guests the latitude to answer on their own.


Points taken, thank you for the constructive criticism, I appreciate it.


dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:15 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

AllOnePlanet wrote:
Dave, regarding the podcast, Callan stated that players from the previous Olympic team will be on the next team if they're still playing b/b and haven't chosen to step aside. This is when you could have followed up by asking about Candace not being on the team in 2016, since she would have been on it according to Callan's statement. It would be fair to ask about that discrepancy.

Also, given Callan's statement, I see little hope for "new" players to make the Olympic team because Callan said that 11 players from 2016 want to play.

The other question I have is based on your post here about Catchings. My question is why wouldn't Nneka replace her in 2016, if you compare how well each was playing then? Just because someone hasn't been chosen for the Olympic team in the past doesn't mean they haven't participated in USA b/b and given a lot.


Fair enough, but we've all heard USA Basketball's answer regarding Candace, and the fact she was invited to this camp shows USA Basketball at a minimum offering the olive branch. Whether it's too little too late we'll have to see in the future, she said no, which no one can blame her, but I think she'll get more invites.

I thought Catchings was still good enough to keep Indiana a playoff contender so she deserved to still have her spot if she wanted it.

I just think that the best in the world, at their peak, donated more time and effort to USA Basketball than they had to. Now that they may be slipping some, I think they deserve that benefit of the doubt if they want to.

Do I think it's necessary for them to continue? No, I don't. That was never asked of me, though, my opinion on if they need to play. They've gotten their medals, they could easily step aside, especially now that Geno is no longer their coach.

I do feel that they should have the right to continue if they want to and can (emphasize and can), and they shouldn't be just tossed aside because of their age and the desire to appease younger players.


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 20699
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

#Occasionalwnbafan wrote:
I'm not buying the Sims over Diggins-Smith because she plays better D argument. Team USA has went with Bird backup by Whalen for years, why would defense be important now?

Because the pass-first game managers who can score when they need to barely exist at the top level any more. So you have to prioritise something else. And with so much offensive firepower elsewhere on the floor, you don't necessarily want someone whose greatest skill is putting the ball in the basket.

I'm by no means saying that they will choose someone like Sims over the likes of Gray and Diggins, or that Gray/Diggins couldn't do the job for Team USA very well. I just agree with zune69 that if they picked Sims ahead of them I wouldn't be hugely surprised. They already picked her once four years ago.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12725



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:


I just think that the best in the world, at their peak, donated more time and effort to USA Basketball than they had to. Now that they may be slipping some, I think they deserve that benefit of the doubt if they want to..


That's sort of self fulfilling isn't it? The only reason they've dedicated "more time" is because they hogged the spots. Others have done everything they could have done and had an opportunity to do, playing on junior teams, 3x3 teams, coming to camps, etc. Answering every call from USA Basketball.

I really don't understand why "squatter's rights" should have anything to do with who gets the opportunity to represent their country in the Olympics. I find that completely indefensible.

It's pure cronyism. It wouldn't be tolerated for a second in any responsible organization.


Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 20699
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12725



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
dtsnms wrote:
You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.


Plus, how does anyone reconcile "You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win" with "I do feel that they should have the right to continue if they want to and can"?

The latter has nothing to do with the former. It says incumbents get to keep their spot regardless of whether they are the best choice.


dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Richyyy wrote:
dtsnms wrote:
You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.


Plus, how does anyone reconcile "You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win" with "I do feel that they should have the right to continue if they want to and can"?

The latter has nothing to do with the former. It says incumbents get to keep their spot regardless of whether they are the best choice.


It says the incumbents get to keep their spots if they continue to help them win.


dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:53 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Let me just say, this is the best conversation on the board in a long time (IMO), in terms of good discussion points and civility.


dtsnms



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 18815



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
dtsnms wrote:
You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.


And I think the 12 players never been part is what allows them to keep running out the veterans too. They know that should Taurasi, Bird, Whalen, Augustus and Fowles all say no to 2020, there should be enough returnees and talented younger players to take over without that big a hiccup.

Art is right in that it is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. They play a lot of tournaments, so they (IMO) earn the right to continue, but because they play those tournaments that's why they earn that right instead of someone else.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12725



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 4:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

dtsnms wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Richyyy wrote:
dtsnms wrote:
You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win

But in all sports - especially in the international game, and especially when it comes to the squad, rather than the ones who play the bulk of the minutes - that usually means some combination of 'best chance to win right now' and 'best chance to win down the line'. For the US in basketball, isn't the aim to win everything essentially in perpetuity? And the problem if you just keep picking the old guard until the end of time is that they could all fall off a cliff and/or quit at the same time, leaving a bit of a vacuum behind them.

I mean, we're talking fractions here, because let's face it, the US could take 12 players to the Worlds next year who've never been to a major tournament and they'd still be strong favourites. But the risk of another 2006 is surely what they should be trying to minimise.


Plus, how does anyone reconcile "You are supposed to pick who gives you the best chance to win" with "I do feel that they should have the right to continue if they want to and can"?

The latter has nothing to do with the former. It says incumbents get to keep their spot regardless of whether they are the best choice.


It says the incumbents get to keep their spots if they continue to help them win.


100 players or more could "help them win". That has zero to do with your statement regarding picking "who gives you the BEST chance to win.". Squatter's rights are entirely inconsistent with choosing the BEST.

In reality it seems you're for picking the same old crew as long as, as a group, they're good enough to win, regardless of whether they give the BEST chance to win, and regardless of whether some of them belong at all.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12725



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 5:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

BTW, one thing being overlooked here is that it is a tremendous honor and opportunity to be able to represent your country in the Olympics. I think everyone should have a fair and equal right to those coveted spots. And that right is far more real than any supposed "right" of incumbency.

It's just plain wrong to place a less deserving player on the team over another player who deserves the chance because of her play just because the former player was on the last team or the last four teams. It's not fair and it's not right. And it's completely unfair to the excluded player.

Do people think that if Phelps finishes fifth in the next Olympic trials in an event he should be one of the three sent to the Olympics just because of his past success and contributions? Should he be included on the swimming team in his favorite events as long as he feels like it? Is that fair to the swimmers he displaces from the team? Would anyone tolerate that for a second? That's exactly what's being supported for Women's basketball, and it's all justified because there's no electrically timed certainty of the correct ranking.

But objectively there are more deserving choices. And they'd be chosen if friendships and incumbency were ignored.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 9301



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 5:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

That's a great point about the honor of playing -- given the competitive reality, maybe that should be taken into consideration a bit more than "they get to play as long as they want."

But back to Bird ... a team does not necessarily consist of the best 12 available players, and with the firepower and athleticism available to the U.S., having a "floor general" run the show makes a great deal of sense to me.

And yes, Seattle did not do as well as Dallas, but the coach was fired, after all, so I don't think you can blame Loyd's down year on Bird.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if Diggins, Sims, Gray, et al., made the team, but I do think Bird will be very effective as the lead guard in an event that does not feature exceptional athleticism and on a team that needs steady play from the point.

I don't think the same logic will necessarily apply in 2020, and for that reason, going young in 2018 makes sense, but it's a complex equation, especially given the Callan thoughts on the matter.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49386



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 6:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

We have a new coach, and her priority is to win, not necessarily to give new players opportunity.

If you're a new coach, would you rather have a PG that you're familiar with in Team USA basketball and is savvy enough to be an extra coach on the floor and has immense international experience, or would you rather a PG that is pretty green in all of that. Diggins could have helped her own cause by playing overseas. Sims... I don't know. I don't have a lot of faith in her being the leader of Team USA. Seems a bit erratic to me. Her defense is over-hyped. So she hawks an occasional ball from Whalen. She gambles in order to do that so she often times gets burned by getting out of position. I also hate her vulnerability of not being able to drive right.

PG is the most important position to have experience, so I don't blame Team USA in being very happy to have Bird and Whalen taking care of their bodies and continuing to make themselves available.

What Whalen is doing now in the WNBA Finals most closely resembles what would be needed in Team USA. The WNBA Finals is basketball at the highest level in the world. She has elite players around her as there would be on Team USA. She knows what to do. They really don't need a PG that's a high scorer and green at international play and leading unless it's the only option available.

Considering how little Team USA gets to practice together, it makes a ton of sense that they'd prefer experience and savvy at the PG position. The structure is good in the Team USA scenario.

A change has to happen sometime, but why force it's not necessary... because it's not fair? This isn't Girl Scouts. This is Team USA basketball.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Richyyy



Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 20699
Location: London


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 6:33 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Of course, when it comes to the point guard position, there's every chance we'll end up seeing the middle-ground - Bird gets to continue on in her perpetual role, but Whalen gets dumped in favour of a younger model who will ideally become Bird's successor. Whalen had noticeably lost an extra half-step this season even before the injury, which'll make it more 'justifiable' (along with her having never been as much of a part of the USA Basketball furniture as Bird).



_________________
Independent WNBA coverage: http://www.wnbalien.com/
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49386



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 6:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Richyyy wrote:
Whalen had noticeably lost an extra half-step this season even before the injury


Not sure what a hand injury has to do with her stepping, but I disagree. I've been noticing that she's about as quick as she's ever been. Probably can't get 35 min of quickness, but she's still relatively quick.



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Shades



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 49386



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 7:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Arrow



_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
Iluvacc



Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 2604



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 9:57 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

https://www.usab.com/news-events/news/2017/10/wnt-quotes-day-3.aspx

Seems like Diggins got the memo

Quote:


I’m just trying to be a leader now. I learned just coming to this, just playing your game and contributing to the team is not about what you might normally do for your other teams. It’s about sacrificing for the greater good.


J-Spoon



Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 4722



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/02/17 11:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So during the run up to the 2016 Olympics I was completely in support of all the returning player being allowed to continue. Now I'm not so sure. But

When people say "give them the best chance to win", it's a hard argument to make against the returning vets. Yes there are player who might have better stats, but clearly the players returning who got the gold in 2008, 2012, 2016 have proof on their side, they won the gold, the medal doesn't get any golder. Yes the same exact thing could have happened with other player, but we know for a fact with these player on team USA they achieved the ultimate goal.

The players themselves don't make the decision who is on the team. I agree that it is surprising that vets like Bird, DT, Whalen, Augustus and others want to continue to put in the work to stay on the National Team, but it is just as much their right to wish to continue, as it is the right of new players to want to make the team. It is the coaches and committee who make the final decision so I don't think it is fair to blame the players in question for wanting to continue to persue Their Olympic dream. Just as it might seem unfair to keep giving them the spot, it would also be unfair to not let them keep fighting for a spot if they choose to and are good enough to help the team. Just as going to the Olympics is not their right, it is also not the right of the talented players who haven't made the team.

Who "deserves" to go is a very hard argument to make as well. A player might seem as an individual to be a better player than another player, but even that is subjective to a certain point, and then when you throw in a team dynamic, experience and other intangibles it isn't as clear. Just as it might seem unfair for the same players to repeat many times, it seems just as unfair to ask a player who has dedicated their lives to the National Team to step aside so someone else can have a turn. If I'm Sue Bird and I feel I can still play, and have dedicated myself to the national Team my whole life, I'm not going to feel bad about someone else not making it. I had to fight to get on the team, I've had to work hard to stay on the team, and it's not my fault someone else hasn't made it.

Now if you look at success in the W, then decent players contributing to the teams playing in the finals would have a good argument. Someone like Brunson, R. Montgomery or Sims would have as legitimate of an argument to be on the National team as someone putting up better numbers on a less successful team. But on the flip side no one is questioning whether Charles belongs and her team was eliminated early, and Sloot if she wasn't Hungarian now would be considered a very strong replacement for a PG spot on the team even though her team landed in the lottery. So saying one player had a better year this year in the W than another isn't a be all end all for this consideration. Basketball is not a cut a dry sport like track and fiend or swimming where the fastest to the finnish line is clearly the best. And to be honest even right now Oct 3rd 2017 I'm not sure I could say that Diggins-Smith, Gray, Sims or Sloot for that matter is definitively a better PG than Bird.

TBH I would like to see some of the younger player start to be incorporated in to the Worlds team in 2018, and I would like to see some new blood on the olympic team. Next summer is still almost a year away and 2020 in way in the future in basketball years for veteran players. I think it is quite possible that injury, or a change of heart about stepping aside very well happen for Bird and some of the other older players by then, so there will still likely be an opportunity for the younger players. Now of course if everyone is healthy, wants to stay and is still producing at a decent level the next few years will be loaded with these arguments. And even if some of the vets do step aside we'll be arguing about who "deserves" to be their replacements. If there is a new PG spot in 2020 does it go to Gray? (My choice at the moment) Diggins-Smith? Does Sims get another chance to prove herself? Does a healthy Jefferson work her way into the picture? Who knows?


Michelle89



Joined: 17 Nov 2010
Posts: 15406
Location: Holland


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/17 2:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Michelle89 wrote:
she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..


Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.


Have you seen our defense and have you seen our bench Rolling Eyes How in the hell could Bird fix that? Offensively we were pretty good. I think our FG % was up there with the best teams (if i remember correctly) Maybe Richyyy knows the numbers compared to the rest of the teams.
Bird has never been known for her defense so i dont know how she is the only one responsible for the teams horrible defense.



_________________
"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
miller40



Joined: 29 Jun 2006
Posts: 1086



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/17 7:59 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Michelle89 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Michelle89 wrote:
she is a better leader, passer and just an all around smarter player with a lot of experience..


Really? If she's so invincible, then why with Stewart and Loyd and a far far better roster couldn't she lead her team to a better record than the Wings?

Some people let their fandom for Bird overtake all reality and reason.


Have you seen our defense and have you seen our bench Rolling Eyes How in the hell could Bird fix that? Offensively we were pretty good. I think our FG % was up there with the best teams (if i remember correctly) Maybe Richyyy knows the numbers compared to the rest of the teams.
Bird has never been known for her defense so i dont know how she is the only one responsible for the teams horrible defense.


Have you seen Dallas' defense? Laughing Laughing


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 12725



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/03/17 9:52 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

J-Spoon wrote:

clearly the players returning who got the gold in 2008, 2012, 2016 have proof on their side, they won the gold, the medal doesn't get any golder. Yes the same exact thing could have happened with other player, but we know for a fact with these player on team USA they achieved the ultimate goal.


Do you consider that dispositive? You could write the identical thing about them in 4, 12, or 24 years from now.

J-Spoon wrote:

The players themselves don't make the decision who is on the team. I agree that it is surprising that vets like Bird, DT, Whalen, Augustus and others want to continue to put in the work to stay on the National Team, but it is just as much their right to wish to continue, as it is the right of new players to want to make the team. It is the coaches and committee who make the final decision so I don't think it is fair to blame the players in question for wanting to continue to persue Their Olympic dream.


There are people here arguing, and more importantly Callan said, that it should be up to these particular players to decide for themselves, that there is a spot for them as long as they ask for it, and that we should all just "trust" them to decide for themselves when enough is enough. Callan made crystal clear that the check you're relying on doesn't exist or at least won't be exerted by the current USAB power structure.

They have squatter's rights.




Last edited by ArtBest23 on 10/03/17 10:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » WNBA All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 21, 22, 23  Next
Page 7 of 23

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin