| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
canadaball
Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 508
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/24/21 2:30 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
Here is an article from 2017 that clears away some of this Sloot/USA basketball nonsense: https://www.nhregister.com/sports/article/Courtney-Vandersloot-now-a-part-of-Hungary-s-11729101.php
There is no pretense that her decision to leave USA basketball for the Hungarian passport was linked with any desire to get to the Olympics. The article mentions the aging trio of Whalen, Bird and DT. There is no hint from Sloot at discomfort with the USA selection process, and check this quote: “It was something I said from the beginning, they (USA BBall) weren’t missing out on anything,” Vandersloot said. “They have a plethora of people who can step in with no hesitation so that is what is great about USA Basketball, you just have people jumping at the bit.” I believe Sloot was seeking to deflect the notion she was leaving future Olympic teams in the lurch. No hint of any concern about her ability to make future teams. She says the move was under consideration for several years ("I had opportunities, I knew what it would do for my career overseas" ), and then there is this: "It was the right decision for me and my career". My interpretation: this was all about the cash.
There is plenty of irony here. In 2017, who would have thought 4 years later 2 of those 3 ancient guards would still be playing and good enough for the Olympics?; then there is the issue of Hungary, one of world's most anti LBGT regimes, which just this week resulted in major controversy at Euro football (when has a crowd of 60k jeered a national anthem?). Since their well publicized marriage, both Sloot and Quig are no longer in Hungarian team plans. Let's just say it is hardly a profile in courage that these two prominent gays do not renounce their passports. I have sympathized with the original move to make big $ by leaving USA basketball, but now years later, Sloot and Quig must have plenty Ekat loot, but, once again I guess it is still cash over principle.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/24/21 2:34 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Richyyy wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| ucbart wrote: |
| In any other world, Bird and DT would be celebrated for their long careers, their greatness, and their commitment to playing for Team USA. But not here. |
Well, probably on Planet Storrs.  Mind you, I don't call into question their 'greatness', but I'd question their motives past their 3rd Olympics....by now, it's Glory Greed. The Gold could easily be won without them, and other deserving players could experience the glory, too. |
But people don't say that in, say swimming or gymnastics or whatever. If you're good enough to make it to five different Olympic Games, that person's generally considered a legend (especially if they're winning medals at all of them). And, if healthy, it's not like Bird and Taurasi are passengers being carried along for the ride to get them yet another medal. While they're still good enough to make it on merit and USA Basketball want to pick them, I don't really see why they should be required to remove themselves from consideration. |
Nuh-uh. INDIVIDUAL sports go by other metrics, like best times in the backstroke: You got that? You go. YOU lift the heaviest weights? You're in. No matter which Olympics it is for you. Those 2 players are already legends in wbb....they're now going for personal glory. I see that as selfish, while others are denied the honor and privilege. JMO. 
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/24/21 2:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
One reason the NBA/WNBA comparison doesn't work is that the biggest title in the men's game is the NBA championship. In the women's game, it's the Olympics.
The Olympics are the biggest stage a female basketball player can play on, unlike the men, and my guess is that the Olympics were more important than the NBA championship in prestige, more men would play.
Also note that the dollar amount for shoe contracts for the women are based much more on being on the Olympic team than on WNBA success. So women with shoe contracts are expected to play in the Olympics if they can to justify their endorsement income.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
J-Spoon
Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 6800
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/24/21 3:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| ucbart wrote: |
| In any other world, Bird and DT would be celebrated for their long careers, their greatness, and their commitment to playing for Team USA. But not here. |
Well, probably on Planet Storrs. Mind you, I don't call into question their 'greatness', but I'd question their motives past their 3rd Olympics....by now, it's Glory Greed. The Gold could easily be won without them, and other deserving players could experience the glory, too. |
But people don't say that in, say swimming or gymnastics or whatever. If you're good enough to make it to five different Olympic Games, that person's generally considered a legend (especially if they're winning medals at all of them). And, if healthy, it's not like Bird and Taurasi are passengers being carried along for the ride to get them yet another medal. While they're still good enough to make it on merit and USA Basketball want to pick them, I don't really see why they should be required to remove themselves from consideration. |
Nuh-uh. INDIVIDUAL sports go by other metrics, like best times in the backstroke: You got that? You go. YOU lift the heaviest weights? You're in. No matter which Olympics it is for you. Those 2 players are already legends in wbb....they're now going for personal glory. I see that as selfish, while others are denied the honor and privilege. JMO. |
I agree about measurable, individual sports but
are there conversations similar to this one in relationship to say
Hockey, volleyball, soccer, curling, softball (is softball still in the Olympics), sailing, badmitton, etc
I really don't know, but I would think people going to multiple Olympic Games would be celebrated for dedication or being an incredible leader and not viewed as selfish.
I could be wrong I admit to not having any examples in either direction, it just seems like the depth of the American women's talent has created a very unique situation.
|
|
bcdawg04
Joined: 12 Apr 2016
Posts: 566
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/24/21 4:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| J-Spoon wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| ucbart wrote: |
| In any other world, Bird and DT would be celebrated for their long careers, their greatness, and their commitment to playing for Team USA. But not here. |
Well, probably on Planet Storrs. Mind you, I don't call into question their 'greatness', but I'd question their motives past their 3rd Olympics....by now, it's Glory Greed. The Gold could easily be won without them, and other deserving players could experience the glory, too. |
But people don't say that in, say swimming or gymnastics or whatever. If you're good enough to make it to five different Olympic Games, that person's generally considered a legend (especially if they're winning medals at all of them). And, if healthy, it's not like Bird and Taurasi are passengers being carried along for the ride to get them yet another medal. While they're still good enough to make it on merit and USA Basketball want to pick them, I don't really see why they should be required to remove themselves from consideration. |
Nuh-uh. INDIVIDUAL sports go by other metrics, like best times in the backstroke: You got that? You go. YOU lift the heaviest weights? You're in. No matter which Olympics it is for you. Those 2 players are already legends in wbb....they're now going for personal glory. I see that as selfish, while others are denied the honor and privilege. JMO. |
I agree about measurable, individual sports but
are there conversations similar to this one in relationship to say
Hockey, volleyball, soccer, curling, softball (is softball still in the Olympics), sailing, badmitton, etc
I really don't know, but I would think people going to multiple Olympic Games would be celebrated for dedication or being an incredible leader and not viewed as selfish.
I could be wrong I admit to not having any examples in either direction, it just seems like the depth of the American women's talent has created a very unique situation. |
In soccer, yes, a similar discussion is definitely happening. US women's soccer is, of course, in a similar situation as US women's basketball - the deepest talent pool and the most resources. Soccer fans are currently questioning the inclusion of players like Lloyd and Rapinoe on the Olympic roster. It's nothing new for the soccer team. Over the years, it has felt like certain players were basically tenured onto the team. I seem to recall a time or two when a player tore her ACL months before a major competition (Olympics or World Cup) and she was named to the roster anyway. Each head coach for the soccer team going back has gotten criticism for not doing enough to integrate new players. There is also more criticism for the decision makers in US soccer because the soccer team may be as much the favorites as the basketball team, but the soccer team loses more since luck can be more important that depth in soccer.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 2:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Whew . . . quite a slog through the last five pages of this thread to figure out the U.S. Olympic team story line.
I don't get the entire plot, but the dramatis personae are clearly presented in the Playbill. There are seven, and only seven, villains: Geno Auriemma, Sue Bird, Diana Taurasi, Swin Cash, Asjha Jones, Tina Charles, and maybe Napheesa Collier. Every other character is heroic, deservingly good, neutral or screwed-over.
Reminds me of SAT questions from 60 year ago -- e.g., "What does this group of seven things have in common?" |
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 11:50 am ::: |
Reply |
|
So really, it was Napheesa Collier or Nneka Ogwumike.
Collier's line the last two years:
2020: 16.7p, 9.0r, 3.3a, 2.7to, 52/41/83 (overall, three, FT %), 22.6 PER
2021: 17.1p, 6.1 r, 2.8a, 2.0to, 46/24/90, 20.1 PER
Ogwumike:
2020: 13.3p, 4.8r, 1.7a, 1.6to, 57/50/84, 20.0 PER
2021: 16.4p, 7.0r, 1.2a, 1.8to, 59/33/80, 23.4 PER
Collier takes more threes, granted, but at 24% this year, she might not want to take that many. (And the discussion seems to center around the last two years, not total career.)
Collier is a better ballhandler, and a marginally better defender (102-100) according to defensive rating.
Though the numbers would point to Collier being a little better, Nneka's PER this year is significantly better (for whatever that's worth).
So now, I do think Nneka got the short end of the stick, and should have been on the team. If you're going off stats and not the eye test, there's not a compelling reason to pick Collier, and then, for me, we default to Nneka "deserving" the spot.
Now did Geno pull the strings to make this happen? Possible, maybe even likely. But it's a five-person committee, and they don't have to listen to him. Ultimately those five should take the blame, not Geno ...
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 11:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| They might not have "had" to listen to him, but my guess is that committees such as that will take the path of least resistance, when it comes to dealing with a strong personality like Auriemma. That path being, "just let the bastard have who he wants, so we don't have to hear about it, until the end of time."
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Iluvacc
Joined: 11 Jun 2005
Posts: 4167
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 12:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
So really, it was Napheesa Collier or Nneka Ogwumike.
Collier's line the last two years:
2020: 16.7p, 9.0r, 3.3a, 2.7to, 52/41/83 (overall, three, FT %), 22.6 PER
2021: 17.1p, 6.1 r, 2.8a, 2.0to, 46/24/90, 20.1 PER
Ogwumike:
2020: 13.3p, 4.8r, 1.7a, 1.6to, 57/50/84, 20.0 PER
2021: 16.4p, 7.0r, 1.2a, 1.8to, 59/33/80, 23.4 PER
Collier takes more threes, granted, but at 24% this year, she might not want to take that many. (And the discussion seems to center around the last two years, not total career.)
Collier is a better ballhandler, and a marginally better defender (102-100) according to defensive rating.
Though the numbers would point to Collier being a little better, Nneka's PER this year is significantly better (for whatever that's worth).
So now, I do think Nneka got the short end of the stick, and should have been on the team. If you're going off stats and not the eye test, there's not a compelling reason to pick Collier, and then, for me, we default to Nneka "deserving" the spot.
Now did Geno pull the strings to make this happen? Possible, maybe even likely. But it's a five-person committee, and they don't have to listen to him. Ultimately those five should take the blame, not Geno ... |
So now it’s all about stats in WNBA, however in the past we were led to believe that “other” factors go into selecting team members, case in point the whole Parker debacle. Being a team player, attending all the camps, being loyal, yada yada yada. They are full of crap and I’m glad they’re finally taking some heat for these shady back door shenanigans. No, Geno should not take all of the blame,’some should go to Carol who’s essentially a yes woman, and Katie Smith, who surprise surprise also happens to be Napheesa’s assistant coach.
|
|
Richyyy
Joined: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 24356
Location: London
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 12:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
| So really, it was Napheesa Collier or Nneka Ogwumike. |
It really wasn't. They took six posts and a combo-forward to Worlds in 2018 (if counting Stewart as a post). Morgan freaking Tuck was the combo-forward. The easy move would've been leaving out Atkins and just letting Stewart play the 3 again (which she did throughout Worlds, and frequently at UMMC in Russia this offseason). We're also only about five weeks removed from nobody thinking Tina Charles should be in this squad. |
|
canadaball
Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 508
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 12:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
So really, it was Napheesa Collier or Nneka Ogwumike.
Collier's line the last two years:
2020: 16.7p, 9.0r, 3.3a, 2.7to, 52/41/83 (overall, three, FT %), 22.6 PER
2021: 17.1p, 6.1 r, 2.8a, 2.0to, 46/24/90, 20.1 PER
Ogwumike:
2020: 13.3p, 4.8r, 1.7a, 1.6to, 57/50/84, 20.0 PER
2021: 16.4p, 7.0r, 1.2a, 1.8to, 59/33/80, 23.4 PER
Collier takes more threes, granted, but at 24% this year, she might not want to take that many. (And the discussion seems to center around the last two years, not total career.)
Collier is a better ballhandler, and a marginally better defender (102-100) according to defensive rating.
Though the numbers would point to Collier being a little better, Nneka's PER this year is significantly better (for whatever that's worth).
So now, I do think Nneka got the short end of the stick, and should have been on the team. If you're going off stats and not the eye test, there's not a compelling reason to pick Collier, and then, for me, we default to Nneka "deserving" the spot.
Now did Geno pull the strings to make this happen? Possible, maybe even likely. But it's a five-person committee, and they don't have to listen to him. Ultimately those five should take the blame, not Geno ... |
What I am missing here? Regardless of stats, mvp's etc. Neka just has no perimeter skills (at both ends). The other 5 front liners bring everything USA needs in the paint and Neka would add nothing at all. Selecting Collier combined with Atkins is an attempt to replace the small forward roles filled recently by Angel and Maya. The idea is putting together a functioning team, not a collection of stars (yes, Neka is a bigger career star than Collier) with misfit roles.
Let me amplify a bit. Consider this upstanding All Star game. Let's say DeShields plays the 3 for the WNBA All Stars. Who on team USA can defend her? Yes, Stew played the 3 at the World's, but is she really best equipped?; One thing for sure, Neka wouldn't fill that role. Now I know a theme has been " USA has so much talent, and the rest of world is weak so it doesn't matter", but I believe the committee must put together the best possible team.
|
|
ClayK
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11149
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 1:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
But I'm not convinced Collier is going to defend small forwards either, though I grant she could do better than Nneka.
And if the USA is relying on Collier to supply a perimeter game offensively, the team is shakier than I thought.
I agree Collier has a slightly stronger case, but neither she nor Nneka are critical pieces on this year's team. Given Nneka's history and reputation, I think
accepting a slightly lower level of versatility is worth her inclusion.
_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
|
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32335
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 1:29 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| canadaball wrote: |
What I am missing here? Regardless of stats, mvp's etc. Neka just has no perimeter skills (at both ends). The other 5 front liners bring everything USA needs in the paint and Neka would add nothing at all. Selecting Collier combined with Atkins is an attempt to replace the small forward roles filled recently by Angel and Maya. The idea is putting together a functioning team, not a collection of stars (yes, Neka is a bigger career star than Collier) with misfit roles.
Let me amplify a bit. Consider this upstanding All Star game. Let's say DeShields plays the 3 for the WNBA All Stars. Who on team USA can defend her? Yes, Stew played the 3 at the World's, but is she really best equipped?; One thing for sure, Neka wouldn't fill that role. Now I know a theme has been " USA has so much talent, and the rest of world is weak so it doesn't matter", but I believe the committee must put together the best possible team. |
This is pretty much BS. Teams these days often play with three wings and two posts and sometimes two wings and three posts. Our balance will be fine regardless...Pretty clearly Collier and Atkins were the last adds, even though Taurasi should have been in that conversation. If you want someone to play a traditional three other than Stewie, there is Taurasi (assuming she can play at all). You could also have solved that problem by taking Laney instead of Atkins. I like Atkins but another small guard is pretty much extraneous. I like Collier, but I don't see that she brings more than Nneka overall and she will have multiple opportunities in the future. BTW: Nneka has in fact guarded threes in the past. She is pretty mobile for a big..and would have a terrific backstop duo behind her. My first choice would actually be to replace Taurasi with Nneka. Taurasi has had hers. Time to move on.
|
|
canadaball
Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 508
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 1:36 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ClayK wrote: |
But I'm not convinced Collier is going to defend small forwards either, though I grant she could do better than Nneka.
And if the USA is relying on Collier to supply a perimeter game offensively, the team is shakier than I thought.
I agree Collier has a slightly stronger case, but neither she nor Nneka are critical pieces on this year's team. Given Nneka's history and reputation, I think
accepting a slightly lower level of versatility is worth her inclusion. |
Though Syl's injury last year moved her up front, Collier has shown the ability to play the 3 in the WNBA. She is a better defender outside than Stew, the presumptive small forward starter. It is all about roles, and Neka's skill set brings nothing additional to the roster. The focus really should not be Neka vs Collier. They could have used DeShields i/ Laney/ etc. instead of Napheesa. It is all about how Neka would be suoerfluous on this team.
Last edited by canadaball on 06/25/21 1:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
SCook
Joined: 09 Oct 2013
Posts: 3254
Location: New Jersey
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 1:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| canadaball wrote: |
What I am missing here? Regardless of stats, mvp's etc. Neka just has no perimeter skills (at both ends). The other 5 front liners bring everything USA needs in the paint and Neka would add nothing at all. Selecting Collier combined with Atkins is an attempt to replace the small forward roles filled recently by Angel and Maya. The idea is putting together a functioning team, not a collection of stars (yes, Neka is a bigger career star than Collier) with misfit roles.
Let me amplify a bit. Consider this upstanding All Star game. Let's say DeShields plays the 3 for the WNBA All Stars. Who on team USA can defend her? Yes, Stew played the 3 at the World's, but is she really best equipped?; One thing for sure, Neka wouldn't fill that role. Now I know a theme has been " USA has so much talent, and the rest of world is weak so it doesn't matter", but I believe the committee must put together the best possible team. |
This is pretty much BS. Teams these days often play with three wings and two posts and sometimes two wings and three posts. Our balance will be fine regardless...Pretty clearly Collier and Atkins were the last adds, even though Taurasi should have been in that conversation. If you want someone to play a traditional three other than Stewie, there is Taurasi (assuming she can play at all). You could also have solved that problem by taking Laney instead of Atkins. I like Atkins but another small guard is pretty much extraneous. I like Collier, but I don't see that she brings more than Nneka overall and she will have multiple opportunities in the future. BTW: Nneka has in fact guarded threes in the past. She is pretty mobile for a big..and would have a terrific backstop duo behind her. My first choice would actually be to replace Taurasi with Nneka. Taurasi has had hers. Time to move on. |
_________________
In La'Kech: I Am You. You Are Me. We Are Us
|
|
canadaball
Joined: 24 May 2013
Posts: 508
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 1:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| SCook wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| canadaball wrote: |
What I am missing here? Regardless of stats, mvp's etc. Neka just has no perimeter skills (at both ends). The other 5 front liners bring everything USA needs in the paint and Neka would add nothing at all. Selecting Collier combined with Atkins is an attempt to replace the small forward roles filled recently by Angel and Maya. The idea is putting together a functioning team, not a collection of stars (yes, Neka is a bigger career star than Collier) with misfit roles.
Let me amplify a bit. Consider this upstanding All Star game. Let's say DeShields plays the 3 for the WNBA All Stars. Who on team USA can defend her? Yes, Stew played the 3 at the World's, but is she really best equipped?; One thing for sure, Neka wouldn't fill that role. Now I know a theme has been " USA has so much talent, and the rest of world is weak so it doesn't matter", but I believe the committee must put together the best possible team. |
This is pretty much BS. Teams these days often play with three wings and two posts and sometimes two wings and three posts. Our balance will be fine regardless...Pretty clearly Collier and Atkins were the last adds, even though Taurasi should have been in that conversation. If you want someone to play a traditional three other than Stewie, there is Taurasi (assuming she can play at all). You could also have solved that problem by taking Laney instead of Atkins. I like Atkins but another small guard is pretty much extraneous. I like Collier, but I don't see that she brings more than Nneka overall and she will have multiple opportunities in the future. BTW: Nneka has in fact guarded threes in the past. She is pretty mobile for a big..and would have a terrific backstop duo behind her. My first choice would actually be to replace Taurasi with Nneka. Taurasi has had hers. Time to move on. |
Look at this another way. The Opals are main USA opponents. They feature players like Rebecca Allen and Talbot. Now I know people will say this pair are just mediocre W players, but on a given night, they just might get hot offensively (they certainly are comfortable playing vs USA talent). Considering that Stew's main experiences are not at the 3, how does the addition of Neka give the USA more defensive options. Neka, as opposed to Collier, has almost no experience defending these kind of perimeter players. Sure, some things seem unlikely, but , in putting together a team, it is not about rewarding great players, but, rather preparing for all eventualities. There is history here. In 2000 they took Kara Wolters (obviously inferior) over Tina Thompson to bring more size just in case Leslie got hurt etc.
|
|
|
Speebs56
Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Posts: 228
Location: Orange county, CA
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 2:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| canadaball wrote: |
| SCook wrote: |
| myrtle wrote: |
| canadaball wrote: |
What I am missing here? Regardless of stats, mvp's etc. Neka just has no perimeter skills (at both ends). The other 5 front liners bring everything USA needs in the paint and Neka would add nothing at all. Selecting Collier combined with Atkins is an attempt to replace the small forward roles filled recently by Angel and Maya. The idea is putting together a functioning team, not a collection of stars (yes, Neka is a bigger career star than Collier) with misfit roles.
Let me amplify a bit. Consider this upstanding All Star game. Let's say DeShields plays the 3 for the WNBA All Stars. Who on team USA can defend her? Yes, Stew played the 3 at the World's, but is she really best equipped?; One thing for sure, Neka wouldn't fill that role. Now I know a theme has been " USA has so much talent, and the rest of world is weak so it doesn't matter", but I believe the committee must put together the best possible team. |
This is pretty much BS. Teams these days often play with three wings and two posts and sometimes two wings and three posts. Our balance will be fine regardless...Pretty clearly Collier and Atkins were the last adds, even though Taurasi should have been in that conversation. If you want someone to play a traditional three other than Stewie, there is Taurasi (assuming she can play at all). You could also have solved that problem by taking Laney instead of Atkins. I like Atkins but another small guard is pretty much extraneous. I like Collier, but I don't see that she brings more than Nneka overall and she will have multiple opportunities in the future. BTW: Nneka has in fact guarded threes in the past. She is pretty mobile for a big..and would have a terrific backstop duo behind her. My first choice would actually be to replace Taurasi with Nneka. Taurasi has had hers. Time to move on. |
Look at this another way. The Opals are main USA opponents. They feature players like Rebecca Allen and Talbot. Now I know people will say this pair are just mediocre W players, but on a given night, they just might get hot offensively (they certainly are comfortable playing vs USA talent). Considering that Stew's main experiences are not at the 3, how does the addition of Neka give the USA more defensive options. Neka, as opposed to Collier, has almost no experience defending these kind of perimeter players. Sure, some things seem unlikely, but , in putting together a team, it is not about rewarding great players, but, rather preparing for all eventualities. There is history here. In 2000 they took Kara Wolters (obviously inferior) over Tina Thompson to bring more size just in case Leslie got hurt etc.
|
|
Just a random question: Is there a reason you continue to misspell Nneka's name as Neka? 
|
|
mercfan
Joined: 08 May 2013
Posts: 1910
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 2:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| Richyyy wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
| ucbart wrote: |
| In any other world, Bird and DT would be celebrated for their long careers, their greatness, and their commitment to playing for Team USA. But not here. |
Well, probably on Planet Storrs. Mind you, I don't call into question their 'greatness', but I'd question their motives past their 3rd Olympics....by now, it's Glory Greed. The Gold could easily be won without them, and other deserving players could experience the glory, too. |
But people don't say that in, say swimming or gymnastics or whatever. If you're good enough to make it to five different Olympic Games, that person's generally considered a legend (especially if they're winning medals at all of them). And, if healthy, it's not like Bird and Taurasi are passengers being carried along for the ride to get them yet another medal. While they're still good enough to make it on merit and USA Basketball want to pick them, I don't really see why they should be required to remove themselves from consideration. |
Nuh-uh. INDIVIDUAL sports go by other metrics, like best times in the backstroke: You got that? You go. YOU lift the heaviest weights? You're in. No matter which Olympics it is for you. Those 2 players are already legends in wbb....they're now going for personal glory. I see that as selfish, while others are denied the honor and privilege. JMO. |
Ok then let's talk team sports.
I am certain that there were younger and better players than Abby Wambach and she got her due with the U.S. National Team AND a respectful and proper send off on a team that is even more prestigious than making the U.S Women's Basketball roster. Some of ya'll are just ridiculous in your hate quite frankly.
Last edited by mercfan on 06/25/21 3:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
mercfan
Joined: 08 May 2013
Posts: 1910
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 2:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Whew . . . quite a slog through the last five pages of this thread to figure out the U.S. Olympic team story line.
I don't get the entire plot, but the dramatis personae are clearly presented in the Playbill. There are seven, and only seven, villains: Geno Auriemma, Sue Bird, Diana Taurasi, Swin Cash, Asjha Jones, Tina Charles, and maybe Napheesa Collier. Every other character is heroic, deservingly good, neutral or screwed-over.
Reminds me of SAT questions from 60 year ago -- e.g., "What does this group of seven things have in common?" |
Seriously. Taurasi and Bird would be notoriously celebrated in every single other sport in America for this reason.
The longevity and impact they have made on the game should be celebrated while they can still play. I think we can all agree that neither will play in 2024 and all of these athletes will have their time to prove their spot.
It's fair to have an opinion that disagrees with mine but I will personally choose to celebrate both the history that is going to be made AND one more shot at watching who I believe to be the two greatest players at their respective positions ever. The funniest thing about this whole thing is that I am a die hard Notre Dame fan and have no care for UCONN whatsoever. I am just giving my reasoning as to why I think that the two athletes that mean an extremely significant amount to this game and its growth since 2000 should go out with respect on their name.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 4:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan wrote: |
Ok then let's talk team sports.
I am certain that there were younger and better players than Abby Wambach and she got her due with the U.S. National Team AND a respectful and proper send off on a team that is even more prestigious than making the U.S Women's Basketball roster. Some of ya'll are just ridiculous in your hate quite frankly. |
This isn't the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is. If someone had asked me, I would have said that Wambach should have stepped aside, and made room for new blood, too, as I'm not necessarily of the opinion that great athletes are entitled to a "curtain call" (or a "proper send off," if you prefer). The difference in this case is that (1), regardless of my opinion on the subject, I would not have volunteered my opinion on Wambach unsolicited, because soccer isn't as relevant to my interests as basketball is, so the "you didn't keep that same energy for Abby" tone that seems to be in the subtext of your post falls flat. And (2), at least in the case of USA Soccer, that team had lost, in the (then) recent past, so you could at least make the argument that they needed the best and the most experienced, because they might lose. USAB has no such argument to hide behind.
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Silky Johnson
Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Posts: 3318
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 4:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan wrote: |
| ... It's fair to have an opinion that disagrees with mine but I will personally choose to celebrate both the history that is going to be made AND one more shot at watching who I believe to be the two greatest players at their respective positions ever. The funniest thing about this whole thing is that I am a die hard Notre Dame fan and have no care for UCONN whatsoever. I am just giving my reasoning as to why I think that the two athletes that mean an extremely significant amount to this game and its growth since 2000 should go out with respect on their name. |
They could have retired from USAB in 2016, with Catchings, and still gone out with "respect on their name."
_________________
Professional Hater. The Baron of #HateHard
My team no longer exists, so I'll have to settle for hating yours.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 4:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| mercfan wrote: |
Ok then let's talk team sports.
I am certain that there were younger and better players than Abby Wambach and she got her due with the U.S. National Team AND a respectful and proper send off on a team that is even more prestigious than making the U.S Women's Basketball roster. Some of ya'll are just ridiculous in your hate quite frankly. |
This isn't the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is. If someone had asked me, I would have said that Wambach should have stepped aside, and made room for new blood, too, as I'm not necessarily of the opinion that great athletes are entitled to a "curtain call" (or a "proper send off," if you prefer). The difference in this case is that (1), regardless of my opinion on the subject, I would not have volunteered my opinion on Wambach unsolicited, because soccer isn't as relevant to my interests as basketball is, so the "you didn't keep that same energy for Abby" tone that seems to be in the subtext of your post falls flat. And (2), at least in the case of USA Soccer, that team had lost, in the (then) recent past, so you could at least make the argument that they needed the best and the most experienced, because they might lose. USAB has no such argument to hide behind. |
Precisely. Just cuz the soccer team is operating that way is no excuse whatsoever. 
There's no *hate* from me for Taurasi or Bird; as I said, their legacy is already sealed. But! How nice it'd be to see some NEW blood, like Arike or Diamond or Nneka or Betnijah, etc.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
mercfan
Joined: 08 May 2013
Posts: 1910
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 5:04 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| mercfan wrote: |
Ok then let's talk team sports.
I am certain that there were younger and better players than Abby Wambach and she got her due with the U.S. National Team AND a respectful and proper send off on a team that is even more prestigious than making the U.S Women's Basketball roster. Some of ya'll are just ridiculous in your hate quite frankly. |
This isn't the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is. If someone had asked me, I would have said that Wambach should have stepped aside, and made room for new blood, too, as I'm not necessarily of the opinion that great athletes are entitled to a "curtain call" (or a "proper send off," if you prefer). The difference in this case is that (1), regardless of my opinion on the subject, I would not have volunteered my opinion on Wambach unsolicited, because soccer isn't as relevant to my interests as basketball is, so the "you didn't keep that same energy for Abby" tone that seems to be in the subtext of your post falls flat. And (2), at least in the case of USA Soccer, that team had lost, in the (then) recent past, so you could at least make the argument that they needed the best and the most experienced, because they might lose. USAB has no such argument to hide behind. |
I don't think it's a gotcha, I think it's the reality of professional sports.
LeBron could play for the men's national team until he's 55 if he wanted to but he just chooses not to. And no, it isn't to "let" younger players play. It's money talking.
Wambach probably would have been invited back even if she didn't retire.
This isn't new. The greatest players in the world are still great enough to play on the team and they will. That is why they were selected. If Taurasi had been averaging like 8 points a game for three years, I think everyone arguing this would have a point and it would be heard.
I'd love to know how many people on this board would actually turn down the chance to make Olympic history because a few people think it's selfish. You'd say hell no.
Pretty soon we're going to be mad that Stewart or somebody is winning too many MVP awards because a young player had an exciting season.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15739
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/25/21 5:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan wrote: |
| Silky Johnson wrote: |
| mercfan wrote: |
Ok then let's talk team sports.
I am certain that there were younger and better players than Abby Wambach and she got her due with the U.S. National Team AND a respectful and proper send off on a team that is even more prestigious than making the U.S Women's Basketball roster. Some of ya'll are just ridiculous in your hate quite frankly. |
This isn't the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is. If someone had asked me, I would have said that Wambach should have stepped aside, and made room for new blood, too, as I'm not necessarily of the opinion that great athletes are entitled to a "curtain call" (or a "proper send off," if you prefer). The difference in this case is that (1), regardless of my opinion on the subject, I would not have volunteered my opinion on Wambach unsolicited, because soccer isn't as relevant to my interests as basketball is, so the "you didn't keep that same energy for Abby" tone that seems to be in the subtext of your post falls flat. And (2), at least in the case of USA Soccer, that team had lost, in the (then) recent past, so you could at least make the argument that they needed the best and the most experienced, because they might lose. USAB has no such argument to hide behind. |
I don't think it's a gotcha, I think it's the reality of professional sports.
LeBron could play for the men's national team until he's 55 if he wanted to but he just chooses not to. And no, it isn't to "let" younger players play. It's money talking.
Wambach probably would have been invited back even if she didn't retire.
This isn't new. The greatest players in the world are still great enough to play on the team and they will. That is why they were selected. If Taurasi had been averaging like 8 points a game for three years, I think everyone arguing this would have a point and it would be heard.
I'd love to know how many people on this board would actually turn down the chance to make Olympic history because a few people think it's selfish. You'd say hell no.
Pretty soon we're going to be mad that Stewart or somebody is winning too many MVP awards because a young player had an exciting season. |
To answer your exaggerated point, Is LeBron going to be playing and being effective in the NBA when he's 55. What I mean by being effective is a starter who can carry a team and not one that lets younger players do the heavy lifting and while the media gives him all of the credit.
|
|
|
|
