NationStates Jolt Archive

One of the first signs that the British Empire's glorious grasp on world powers was in decline, agreed by most historians [citation needed], was when we started losing games we invented, allowing Johnny Foreigner to feel that we were not, perhaps, the impregnable, all-conquering force they'd previously thought.

Well, history repeats itself and it seems that basketball, that most quintessential [citation needed] of American games, is not something America is particularly good at.

The 2007 NBA finals, Miliard notes, saw the Cleveland Cavaliers - led by American legend LeBron James - get stomped by the foreigner-dominated San Antonio Spurs (featuring French, Argentine, Slovenian and Dutch players). "And the MVP [most valued player] of the series," moans Miliard, "was Tony Parker, who was born in France. Yes, France."

Yes Americans, your game is being flooded by foreigners who regularly trounce your superstars at your own game, fear your future.

The problem, says Miliard, is that "American talent can't catch up to the Steve Nashes, Yao Mings, Dirk Nowitzkis and Pau Gasols of this global village. The teams that stink? The Knicks, the Timberwolves, the Pacers, the Clippers? All finished at or near the bottom of their divisions and, with one or two exceptions, have rosters that are all-American."

What's the real problem? It's all down to good old arrogance and individualism, once held up as the hallmarks of the American frontier [citation needed], the white man on his white horse coming to save the peaceful town from hordes of bandits, Indians and varmints.

This, says Brian, leaves the American game lumbered with attackers who won't or can't put aside their egos, and defensive players who, while moderately effective against players like Iverson, are as useless as tits on a hog when playing a team using "European" tactics. Further, non-Americans take international competition extremely seriously and, as a result, the international game evolves rapidly as countries learn from each other, while (until recently at least) the NBA stagnates in decadent isolation.

Link (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/04/07/johnny_foreigner_has_taught_us.html)

So, a question, required in order that this is not merely gentle teasing, amm...

Why is a basketball game not just 10 minutes long, where you give each team 70 points to start with - same difference no?

Or, is a decline in sports superiority a sign that an empire is slipping?

Perhaps a poll, I shall consider it...

o.0

Why must the US fail at things it invents. Basketball was invented in the US, right?

*does a slam dunk*

Canada, I believe.

First I'd like to say that this is a stupid premise for a thread. And second there is no way that the US would have been able to maintain hegemony over the rest of the world in a sport once we had spread the sport to the rest of the world. We have great athletes and smart coaches (I don't have statistics, but almost all major program coaches are American born), but it's stupid to think that there aren't going to be people somewhere in the world that will be able to compete athletically at a higher level than some of the American players which otherwise could have played in the NBA.

It's 350 million people (give or take) versus what, 3.2 billion other people in the world. Chances are some of them will be good at basketball and will meet with the opportunity to play, and get noticed. It isn't one other country which is infiltrating the NBA, but people from many different countries.

And I wouldn't put too much weight behind the Olympic basketball myself, the teams which the Americans field are not composed as teams first (rather as all-star squads), and besides which aren't composed of the "best" players which the US has, merely the ones who are willing to go through the extra training for the international play. Also there are rule differences which are difficult for the US players to get calibrated to in such a short period of time (especially when they know they aren't going to be held to them for any real period of time).

Why must the US fail at things it invents. Basketball was invented in the US, right?

Actually, I'm getting the idea that basketball was invented in Canada, which blows my entire theory out the water, weak as it already was, to some extent - I'd say it's seen as an American game but I'm going to have to check now.

EDIT: Invented by a Canadian but not in Canada.

Why is a basketball game not just 10 minutes long, where you give each team 70 points to start with - same difference no?



And skip the ceremonial run their legs off process? Where is the fun in that?;)

This isn't news, the Spurs have been the top team in the NBA for a decade now...They do have a lot of foreigners but their best player, Tim Duncan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Duncan), is American

The last few Olympic teams haven't failed in talent, they've failed in composition and teamwork. The reason national teams like Argentina have done well is that they have relatively few superstars, like Manu Ginobili, so they work more as a team instead of as 5 guys who are all used to getting the ball. Choosing players for the dream team is also highly political--there's a pressure to pick the "right" kind of players, players who are quiet and polite and won't stir up anything, and those aren't always the best players.

And anyway, right now (and historically) the Boston Celtics are the best team in the NBA, and they're almost entirely American.

And of the four non-American players mentioned (Yao, Nash, Nowitzki and Gasol), none have won an NBA championship.

Personally, I'm just worried by the implication that there are only around 3.85 billion people in the world. Did I just sleep through the latest Indo-Pakistani conflict or something?

Anyway, interesting thought, though as someone has already mentioned, wasn't basketball invented in Canada?

I think the main flaw in this theory is that the US has never invented any sports that anybody else wants to play. Britain already invented everything good. What is troubling is the regrowth of US cricket. Time was, English teams would tour the rebel colonies and play against the odds (allowing the Americans to go back in and bat a second time after the English had bowled them all out, just to make it a bit more competative), but now I hear they're reintroducing cricket into some schools, largely because of south Asian and Caribbean students who couldn't care less about baseball and whatnot.

If the Yanks get good at cricket, they'll be more irritating than the bloody Aussies!

Then somebody really will have to take down the US. I nominate a surprise attack by Bangladesh.

(I gather that this thread wasn't supposed to be too serious, anyway, right? Hehe.)

Or, is a decline in sports superiority a sign that an empire is slipping?Decline? Not to be nitpicking, but when was the last time the US actually won a basketball world cup?

Why must the US fail at things it invents. Basketball was invented in the US, right?Yes, by a Canadian immigrant.

Well, history repeats itself and it seems that basketball, that most quintessential [citation needed] of American games, is not something America is particularly good at.


Iirc the US national baseball team even lost a match against Italy last year. It's like if Italy were beaten by Samoa at football.

It's 350 million people (give or take) versus what, 3.2 billion other people in the world.

Meh, I think you'd better have a peep at the CIA Factbook.
1 World 6,602,224,175 July 2007 est.
2 China 1,321,851,888 July 2007 est.
3 India 1,129,866,154 July 2007 est.
4 European Union 490,426,060 July 2007 est.
5 United States 301,139,947 July 2007 est.
6 Indonesia 234,693,997 July 2007 est.
7 Brazil 190,010,647 July 2007 est.
8 Pakistan 164,741,924 July 2007 est.
9 Bangladesh 150,448,339 July 2007 est.
10 Russia 141,377,752 July 2007 est.

so, Unamerican (aka non-USA) population is 6602224175-30113997=6301084178.
Since there is NO "Unamerican national team" or "EU national team"... the only countries the US should lose against in sport matches (if it were a matter of population) would be China and India.

Iirc the US national baseball team even lost a match against Italy last year. It's like if Italy were beaten by Samoa at football.

Ha ha, yes, or if England at football lost to the.....USA....

Bugger.

:(

If the Yanks get good at cricket, they'll be more irritating than the bloody Aussies!!

hey... thats me!

Ha ha, yes, or if England at football lost to the.....USA....

Bugger.

:(I know it's meant to be humourous, but for fairness' sake...

The US really aren't that bad at football. It's just not popular, so all the sports talents go into baseball, rugby for special children, and basketball (The last one being the only worthwhile of the three). In some ways (Particularly training procedures), the US are - or at least, may be - way ahead of the 'Traditional' footballing countries, they're just lacking a supply of male players.

Note how well their women's team is doing. And why is that? Because they do have a steady supply of talents, not curtailed by talented sportsmen (Well, women) going into the 'Native' sports.