The '92 Dream Team, '04 Stink Team, and '08 _____ team

In 1992, the United States basketball team, known around the world as the Dream Team, won by an average of 44 points per game en route to a gold medal at the Barcelona Summer Olympics. Twelve years later in 2004, the US team was upset and embarrassed, settling for a bronze medal in Athens. Now, in 2008, the US team will look to repeat what the ’92, ‘96’, and ’00 teams did – win the gold medal.

But it won’t be easy. Teams like Italy, Argentina, and Lithuania have shown they are world-class teams. While they don’t have the individual talent the US team possesses, they play like a team – something the 2004 US ‘stink team’ did not do.

In order to win the 2008 Olympics, the US team will have to return to their roots. With five players on the 2004 team returning for this summer’s Olympics, the Americans will have to change their game to be less like the 2004 team, and more like the Dream Team.

To see if the US has what it takes to make it all the way, lets compare the famed Dream Team, the doomed 2004 team, and the current Olympic squad.

Results
Dream Team: Gold medal, 8-0 record, won by average of 44 points
Stink team: Bronze medal, 5-3 record, won by average of 5 points
2008 team: In qualifying, 10-0 record, won by average of 40 points
Verdict: The US team has showed Dream Team-esque dominance through qualifying, but that doesn’t mean much. The ‘stink team’ won their qualifying games by an average of 31 points, but couldn’t replicate those results when it mattered in the Olympics.

Hall of Fame Factor
DT: Of the 12 players on the roster, five are already in the Hall of Fame and another six are certain to be when they become eligible. Never have so many great players been on the team at one time – ten of the 12 players were named to the 50 Greatest Players of All Time list in 1996.

ST: Individual talent couldn’t be to blame for the ’04 team. With arguably the greatest scoring point guard of all time in Allen Iverson and arguably the greatest power forward of all time in Tim Duncan, the team featured four other players who are locks for the Hall of Fame when their careers come to an end.
2008: The 2008 team is loaded with Hall of Fame-caliber players. Apart from Michael Redd, Chris Bosh, Carlos Boozer, and Tayshaun Prince, the remaining eight players have had or are showing potential for Hall of Fame careers.
Verdict: The Americans have an all-star cast of players for this year’s Olympics. But as the 2004 games showed, it doesn’t come down to individual talent.

Guards
DT: Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Clyde Drexler, John Stockton. Two prolific passers in Johnson and Stockton, one prolific scorer in Jordan, and one all-around stud in Drexler. They balanced each other out perfectly, and no matter which two were on the court, the US team was in good hands.
ST: Allen Iverson, Stephon Marbury, Dwayne Wade. Marbury was a cancer to the US team. In eight games, he averaged only 4 assists per game. Iverson and Wade were just as reluctant to share the ball. How can a football team expect to win with two center midfielders that don’t pass the ball? Basketball is the same way, and selecting these three to direct the US offense was a step in the wrong direction.
2008: Jason Kidd, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Michael Redd, Wade, Kobe Bryant. With six players selected to play two positions, the Americans are in no shortage of guards. The three point guards are pass-first types of players, while the three shooting guards are a mix of a jump shooter (Redd), a slasher (Wade), and an all-around killer (Bryant).
Verdict: Kidd may be 38-0 in international competition and Paul may be the best point guard in the game, but the man running this offense should be Williams. The teams the US will face feature taller, more physical point guards. Paul is tiny and Kidd is a liability on the defensive end, but Williams has the physical stature to withstand the blows that come with international competition. Wade made the team again even though he can’t really pass the ball and he can’t take jump shots. But in bringing Redd, they are solving the problem they had in 2004 by not bringing any pure shooters. And while the trio of true point guards is a huge improvement over the 2004 team, they don’t even compare to the talent and balance the Dream Team showed.




Forwards
DT: Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Larry Bird, Chris Mullin, Scottie Pippen, Christian Laettner. The perfect balance of offensive tenacity (Barkley), defensive prowess (Pippen), inside dominance (Malone), veteran leadership (Bird), three-point accuracy (Mullin) and youth (Laettner). You could not have selected six better guys to send to Barcelona.
ST: Carmelo Anthony, Richard Jefferson, Shawn Marion, Lamar Odom, Lebron James, Carlos Boozer, Amare Stoudemire. What a mess. Stoudemire and Anthony were utterly useless, combining to average a whopping 5.2 ppg. Jefferson was a forgettable selection, shooting 32% from the field. Odom shot an abysmal 52% from the free-throw line. The one bright spot was Boozer, who was able to play at his natural position of power forward (at Tim Duncan’s expense).
2008: Anthony, James, Tayshaun Prince. Anthony is expected to be the starting power forward. Yes, you read that correctly. Anthony, one of the NBA’s best shooters from outside the paint, is going to be starting in one of the most physical positions on the basketball court. Does manager Jerry Colangelo not want to win any offensive rebounds? James will start at small forward, which is his rightful position. Prince was the surprise selection, most likely picked for defensive purposes.
Verdict: These three players average under seven rebounds per game. If Anthony is truly going to play power forward, the Americans will have a tough time controlling the boards. This is going to put a lot of stress and added responsibility on whoever is playing center for Team USA.

Center
DT: David Robsinson, Patrick Ewing. What a novel idea – having two 7-footers playing center. Robinson and Ewing split time right down the middle, both averaging 9 ppg in the competition and combining for half of the team’s blocks. Having two true centers allowed Malone and Barkley to bang bodies down low while allowing Mullen and Pippen to get open for outside jumpers – the perfect frontcourt combination.

ST: Tim Duncan, Emeka Okofor. Duncan isn’t a center. Okafor isn’t a center. What the hell were these two doing playing center? Hell, Okafor wasn’t even in the NBA yet! Poor Duncan had so much weight to pull in 2004, he quickly declined an offer to play in these 2008 games. While Duncan did fine on the offensive end, being the only big man led Duncan into serious foul trouble. And with Duncan out of the game, the team got pounded on the boards, and you can’t expect to win a game if you can’t rebound.
2008: Dwight Howard, Chris Bosh, Boozer. Did US officials not learn anything from 2004? Howard is the only true center, but even then, he’s undersized. Boozer and Bosh are excellent players in the power forward slot, but when asked to play center, there is no way they will be utilised to their fullest playing potentials.
Verdict: None of the players on the roster are over 6’11”, meaning rebounds may be hard to come by in Beijing. For the US team to be successful, their big men have to stay out of foul trouble. But with a five-foul limit instead of the NBA standard six, this may be easier said than done.

Final Verdict
In 2004, the US team failed to bring a true point guard, a pure shooter, and a true center to Athens. They paid the price greatly. This year, they have certainly made up for two of those problems. But they still lack a 7-footer. In fact, the last time the US team brought a 7-footer to the Olympics, Jon Lovitz was still a household name.
If the US team wants to win, they have to work together. Take a look at these scoring averages at the last four Olympic games:
1992: 10 players averaged over 8 ppg
1996: 9 players averaged over 8 ppg
2000: 6 players averaged over 8 ppg
2004: 5 players averaged over 8 ppg
With guys like Kidd, Paul, and Williams distributing the ball, everyone will have an opportunity to score. But scoring isn’t what the US team needs to worry about. FIBA competition is especially physical, and if the Americans want to win, they have to be able to bang down low without getting into foul trouble. And with young guys like Howard and Bosh who don’t have a lot of international experience, I don’t see the US team going undefeated like the Dream Team did in 1992. But I also don’t see them settling for a bronze medal like they did in 2004.

Prediction
Gold medal. They may lose a game or two, but when they get to the semi-finals, they won’t come up short again. And when they make it to the championship game, they will know exactly what to do.

Gatlin (deservedly) given second chance

Disgraced United States champion sprinter Justin Gatlin was given a temporary restraining order on his four-year ban from the sport this week, meaning he may have a chance to defend his gold medal in Beijing. While it’s no guarantee he will make it to China, the idea of reinstating an athlete convicted of steroid use is a tough pill to swallow. But why? Is there no such thing a second chance in sports?

In prisons, inmates take part in various rehabilitation programs. They learn positive habits, earn a high school diploma, and even learn the art of yoga. If ruthless killers can master the ways of regulating their inner chi, why is it that disgraced athletes cannot be rehabbed to return to sport?

In this steroid era that seems to be plaguing the world of track and field, we are quick to shun athletes that are mentioned in the countless steroid allegations raised every week. Surely, an allegation means guilt, we tell ourselves. We’ve heard all the excuses, the ‘I’ve never knowingly taken anything’ and the ‘I didn’t know that was banned’ and even the ‘It must have been something in my toothpaste’.

So when it came to light that Gatlin had tested positive for steroids for the second time in 2006, it was time to write him off, right? Surely this man is a cheater. All it takes is one look at him and it’s obvious he must use steroids – he looks like he should be playing rugby, not running track. And this, being his second offence? Surely he must be a cheat! Off with his head!

But then it comes to light that his first offence was likely a mistake. Gatlin is one of tens of millions that suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). His medication contained amphetamines that led to him testing positive at a junior meet in 2001. He was suspended for two years, but reinstated after one. But because his medication contained a banned substance, this suspension should have never been enforced in the first place. In the U.S., Gatlin’s right to take medication is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act – he cannot be punished for taking necessary medication.

So his suspension was reduced, and he was told a second violation would lead to a lifetime ban from the sport. This means Gatlin was under extremely watchful eyes. In the 2004 Sydney Olympics, he won the 100m and placed third in the 200m. In 2005, he won the 100m and 200m at the World Championships. He was clean, on top of the world, and without any reliance on banned substances. Then, one year later, he tested positive a banned substance, and was consequently written off by the track and field community.

But this clearly isn’t an open-and-shut case. Why would Gatlin be tempted to use banned substances when he knew one more violation would result in a lifetime ban? He was already under a very watchful eye. Surely he could not be so daft as to mettle with steroids when he was already one of the best in the world. But Gatlin is not the brightest tool in the shed. One of the first things he should have done was fire his coach, Trevor Graham. Eight of Graham’s athletes have tested positive for performance enhancing drugs. And it was Graham who famously told the press about Gatlin’s second positive test, ‘I know it was sabotage. I don’t think it was sabotage at all. I know it is.’ Graham laid blame on a mysterious cream that a therapist rubbed on Gatlin’s legs before the meet.

Facing a lifetime ban but citing the first offence as minor, the International Association of Athletics Federations banned him for eight years. They later reduced it to four. Gatlin was denied to have it reduced to two years this May, but now a judge has given him a break – his first break in two years.

I am in no way condoning cheating. Marion Jones? Lock her up. NBA referee Tim Donaghy, who admitted to fixing games to win bets? Lock him up and throw away the key. But Gatlin is different. His first suspension should never have occurred. This means his second positive test should have ended in a two-year suspension, not an eight-year ban. If he were given a two-year suspension, he would have been eligible to compete in next week’s U.S. Olympic trials. And while Graham’s allegations of sabotage seem outrages, Gatlin would be the last person to use banned substances considering he knew he was under a microscope.

So next week, Gatlin may be running at the U.S. trials. After a two-year fight to get back to the track, Gatlin has been given a chance. And don’t think that the U.S. is just going this is a ploy to win more medals – the American team already has Tyson Gay, who won three golds at the World Championships, and Gatlin has more critics than supporters.

But next week, he will have a chance. And why not? If prisoners can be rehabilitated to a return to the real world, why can’t athletes be rehabbed to return to the sports world? We must ask ourselves which is worse – a convicted killer being released after serving 25 years, or a convicted sprinter being allowed to return after two years? If cheating is frowned upon more than murder, what's to stop me from bringing a pistol to my next rugby game?

The Mets make the Knicks look good

If there’s a book on ‘How to Run a Sports Organization’, baseball’s New York Mets haven’t taken it off the shelf yet. They don’t know how to win games. They sign the wrong players. They can’t get out of the Yankees’ shadow. And they certainly don’t know how to sack their manager. Now they’ve alienated their fans, and take it from me, the last thing you want is an angry New Yorker. If I’m in the Mets front office, I would read that book as soon as I can. Or at least get it on audiotape.
Chapter 1: Win games.
The Mets were doing a fine job of this last year, leading their division by seven games late in the season. But in a Jean Van de Velde-type collapse, they lost 12 of their final 17 games and missed the playoffs. This season, they are off to a 35-36 record, leading to an unorthodox sacking of their manager.
Chapter 2: Sign competent players.
Mo Vaughn was a legend in the mid 1990s. But when the Mets signed him in 2001, he was a 275-pound blob. They paid him $13m his first season, or, in Mo Vaughn terms, 50 million donuts. He never lived up to his ‘hefty’ expectations and lasted only one more year before retiring. This year, they brought in much sought-after pitcher Johan Santana and gave him a 5-year, $150m contract. Is anyone surprised he’s off to a very average 7-5 start?
Interestingly enough, the Mets best player this year has been Ryan Church, who is getting paid in woodchips and lives in obscurity. Unfortunately for the Mets, he’s had two concussions in three months – but they played him anyways. Which brings us to the next chapter:
Chapter 3: Don’t play players with concussions.
Chapter 4: Don’t fire your manager at midnight.
This chapter was almost left out of the book because it has simply never been done. The Mets fired manager Willie Randolph this week at 12:14 in the morning. In a hotel. In Los Angeles. After the Mets had just beat a first-place team. If you’re lost, don’t worry – so is the Mets front office. The Mets had waited too long to fire Randolph, and now they had to wait for the team to hit a losing streak to warrant a sacking. Ever heard of a front office wanting the team to lose? Well, Randolph began winning, but his fate was already sealed. Hence an e-mail to East coast writers at 3:14 a.m. announcing his removal, which arrived too late to be published in the morning papers, throwing the writers into a frenzy. As much as it angered the writers, it did even more to the fans.
Chapter 5: Never, ever, ever upset the fans.
We live in the 21st century. Fans have the ability to blog their opinions on the internet, reaching thousands of readers. In New York, where the Mets get more media coverage than Big Brother 9, everyone is up to date with Mets issues.

This firing was the final straw. The Mets just can’t seem to get anything right. With the Yankees making the playoffs year after year and the Giants winning the Super Bowl last year, the Mets are stuck in neutral, going nowhere fast. The only thing the Mets fans have to look forward to is an $810m stadium that will be finished in 2009. But does a new stadium actually help the fans forget about the past?
For an answer, look no further than Seattle. Has Safeco Field helped Mariners fans forget about the sale of A-Rod, Griffey Jr., and the Big Unit in the course of one year? I think not. And if it did, I apologize.

Defending my true love

No, I am not talking about Kristen Wiig. I am talking about soccer. Recently, my friend and former colleague Phillip Barnett made some comments about soccer on his well-written blog that soccer, along with hockey, will "never be widely accepted by Americans". This may be true, but Phil, your reasoning is faulty.

One of your reasons is that soccer "lacks a defining play". You say soccer has goals, but that is not enough. You cite that "football has touchdowns, baseball has homeruns" - so how does soccer not have goals!?!

A goal in can be one of the most beautiful plays in all of sports. The same can't be said about basketball and baseball. In basketball, one of the most famous plays of all time is Jordan's shot against Utah and Bryon Russell that sealed the Bulls 1998 NBA Championship. This is arguably one of the greatest shots in NBA history, and surely Phil, this must be a defining moment in NBA history.



Now, don't get me wrong - it was a great play. It was in Utah, with time winding down - it was a great shot, no doubt. But in all honesty, it looks like shots that are knocked down every single night in the NBA. It wasn't that special of a shot. Any NBA player could make that shot. Hell, I could make that shot. Two dribbles right, push off defender with my left hand, step back, put the ball up, and keep my shooting hand raised up even after the ball goes through the bucket... I've made that shot on my driveway over 100 times!

So shots like that can be called 'defining', but a goal can't? Anyone can make Jordan's most famous shot - but can anyone on the planet do this?



I think not. It would take even the most skillful players in the world hours upon hours of attempts to make that shot. How is that goal not defining?

Let's talk baseball. Phillip's example was the home run. One home run stands out in the mind of all baseball experts - Bobby Thomson's 1951 World Series walk off home run to win the series.



I don't want to take anything away from this play - it is simply one of the most amazing plays in all of sports history. The timing of it, the broadcast of it - it is all perfect.

But here's the thing - it was just a home run. A home run looks the same, no matter who is hitting it. What is really defining about a home run? Well - nothing really. The ball goes over the fence. Hell, I get bored watching a home run derby!

The equivalent of 'The Shot Heard 'Round the World'? How about a goal in extra time during the World Cup - the most-watched sporting event in the world?



Not only was the goal one-in-a-million, but it occurred in extra time on the world's premier sporting stage. Sorry Phil - but I guess I find this goal a little bit more defining than a home run.

Now we pair up soccer against football. This gets a little trickier, because in both sports, scoring is different every time. In football, there are a variety of ways to score. Sure, the 3-yard run up the middle can get old, but what about the 93-yard kickoff returns, or the 18-yard reverese, or even the 9-yard bootleg? Football is much like soccer, in that once the ball gets moving, it depends much on the athlete in how they team scores. The team must work together in perfect cohesion to make sure they achieve their goal.

The thing about football and soccer - no two touchdowns or goals are alike. Some are run-of-the-mill, some are spectacular, but all are unique. I guess this is why this commercial worked so well together:



But HERE is where the difference lies, Phillip....

I am not going to define the word 'define', but I am pretty sure a 'defining play' is a play that can happen only a few times during a game. In fact, the less it happens, the more defining it is when it does happen.

In basketball, you see 15 3-pointers per game. Scratch them off the list.
In baseball, you see anywhere from 0-5 home runs per game, but they all look exactly alike, so it is hard for them to stand out. Scratch them off the list.
In football, touchdowns happen pretty regularly, but touchdowns don't send the crowd into a frenzy. Scratch them off the list.

A goal in soccer possesses all three qualities. If you go 85 minutes without a goal, and suddenly a team scores, isn't that goal the most defining moment of the game? I can't think of anything that is more defining than a goal.

I leave you with one of the greatest goals of all time. In the Champions League Final in 2002, Zidane hit one of the greatest goals in the history of soccer. It was the defining moment in the game, the tournament, his career, and even in the history of soccer.



Phil, I will briefly address your other reasons for soccer not being popularm, 2. the lack of star power and 3. the way the games are filmed.

Lack of star power? Are you kidding me!!! David Beckham is the most recognizable athlete in the world! And if you go around the United States holding up a picture of Lebron James or 'Melo or KG, I bet many Americans would not be able to name them. But you go to France and hold up a picture of Thierry Henry, or go to Italy and hold of a picture of Totti, or Brazil and hold up a picture of Ronaldinho, and I can guarantee a majority of the country could name the player.

Perhaps that is why in Gillette's Mach razor commercials, they picked three of the most popular athletes on the planet and none of them were basketball, football, or baseball players...



And as for the way games are filmed - the only place that sucks is America. In Europe, games have just as many cameras, probably more even, than American football games. In Europe, they constantly show coaches, fans, and bench players, in addition to super close ups of players grimacing after missing a shot or celebrating after making a goal. In fact, every time they score, they are at least 6 replays of the goal every time a goal is scored. The only problem is that in America, there aren't as many cameras, and I think this is purely because of lack of funds.

So, perhaps I may be biased because I have been playing soccer since I was 3. But that doesnt change the fact that i truly believe that a goal isn't just the most defining moment in soccer, but the most defining moment in all of sports.

So Phil, for once, we will have to agree to disagree.

To all you who defended Odom....

A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog entry about Lamar Odom being overrated. Of course, the Laker faithful showed up in full force and defended Odom to the grave. "Look at all the rebounds he gets!" they say. "He's the perfect third man!" they cried.

Well, the day I wrote the article, Odom went off for 26 points (in a loss) against the Jazz. The next game, he scored 22. Lakers fans felt vindicated. Surely, I was wrong, they thought.

Well, Lamar is back to his old self. He's averaging a whopping 9 points and 8 rebounds in the series. He is shooting 0% from 3-point range and hasn't gotten double figures in rebounding once.

Last month, I wrote, "Lamar Odom can't be trusted in the clutch." Nothing is more clutch than the NBA finals, and no one is underachieving more than Lamar Odom.

The Lakers are down 2-1 in this series, and if they have any hope of getting back in this thing, they need Odom to step up. They can't rely on Sasha "the walking shampoo ad" Vujacic to catch fire every single game. But here lies the problem - Odom is in uncharted territory. He has never been on a stage this big before (unless you count the 2004 Summer Olympics, where he averaged 5 points en route to a bronze medal. But let's be honest - that was the worst USA team every assembled. Marbury was the starting PG, so I can't put the US incompetence solely in Odom's hands).

But yet, all the Lakers fans continue to support Odom. Hell, even Boston fans are becoming fans of Odom. Curt Schilling, who knows absolutely nothing about basketball, wrote in his blog that he "became a fan of (Odom) last night". My God, WHY!?!? Is Schilling a huge fan of underachieving professional athletes? Is Adrian Beltre, Larry Hughes, Kyle Boller and Michael Owen on his "favorite athletes list"?

So to all you that defended Odom through these playoffs (where he's averaging below his season averages, by the way), I will not say, "I told you so." But if the Lakers lose this series to the C's, you can't point the finger at Kobe, who's averaging 32-6-6. The finger will be pointed at the supporting cast. And finally, perhaps you'll realize Odom isn't the golden child you all thought he was.