In Reply to: I was thinking the core and all the elements of the Redeem Team. posted by atrojanedbruin on July 07, 2024 at 08:09:05
My point is that the dominance of the U.S. U17 teams is in no way indicative of the future performance of U.S. teams.
Mainly, it's just a simple numbers factor. In any given year, the talent pool of 17 year olds in the U.S. is so much deeper than in any other country. But put together a future team of any ages, the foreign countries will be competitive. Take the current U.S. Olympic team. They are all different ages: 26, 27, 36, 31, 35, 22, 30, 24, 34, 39, 33, 26.
Last season's UCLA team showed that international players do not develop at the same rate as Americans. They weren't prepared even for U.S. college ball. That's another reason the younger Americans dominate. The best foreign players are those who have gotten NBA experience, not the ones who stayed in Europe. For example Jokic was only a 2nd round pick. The best international teams are filled with experienced NBA players who caught up to the Americans. That's why they are more competitive every year.
How many of the current Olympic team played in a U17 tournament? Just Jayson Tatum. How many became All-NBA or even All-Americans in college? There is no real "core" on these teams. Talent outweighs continuity by a mile.
The 2008 "Redeem" team really only played together for one year previous to the Olympics. The 2004 team lost more from poor roster construction than lack of continuity. They lacked three-point shooters, which the foreign teams excelled. They had too many skilled but very young inexperienced players.
It's just unrealistic to expect the top NBA players to compete in every tournament. At the salaries they command, they don't even try in the All-Star game to prevent injury. I'll still take the best U.S. players with a few weeks of practice over any other team with years playing together.