Contextualizing the United States’ international struggles
Are the problems fixable? Or do they signify symptoms of a much deeper, more long term issue?
A little over three weeks ago now, the US Men’s Basketball Program underwent a three-day stretch that exposed the reality that had been molding beneath the underbelly of the American dynasty; they simply weren’t ready for international play.
What began with a shocking upset to an underrated Nigerian team was quickly followed by an even more definitive loss to an Australia team that now sits two games away from the Gold Medal. While these losses brought about some of the expected panic from American media and other hilarious reactions on Twitter, the general response was the same–these are exhibition games; the losses a natural consequence of a team that hadn’t spent enough time together. By the time Tokyo rolled around, the dominance would continue.
Well, Tokyo did finally roll around and the United States made their competitive debut against a French team littered with NBA talent. Unfortunately, to the surprise of many, the problems persisted. Not since 2004, when Manu Ginobili finished using the USA as the canvas for his very own Sistine Chapel, had the Men’s team ever lost on the Olympic Stage. A 25-game win streak snapped and suddenly the losers of three out of their last four games. The time for panic had duly arrived.
Even more concerning was the nature of the loss itself–France really didn’t play that well. Gobert was lazy with his defensive rotations, Fournier shot 11/22 but displayed some of the questionable shot-selection that can derail an entire team’s offensive flow and Nic Batum only had five points. Still, the United States couldn’t handle a 16-2 fourth quarter run from the French that violently put the game out of reach, and when the buzzer sounded, Gobert and crew didn’t even look to celebrate–business was handled.
Since that loss the French have seen definitive wins against Iran, Nigeria, the Czech Republic, and Italy. Their play has been strong, but even they have seemingly slotted in behind Australia and Slovenia as true threats to the United States and that fabled Gold Medal. In other words, their play hasn’t made the U.S’s initial loss any less concerning.
To the credit of Popovich’s crew, the U.S.A has responded well since the initial upset; with convincing wins of their own against Iran, Nigeria, the Czech Republic, and–last night–Spain; the Men’s team has seemingly regained some of their focus and swagger following that aforementioned one and four stretch. Particularly late against Spain, the U.S adjusted their pick and roll positioning and spread the court out, allowing their athletes to get downhill action against an old and weary Spanish team. It highlighted the U.S’s ultimate strength–their athleticism–and was matched with a half where they outscored the Spaniards by 15.
That being said, the cause for concern is still there. That same U.S team was down 11 late in the second quarter and allowed Ricky Rubio to put on his best Oscar Schmidt impression, scoring 38 points–a record against the United States, by the way. There were stretches where the team seemed undersized and unmotivated; moments where they looked completely lost in help-side and in turn let mediocre talents like Willy Hernangomez look legitimately dominant.
This Spanish team is not a great one–they lost to Slovenia relatively handily and were the U.S’s only win during exhibition play. If Kevin Durant and company allow themselves to be disinterested and sloppy again, you can be sure that none of Australia, France, or Slovenia will afford the United States the luxury of a comeback.
Despite this deserved criticism, I think the general commentary on why the United States is struggling, has been off-target. Contrary to public perception, the rest of the world has not caught up. Yes, the global talent level has increased, but the rest of the world will never actually catch up. The United States, as an economic power and as the single most immigrated-to place in the world, has both the necessary resources and diverse athletic gene pool to dominate any sport they so choose. The real question is whether they care enough to do so.
Watching the United States play, it is their lack of cohesion–not their lack of talent–that sticks out. For God’s sake, nobody would ever question whether Guerschon Yabusele could ever be as valuable as Bam Adebayo, but that’s what this discourse is implying. No, the real issue lies in how the country itself emphasizes player and team development.
Unlike in Europe, where a specific, homogenous path is carved out for every young Basketball player, development in the United States could see a million variations. Not just that, the rules at every level–from the shot clock to officiating–vary considerably, leaving young players needing to constantly adjust as they move up the amateur and professional ladder. Depending on location, on wealth, on education, a particular Basketball player could find their road to the Olympics looking completely different from the one their teammate took. This kind of diversity lends itself to wildly differing styles of play, a hallmark of what makes the NBA so entertaining, but a reality that becomes counterintuitive when trying to build team chemistry on the fly.
So many have criticized the United States for not employing a foundational lead guard or facilitator, but we know modern American basketball doesn’t really have a need for one. These criticisms stem from the lack of structure that the United States’ offense has often displayed. They continuously settle for clogged 1-4, 1-5 pick and rolls with some combination of Lillard, Durant, and Adebayo. A plan that feels moronic when you think about the fact that every player surrounding the action is not only usually ball dominant, but also has so much potential as an off-ball threat if placed in any kind of outside motion.
To make matters worse, constantly hammering these isolation sets within the context of the FIBA rules–which exist to jam the paint and encourage overloading help defense towards the ball–means that this USA team is not only competing against their own lack of chemistry, they’re also fighting the very rules of the international game–not to mention the talented groups that await them once pool play ends.
At the center of this question with international play and development is the U19 FIBA World Cup. The final, sandwiched between both USA exhibition losses, presented arguably the most pressing issue for the USMB. For the second time in three tournaments, the United States did not field the tournament’s best prospect. In 2017, it was RJ Barret, leading the Canadian Men’s team to a historic upset, and on July 11th it was Victor Wembanyama, a prospect even more enticing than Barret could possibly be and the single best prospect in the world regardless of age.
This is important because it demonstrates a trend in the direction of talent globally. While it’s clear that no single nation’s talent could ever catch up to that of the United States’, the fact that the gap is even closing slightly is significant. Simply sending out high-level players that don’t mesh at all is not enough; an investment in building a group suited for the international game is necessary.
Even more striking about that game was the difference between France and the USA’s best players. For France, it was Wembanyama, a 7’2 gazelle inhaling shots on the defensive end and hitting stepback fadeaways on the other. Wembanyama is a multi-positional forward and the embodiment of all that is good with the contemporary American game. On the other end–wearing the USA uniform–was Kenneth Lofton Jr. The 275 pound U19 team’s leading scorer more closely resembles the contemporary Charles Barkley than any real modern NBA prospect.
It means something that it was these two men–and their contrasting styles–that led each of their respective nations. If France, and other international countries (see Doncic, Luka), can begin to field truly elite NBA talent within the constraints of the rigid FIBA structure, then we are undoubtedly headed towards an era of International play that the United States is not ready for.
The U.S.A will still consistently be able to field the most talented team at any and every Olympic game for the foreseeable future. To that same point, they will also still consistently field the most unprepared team at each event as well. Unless the U.S Olympic program invests in restructuring the foundation of player development within the country with an emphasis on standardizing what youth Basketball looks like–unless they even want to–then the France loss and the Spanish struggles are only the beginning. Oh, and if Luka’s recent historical play has been any indication, there are much bigger battles looming than just the venerable Gasol brothers.