Slate's Bizbox
sports nut: The stadium scene.

How Soccer Explains the World Basketball ChampionshipsWhy does the United States keep losing in international sports?

By Robert Weintraub
Posted Friday, Sept. 1, 2006, at 7:45 PM ET
LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony. Click image to expand.

In the wee hours of Friday morning, another American basketball team met its international Waterloo, losing to Greece in the semifinals of the 2006 FIBA World Championship. This squad was supposed to be a corrective to prior failures, most notably a bronze in the 2004 Olympics and a humbling sixth at the 2002 Worlds. Yet once again, despite a more strategically built team and the Madison Avenue-minted genius of Duke's Mike Krzyzewski, the United States once again came up shy.

Cue the recriminations. According to the newspaper columnists and television pundits, the Americans lost because they relied too much on individual talent at the expense of team play. They didn't pay attention to fundamentals and defense. They looked to make dunks and no-look passes instead of hustling for loose balls and setting screens. They were felled by hubrisitic arrogance.

Seems like we've been here before, very recently. Two months ago, the U.S. flamed out of the World Cup under a hailstorm of criticism. But strangely enough, the American soccer team was criticized for the exact opposite reasons. The players didn't have enough flair. They were fundamentally sound but lacking in creativity and athleticism. The U.S. team was faceless, artless, and empty. They're "trained monkeys" who are "incapable of having an original or ad-libbed thought on a soccer pitch."

Basketball and soccer aren't all that different, except in scoring rates. Both sports prize fast, fluid athletes who can think on their feet. Teamwork usually trumps individuality. So, why the contradictory excuses for America's bad showings in international play?

The obvious answer is that the United States is better at—and cares more about—basketball than soccer. We were so good at hoops, the story goes, that we got arrogant, show-offy, complacent. And we're so bad at soccer that our only hope is to coach our players until they become automatons. The more subtle reason has to do with race. When our white athletes lose, we accuse them of being unimaginative and overtrained. When our black athletes lose, we accuse them of playing street ball and disdaining fundamentals.

It's time to retire the idea that SportsCenter ruined team basketball. Let's also disregard the notion that gifted soccer players can come only from the barrio. Instead, we should examine each of these American squads on their merits.

The U.S. basketball team lost because it ran into an extremely hot Greek team in a one-and-done game. The Dallas Mavericks weren't better than the Miami Heat, but the Mavs won the first two games of the NBA Finals. If the U.S. took on Greece in a best-of-seven series, they'd almost certainly come out on top. In a one-game showdown, the Greeks obviously had a much better chance to win.

The single biggest reason for the loss was the Americans' failure to defend the high pick-and-roll. Greece ran this simple play on almost every possession after the first quarter for layup after layup. The United States' lapses against the pick-and-roll don't have anything to do with the me-first nature of the American player, though. This was a deficiency in scouting—Coach K and his staff should have been better prepared for Greece's offense. But more than anything, team defense depends on reps and familiarity, something this hastily assembled team didn't have. By the time the 2008 Olympics roll around, the U.S. defense won't be a sieve.

Now, let's look at the U.S. soccer team. As I wrote in June, the Americans' failings in the World Cup had more to do with our guys failing to challenge themselves in the top European leagues than with the team's supposed deficit in creativity. Besides, the United States could've done better with a dash of luck. Bruce Arena's boys were stunned by an early goal and never recovered in the first game, played to an inspirational draw against the eventual champions, and lost a spot in the second round against a better team thanks to a dubious penalty. A different draw or different referees, and the Stars and Stripes would've advanced to the second round. But they didn't. Sometimes teams just lose, social trends and racial code words be damned.

Is the United States too individualistic to win in international basketball? Well, the Americans destroyed pre-tournament favorite Argentina to win the bronze medal. The Argentines were supposed to show the Americans a thing or two about how team basketball works. Instead, the U.S. defense shut down Manu Ginobili and Dwyane Wade showed that he might be the best basketball player in the world.

Is America too uncreative to win in international soccer? Well, Greece won the UEFA title in 2004 by playing a decidedly unathletic and uninspiring style that nauseated a global viewing audience. The Greeks then failed to qualify for Germany 2006. The local reaction didn't include screaming for a new style of play and new players, but rather fond remembrance of the effort two years before. Obviously, there aren't enough Greek sports talk radio shows.

USA Basketball has two more years to prepare for the Beijing Games. U.S. Soccer has a long way to go before the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. With better preparation, better intensity, and a little luck, our humble nation will succeed at both events. And if we lose, it will probably have less to do with the innate flaws of the American sportsman than with the teamwork and athleticism of the opposition. Other countries can be good at sports, too.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Robert Weintraub, a freelance TV producer/writer based in Atlanta, writes about sports media for Slate.
Photograph of LeBron James and Carmelo Anthony by Kazuhiro Nogi/AFP/Getty Images.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

I got very tired, very quickly, of all the press reports that blared headlines to the effect of "USA Fails Again." They made the freakin' bronze medal game! Somehow, we have internalized the notion that USA Basketball is preordained to win all competition in the international game, which is noticeably different. This is sheer arrogance, not on the parts of the players, but on the parts of the public.

The hypocrisy boggles. Team USA were good - much better than the mess of 2002, and marginally better than the 2004 team. "They didn't play as a team," yet Chris Paul racked up the most assists of any American in an international tournament in the last decade, the third highest assist-per-game ratio in the tournament and the second highest overall number of assists. LeBron James? You know, the muscular, athletic players who focused on one-on-one play and showing off rather than teamwork? 37 assists, third highest in the tournament, and fifth in APG.

They lost to Greece because they couldn't effectively defend the pick-and-roll. It takes time, practice and familiarity to accomplish that, something this team had too little of. Team USA '06 is not a last word but a first step. Rather than piling on with the blame and the calls for a new style of play or castigations of Coach K, how's about we borrow the PoTUS' rhetoric and "stay the course"? If we keep this team together and they continue working on becoming a cohesive unit, they will absolutely destroy the competition in 2008.

That's how champions are built - patience, practice and hard work.

--Oluseyi

(To reply, click here.)

In my opinion, the average US athlete has been lulled into a false sense of security by the "best-of-" set-up of American sports. In most sports, there are no second chances, moreso in Finals. One game, everything to lose. This leads to athletes pacing themselves, ensuring that they play, or at start, every game in the series. This must inevitably lead to less than 100% participation in the task at hand. [...]

Only when US athletes leave their comfort zones and participate against opposition that is constantly tested against other international, high-calibre teams, will they begin to understand true creativity, true grit, true RESPECT for other countries and their athletes. Maybe then American coverage of sporting events will begin to show the ACTUAL winners and not just the US citizens that happened to take part.

--Trinikiddie

(To reply, click here.)

Some quick observations on the US loss to Greece.

1) They missed a couple of dozen free throws, and still lost by only 6. [...] Considering the type of aggressive offense the US plays, they can be expected to spend plenty of time shooting from the free throw line....so there's no excuse for losing in this manner.

2) Obviously, the US team hasn't played together for long, and it shows. Anyone proficient in basketball knows that the same pick and roll executed by Greece with such ease, is possible only if your teammate understands your moves and expects a pass to be forthcoming.

3) The US is still uncomfortable with man-to-man defense. They have less trouble with their own offense than defending against a team blowing in 3 pointers from mid-court, which is what global ball has become--a 3 point fest--thanks largely to Zone Defense.

4) The US style is different. The world didn't tune in for Spain and Greece, or for Spain and Argentina. They wanted to see the US come to play an aggressive, muscular, inside game, replete with show stopping moves. Global basketball has become anal, technical, but the big money is still with the US, and they can damn sure put on a clinic.

Some suggestions for the US team management. How about sending the year's NCAA champions instead of a rag-tag group of NBA players who haven't played together for more than 6 weeks? [...] Continuity in coaching, and among teammates, is crucial in basketball. Even the college boys could give the best teams a run for their money.

--aegis

(To reply, click here.)

Why have other countries "caught up" to the U.S. in basketball, while the U.S. continues to founder in soccer? Because you don't need that many good basketball players to have a good team. Ask any middle of the road Division One college team who knocks off an NCAA tourney favorite loaded with pre-NBA stars. A decent team on a good shooting night always has a chance against better opponents, which is why the U.S. loses single games when it would likely win a series. Put enough decent teams in a single elimination situation, and one of them will likely pull of an upset against a power.

Soccer doesn't work that way. You need a lot of good soccer players to have a good team -- far more than the number of starters (11). The reasons? First, one or two very good players will almost never be able to dominate a match against a solid opponent, and even if they are strong, their efforts may not translate into goals. Look at Brazil's World Cup performance. Brazil, the most talented team on the planet, tried to run the ball through Ronaldinho, the way an NBA team might run the ball through a guard. It didn't work against good opponents, and its not because Ronaldinho suddenly stopped being the best player in the world. One the other hand, look at modest Ukraine, who could not advance despite having (arguably) the best striker in existence. If Shevchencko were a basektball power forward, he might propel an upset victory against a good team with his modest supporting cast. In soccer, he can't do much.

Second, there is great variety in the style of play and type of players a soccer team has to face. This requires depth to be consistently successful. A good team might handle a power-centre like Ronaldo but be useless against a fleet of foot Robinho, or a giant like Toni or Crouch. A good team might have trouble finding goals against a defense-oriented scheme, or have trouble countering against an attack minded-squad. Basketball varies, but not as much. There is no basketball equivilant of having to defend against a John Terry header from a corner kick. There is nothing comparable to having to deal with Roberto Carlos coming up from the back.

As a more complicated game, soccer requires more good players, and requires that they continuous compete against good competition. So far, U.S. soccer has barely produced good players (much less any true international superstar), much less continuously exposed them to the best competition. As a simpler game, non-U.S. countries have been able to develop enough basketball talent to compete with the U.S.'s advantage to pull off upsets given enough shots at them.

My guess is that the U.S. will start pulling off regular upsets of top soccer countries in about 10 years, or roughly double the amount of time it took non-U.S. basketball teams to beat the U.S. with consistency.

--Catorce

(To reply, click here.)

(9/5)

Washington Post