Which team will be the next non-Team USA team to win Gold?

[YogurtProducer]

while I could definitely see a few teams close the gap similar to how Spain did 8 years back, I just can't see America losing in the immediate future without some sort of political turmoil - i.e. the US doesn't field an olympic team out of protest or another USSR-style superpower emerges.

The thing is you only need a good starting 5 in an Olympic gold game.. So USA can bring all the stars they want, you can only play 5.

that's an ignorant statement. while it is true that only five players can play at a time, players don't play the entire game and thus need to be relieved by backup players. likewise, some lineups match up better against different opposing teams. finally, players occasionally have off games, at which point it would be advantageous to reduce their minute load. thus having 12 all-star caliber players instead of just 5 is a tremendous advantage for any team.

If a team produced 5 NBA all stars and after that had mostly scrubs, you know they would play those 5 all stars the max amount of minutes possible.

[JasonStern]

while I could definitely see a few teams close the gap similar to how Spain did 8 years back, I just can't see America losing in the immediate future without some sort of political turmoil - i.e. the US doesn't field an olympic team out of protest or another USSR-style superpower emerges.

The thing is you only need a good starting 5 in an Olympic gold game.. So USA can bring all the stars they want, you can only play 5.

that's an ignorant statement. while it is true that only five players can play at a time, players don't play the entire game and thus need to be relieved by backup players. likewise, some lineups match up better against different opposing teams. finally, players occasionally have off games, at which point it would be advantageous to reduce their minute load. thus having 12 all-star caliber players instead of just 5 is a tremendous advantage for any team.

If a team produced 5 NBA all stars and after that had mostly scrubs, you know they would play those 5 all stars the max amount of minutes possible.

and if they had 11 all-stars and Harrison Barnes, they would play the five best players depending on the circumstances (matchup advantages, who is playing well, etc.), and play other all-stars when the starters rest. what's your point?

[TheTrooper]

while I could definitely see a few teams close the gap similar to how Spain did 8 years back, I just can't see America losing in the immediate future without some sort of political turmoil - i.e. the US doesn't field an olympic team out of protest or another USSR-style superpower emerges.



that's an ignorant statement. while it is true that only five players can play at a time, players don't play the entire game and thus need to be relieved by backup players. likewise, some lineups match up better against different opposing teams. finally, players occasionally have off games, at which point it would be advantageous to reduce their minute load. thus having 12 all-star caliber players instead of just 5 is a tremendous advantage for any team.

If a team produced 5 NBA all stars and after that had mostly scrubs, you know they would play those 5 all stars the max amount of minutes possible.

and if they had 11 all-stars and Harrison Barnes, they would play the five best players depending on the circumstances (matchup advantages, who is playing well, etc.), and play other all-stars when the starters rest. what's your point?

5 players could beat 11 in 1 game.

[JasonStern]

If a team produced 5 NBA all stars and after that had mostly scrubs, you know they would play those 5 all stars the max amount of minutes possible.

and if they had 11 all-stars and Harrison Barnes, they would play the five best players depending on the circumstances (matchup advantages, who is playing well, etc.), and play other all-stars when the starters rest. what's your point?

5 players could beat 11 in 1 game.

no. they'd have to play 40 minutes and thus be vulnerable to getting tired (especially after playing 12 games prior), no backup to replace any players that might have an off night, mismatches due to the other team's ability to change up their roster, an inability to bring in additional players to change the game's pace should the opposing team get hot, etc., etc.

[Genjuro]

while I could definitely see a few teams close the gap similar to how Spain did 8 years back, I just can't see America losing in the immediate future without some sort of political turmoil - i.e. the US doesn't field an olympic team out of protest or another USSR-style superpower emerges.

A team like the Spanish NT from 8 years ago could've beaten this US Team IMO. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "another USSR-style superpower", but I don't think the Soviet Union ever had a team capable of beating a good US NBA-based team. I would say Yugoslavia right before the war, Argentina and Spain are the all-time top international teams able to take advantage of a team like this year's one (meaning, a fairly strong star-studded roster that might eventually struggle meshing for whatever reason).

Croatia may have a shot if a decent PG emerges.

Bogdanovic (31 in 2020), Hezonja(25), Samanic(20),Bender(23), Saric(26), Zubac(23), Zizic(23). Really stacked team from 3 to 5, great size, athleticism, shooting and passing.
Guards are an issue though and there are no good ball handlers (Saric, Bender and Samanic are good, but for PF's). Bogdanovic and Hezonja could play the SG so that could be taken care of, but someone needs to play the PG too. Lot's of mediocre talents. I would be really happy if we are able to produce at least Euroleague level PG.

With Bogdanovic or Hezonja playing SG you would need a really great creative PG. It's a pity, but it wasn't going to be easy from the begining, because Croatia has historically struggled to produce great floor generals, I would say.

[TheTrooper]

and if they had 11 all-stars and Harrison Barnes, they would play the five best players depending on the circumstances (matchup advantages, who is playing well, etc.), and play other all-stars when the starters rest. what's your point?

5 players could beat 11 in 1 game.

no. they'd have to play 40 minutes and thus be vulnerable to getting tired (especially after playing 12 games prior), no backup to replace any players that might have an off night, mismatches due to the other team's ability to change up their roster, an inability to bring in additional players to change the game's pace should the opposing team get hot, etc., etc.

Yes they could and they have. Otherwise a weaker team would never win a single game. Its one game anything could happen.

[YogurtProducer]

and if they had 11 all-stars and Harrison Barnes, they would play the five best players depending on the circumstances (matchup advantages, who is playing well, etc.), and play other all-stars when the starters rest. what's your point?

5 players could beat 11 in 1 game.

no. they'd have to play 40 minutes and thus be vulnerable to getting tired (especially after playing 12 games prior), no backup to replace any players that might have an off night, mismatches due to the other team's ability to change up their roster, an inability to bring in additional players to change the game's pace should the opposing team get hot, etc., etc.

But the point is USA can only have 5 players on at once, they don't really have roles, it's more of a free for all, etc. At all points they pretty much have 5 first options on at once, I seriously believe you could build a better team with less "talent" because your 5th option could/should be your best defender or whatever. You can't really do this with Team USA because no one plays to their strengths because there's 1 ball.

Get a team of 5 all star players, and a solid bench (as you pointed out can't play every minute) and they would stand a chance in a one game knockout. All it takes is one guy getting unconsciously hot because that's what could win one game. Imagine if Steph Curry was Canadian, Australian or something like that. All it would take would be one unstoppable Curry game and USA could fall if you surround him with decent defensers who might be worse players

[roc]

nice work mags!

so nice to see a thread get moved to proper forum instead of straight up locked.

as for next team to win not USA... no fricking clue.

[El Turco]

france frequently produces athletic prospects with length, they can force u.s to an off shooting night. they also need hot on the other end which is easier said than done.

[erod009]

Both Australia and Canada will be pretty great in 2020.
I can also add Croatia and Serbia (same team with a 25yo Jokic and Bjelica back) in the mix.
Of course they will never have more talented players than USA, but in knockout stages, anything can happen.

Can't ever count Spain out:
M.Gasol / Willy
Mirotic / Ibaka
Claver / Diez
Llull / Abrines
Rubio / Rodriguez

And maybe China and Nigeria can develop into strong teams, not for gold medal though, obviously.

[Mr. E]

Both Australia and Canada will be pretty great in 2020.
I can also add Croatia and Serbia (same team with a 25yo Jokic and Bjelica back) in the mix.
Of course they will never have more talented players than USA, but in knockout stages, anything can happen.

Can't ever count Spain out:
M.Gasol / Willy
Mirotic / Ibaka
Claver / Diez
Llull / Abrines
Rubio / Rodriguez

And maybe China and Nigeria can develop into strong teams, not for gold medal though, obviously.

I think that the USA, Australia, Canada, Serbia, Spain & Croatia will be the "Big 6" for the next decade. I'm curious to see what happens with South American basketball now the the Argentine Dream Team is riding off into the sunset.

I am excited for the next World Championships. Hoping that we will see some of the young, emerging stars who were not in the Rio Games.

[Rapaz]

Imagine being this salty that your old ass team got sonned in 5 games. Enjoy irrelevance.