Ricky Rubio --- FIBA
- Thread starter LookingAround
- Start date
LeBron or Kobe or any perenial all-star wouldn't make a abismal difference because of the rule changes. That's what makes NBA and FIBA so different, not quality. LeBron would do 15/20 turnovers because of travelling fouls -here there is one step less and ALWAYS is called; there it's really bizarre to be called even there are a lot in every quarter- and the lack of 3s rule makes overall deffenses much harder, and it's harder to dunk against static D without offensive faul. That's the reason of the scores being so low, not FIBA players being bad players.
It's sure a Kobe or LeBron could improve any team into European championship, but they'll never be treated as divas by the coaching staff and be allowed to keep the ball in every possesion. And that, talking about Kobe or LeBron. I mean, maybe two of the best 20 players ever. In case a guy like Brandon Roy or Gilbert Arenas the impact wouldn't be different from a top profile euro guard. Here the MVP is an anecdote; no player cares about being it. That's also because all teams plays a lot of competitions (League, Cup, Euro tournament) and there's much less matches and much more PO/live-or-death matches, that's another big difference. Selfish players don't go very far because here is the coach who rules and it's the team who matters. No one else.
It's sure a Kobe or LeBron could improve any team into European championship, but they'll never be treated as divas by the coaching staff and be allowed to keep the ball in every possesion. And that, talking about Kobe or LeBron. I mean, maybe two of the best 20 players ever. In case a guy like Brandon Roy or Gilbert Arenas the impact wouldn't be different from a top profile euro guard. Here the MVP is an anecdote; no player cares about being it. That's also because all teams plays a lot of competitions (League, Cup, Euro tournament) and there's much less matches and much more PO/live-or-death matches, that's another big difference. Selfish players don't go very far because here is the coach who rules and it's the team who matters. No one else.
Last edited:
Want to add something to Asaf's quote.
Maccabi had 3 main players - Antony Parker, Sharunas Jasekevisious and Nicola Vuijcic.
There always had been argument who was the best player.
If you would ask today probably most would say Parker but it only because his NBA career, then Sharas and the last Vuijcic because despite being still not that old his body already not the same at the last few years.
But if you would ask then, according to their ability at those years, everyone would have a different opinion.
I think the whole style would be possible without Vuijcic, a smart passing center, so he was the most important player IMO.
Now, here are three player more-or-less at the same level at European basketball, look how different they in the terms of the NBA.
And the Kings ex Maccabo:
Casspi - he wasn't superstar in Europe thought I think he did improve which is natural for his age. But also if he would play now in Europe he would be a decent player, not a superstar.
Udrih - most of the people didn't understand how he got to the NBA. And he was always the same kind of player. My logic said he would be a good player at Europe today, I also really was curious to see him at the Eurobasket, but he got injured (I saw one preparation games, but it doesn't tell much)
Maccabi had 3 main players - Antony Parker, Sharunas Jasekevisious and Nicola Vuijcic.
There always had been argument who was the best player.
If you would ask today probably most would say Parker but it only because his NBA career, then Sharas and the last Vuijcic because despite being still not that old his body already not the same at the last few years.
But if you would ask then, according to their ability at those years, everyone would have a different opinion.
I think the whole style would be possible without Vuijcic, a smart passing center, so he was the most important player IMO.
Now, here are three player more-or-less at the same level at European basketball, look how different they in the terms of the NBA.
And the Kings ex Maccabo:
Casspi - he wasn't superstar in Europe thought I think he did improve which is natural for his age. But also if he would play now in Europe he would be a decent player, not a superstar.
Udrih - most of the people didn't understand how he got to the NBA. And he was always the same kind of player. My logic said he would be a good player at Europe today, I also really was curious to see him at the Eurobasket, but he got injured (I saw one preparation games, but it doesn't tell much)
Last edited:
Casspi isn't a "superstar" here either. He may or may not get to the "star" level in the NBA. Only time will tell. He's one of the better first year players right now. That's all that can be said. He's getting a lot of attention for being better than most "experts" here thought he would be and because he's the fist Israeli to play in the NBA.
This quote from Asaf:
I think this goes a little too far. It is a team game here, too and I don't think superstars or franchise players all think their teammates are there only to help them. Generally, everyone is there to win and everyone brings their specific skills and abilities to the team. Success is just more likely if you have a player on the team that is clearly a special talent, someone in a class by themselves.
On our old Kings, anyone would have said Webber was the franchise player, the "star." However, everyone was integrel to the success of that team and Webber and everyone else on the team knew that. Everyone contributed their individual abilites/talents to the success of the whole team. They were not just helping the "star."
As to different rules in FIBA, given the time to adjust their games I seriously doubt that a LeBron or a Kobe would not stand out in Europe, too and elevate the play of any team.
This quote from Asaf:
I think this goes a little too far. It is a team game here, too and I don't think superstars or franchise players all think their teammates are there only to help them. Generally, everyone is there to win and everyone brings their specific skills and abilities to the team. Success is just more likely if you have a player on the team that is clearly a special talent, someone in a class by themselves.
On our old Kings, anyone would have said Webber was the franchise player, the "star." However, everyone was integrel to the success of that team and Webber and everyone else on the team knew that. Everyone contributed their individual abilites/talents to the success of the whole team. They were not just helping the "star."
As to different rules in FIBA, given the time to adjust their games I seriously doubt that a LeBron or a Kobe would not stand out in Europe, too and elevate the play of any team.
I don't know if I consturcted the phrase correctly, I was trying to say that: they would be an enough upgrade to convert a mediocre team into european champion. But they won't be allowed to be primadonnas that do what they want as they are in the NBA, and that about talking about LeBron and Kobe, two of the greatest players in history.If we talk about other primadonna-treated franchise players, even 2nd class superstars as Gilbert Arenas or Brandon Roy, who are very doubtful go-to-guys to win a ring by himselves...well there's no way they can have the importance they have in their teams.
It's a pity that Kings didn't win the Lakers that year because it's precissely one of the teams who wasn't constructed around a ultrasuperstar like Kobe or LeBron and everybody contributed to make an atonishing basketball engine, they played one of the most beautiful basketball in NBA history.
It's a pity that Kings didn't win the Lakers that year because it's precissely one of the teams who wasn't constructed around a ultrasuperstar like Kobe or LeBron and everybody contributed to make an atonishing basketball engine, they played one of the most beautiful basketball in NBA history.
I think what you guys aren't mentioning is the difference in the contracts afforded to players in the different organizations. Players here have the collective bargaining agreement on their side and a pretty strong players union. And it's all structured to reward "better" players with more lucrative contracts and better deals, which definitely adds to the "superstar" mystique. In Europe, OTOH, it appears as though the clubs have a lot more power over their players.
Yes, I think that actually makes another bigger difference between FIBA and NBA: not only the players having more power, also the league being balanced by sallary caps and all that stuff. Here there is completely free market, there are teams with 5 times more money than others...
But anyway, although I like it's have good things (as try to balance teams) it's good that in any case we'll see embarrasing dramas as the pathetic Memphis-Iverson case this year. If an old glory whines because he is used as it should be in the rotation (that's coming off the bench because he isn't a decisive player anymore) well, he continues whining in the bench and shut up until he ends his contract.
But anyway, although I like it's have good things (as try to balance teams) it's good that in any case we'll see embarrasing dramas as the pathetic Memphis-Iverson case this year. If an old glory whines because he is used as it should be in the rotation (that's coming off the bench because he isn't a decisive player anymore) well, he continues whining in the bench and shut up until he ends his contract.
Last edited:
Well, even ignoring the fact that the US team was beaten in past Olympics and World Championships by numerous teams, including Carlos Arroyo's Porto-Rico, even in this Olympics you are looking at a US team, consisting of players from across the US, playing against European teams divided by countries. That's comparable to the US team divided to separate teams from each state. If you want to compare American and European basketball you have to take into consideration a matchup that would involve the US national team vs. a united European team. You can bet a team that combined Gasol, Nowitski, Tony Parker, Calderon, and other European stars would not be a pushover even for the Lebron-Kobe-Wade team. In fact, I would put my money on the European team for this one.
I'd actually like to see a united European team. There's still a problem, however. A lot of the top players on that Euro would be guys who honed their skills in the NBA. They're really NBA players who just happen to wear a different uniform when it comes to the Olympics. Is it really fair that they get all the most valuable experience here in the US and then use it "against us" when they compete in international competitions?
I'm just askin'...
I'm just askin'...
Well, these guys were brought up in European clubs. They wouldn't have made it to the NBA had they not developed their skills in Europe to the level that allowed them to play in this league.
There is absolutely no question that the NBA is a much stronger league than the Euroleague. This is largely due to the fact that players make a LOT more money in the NBA than they can make in Europe, which attracts the best players to this league, which also makes it more appealing to other players because everybody wants to compete in the best level possible.
There is, however, a big difference in basketball mentality, even for those players who have spent most of their career in the NBA. The basketball education they received in Europe growing up is much more team-oriented. It's kind of like learning a language. Even though I've spent many years in the US and other English-speaking countries, I'll always feel more comfortable speaking Hebrew.
There is absolutely no question that the NBA is a much stronger league than the Euroleague. This is largely due to the fact that players make a LOT more money in the NBA than they can make in Europe, which attracts the best players to this league, which also makes it more appealing to other players because everybody wants to compete in the best level possible.
There is, however, a big difference in basketball mentality, even for those players who have spent most of their career in the NBA. The basketball education they received in Europe growing up is much more team-oriented. It's kind of like learning a language. Even though I've spent many years in the US and other English-speaking countries, I'll always feel more comfortable speaking Hebrew.
I think this discussion is a little bit unfair because some people (mostly from the US) do not watch (cannot watch, never watched) European basketball.
Obviously, it is very different. Just the philosophy or culture of the game is different .. on and of the court. It is not NBA good power-wise but better than MOST people in North America think.
Many good players go to Euroleague teams and do nothing special there. I remember that many decent European players went back to Europe to star after several years in NBA about 2 years ago and they were just Ok. It is not easy to play there. Brandon Jennings is a very demonstrative example. Look at him now - a ROY candidate and very impressive player already! It was not this way in Euroleague though. He struggled to overcome a very small FIBA zone and harsh defense, referees whistle everything, you have to battle for every possession. It does not show that Euroleague is so much better and you can struggle in there and then star in NBA. It shows that it is so different and not everybody can succeed, and some people are just better off in NBA with its rules and refereeing.
Euro basket is all about team-defense and team-offense, no ego-stuff, everybody can be benched if you do not work hard on the court (Kevin Martin would struggle under Messina IMO), no superstar treatment from referees. However, NBA is more exciting to watch, especially for regular fans, better TV picture, better arenas, better show overall, much more speed thanks to athleticism of NBA players and bigger NBA zone.
I personally like both styles because I just love basketball and that's why I liked the Kings with Divac, Webber, Williams/Bibby, Christie - they played Euro team basket with NBA speed, excitement and athleticism.
Obviously, it is very different. Just the philosophy or culture of the game is different .. on and of the court. It is not NBA good power-wise but better than MOST people in North America think.
Many good players go to Euroleague teams and do nothing special there. I remember that many decent European players went back to Europe to star after several years in NBA about 2 years ago and they were just Ok. It is not easy to play there. Brandon Jennings is a very demonstrative example. Look at him now - a ROY candidate and very impressive player already! It was not this way in Euroleague though. He struggled to overcome a very small FIBA zone and harsh defense, referees whistle everything, you have to battle for every possession. It does not show that Euroleague is so much better and you can struggle in there and then star in NBA. It shows that it is so different and not everybody can succeed, and some people are just better off in NBA with its rules and refereeing.
Euro basket is all about team-defense and team-offense, no ego-stuff, everybody can be benched if you do not work hard on the court (Kevin Martin would struggle under Messina IMO), no superstar treatment from referees. However, NBA is more exciting to watch, especially for regular fans, better TV picture, better arenas, better show overall, much more speed thanks to athleticism of NBA players and bigger NBA zone.
I personally like both styles because I just love basketball and that's why I liked the Kings with Divac, Webber, Williams/Bibby, Christie - they played Euro team basket with NBA speed, excitement and athleticism.
Don't you think that NBA learnt something from them too? Do you know that Popovich spent a lot of time teaching and also learning in Europe. I know that Brown (Cleavland coach) spend each summer with CSKA learning their system.
And we can continue this list.
Obviously, it is not a fair two-way road but still it is a two-way road.
And we can continue this list.
Obviously, it is not a fair two-way road but still it is a two-way road.
If it's FIBA rules I wouldn't take Parker for this team and neither Calderon.
At the Olympic games even before Calderon was injured Ricky Rubio who was younger and not as good as he is today, especially offensively, was better then him.
And Tony Parker I wouldn't take even at the third European team.
At the Olympic games even before Calderon was injured Ricky Rubio who was younger and not as good as he is today, especially offensively, was better then him.
And Tony Parker I wouldn't take even at the third European team.
I honestly don't know, which is why I brought up the point. I only watch European teams during the Olympics. I've tried to watch at other times, but I'll be perfectly honest...it just doesn't hold much appeal for me. I'm not sure why...perhaps because I grew up watching NBA-based basketball and have followed the NBA faithfully for close to 50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_vs_FIBA_games
There were 7 games played in 09 during the preseason where a FIBA team played an NBA team. No FIBA team won any of the games and the average margin of victory for the NBA team was 21 pts....there is still a gap.
There were 7 games played in 09 during the preseason where a FIBA team played an NBA team. No FIBA team won any of the games and the average margin of victory for the NBA team was 21 pts....there is still a gap.
Last edited:
One of the most crucial aspects for a fan to enjoy watching a basketball game is emotional involvement. If you're not actively rooting for a team with all your heart, it's usually difficult to enjoy any game, just like I rarely watched any NBA games until Omri came to Sacramento.
The other thing is, as someone who is not familiar with European basketball, and therefore is not familiar with the coaching styles of European masterminds such as Messina, Obradovich, and Gershon, it would be hard to identify and follow everything that's going on. It's easy to appreciate a monster dunk or a virtuosic pass, whether you are familiar with a playing style or not. It's much more difficult to appreciate a perfectly executed team defensive play or an offensive play in which the most significant factor was a player who did not even touch the ball, when you are not familiar with that style of play.
The other thing is, as someone who is not familiar with European basketball, and therefore is not familiar with the coaching styles of European masterminds such as Messina, Obradovich, and Gershon, it would be hard to identify and follow everything that's going on. It's easy to appreciate a monster dunk or a virtuosic pass, whether you are familiar with a playing style or not. It's much more difficult to appreciate a perfectly executed team defensive play or an offensive play in which the most significant factor was a player who did not even touch the ball, when you are not familiar with that style of play.
Agreed.
I've always been interested in a US vs. World type all star event rather than an Eastern vs. Western game. I'm not a huge NHLer, but doesn't the NHL do North America vs. World for their all star game? Not only do I think this would be more entertaining, but I believe the game would be quite competitive with pride at stake.
I've always been interested in a US vs. World type all star event rather than an Eastern vs. Western game. I'm not a huge NHLer, but doesn't the NHL do North America vs. World for their all star game? Not only do I think this would be more entertaining, but I believe the game would be quite competitive with pride at stake.
Last edited:
I know absolutely nothing about hockey so I wouldn't know, but yes, that would be a very interesting game. I wonder if at some point, with the European Union electing a president now and becoming politically closer and closer to the US format, there will be a decision to unite the national teams in sports. I doubt that will happen, because that would mean casting aside a lot of players who can play on the different national teams but would not make the united team. Still, it would be interesting to think about. Perhaps they can have different national teams for the internal European championship but a united team for international championships like the Olympics and the World Cup.
They all played under NBA rules if I am not mistaken. Euroleague teams build their tactics and team-defense around a small FIBA zone and this one is absolutely ineffective under NBA rules and zone. That's why NBA teams struggle against Europeans teams under FIBA rules.
Yesterday, I brought the CSKA example: 2-3 years ago they destroyed the Clippers with all their best players under FIBA rules and then lost to Philly badly under NBA rules.
No doubts that NBA teams are better overall, especially the best ones but the gap is not that big as some people think and some Euroleague teams can compete against some NBA teams, especially under FIBA rules.
Yesterday, I brought the CSKA example: 2-3 years ago they destroyed the Clippers with all their best players under FIBA rules and then lost to Philly badly under NBA rules.
No doubts that NBA teams are better overall, especially the best ones but the gap is not that big as some people think and some Euroleague teams can compete against some NBA teams, especially under FIBA rules.
Top of European basketball teams can beat N.B.A teams with FIBA rules, the point is, they have no chance at NBA rules..
im sure for almost 100% Barcelona, Malaga, Cska won NBA teams at their home with FIBA rules... the only team who won NBA teams at the USA was Maccabi..
Theres no doubt, Maccabi is the strongest team who played NBA teams ever...
Maccabi won most of the Vs NBA teams, Washington Bullets, Phoenix Suns, New Jersey Nets and the last time in 2005 Toronto Raptors.. i think it says everything.
im sure for almost 100% Barcelona, Malaga, Cska won NBA teams at their home with FIBA rules... the only team who won NBA teams at the USA was Maccabi..
Theres no doubt, Maccabi is the strongest team who played NBA teams ever...
Maccabi won most of the Vs NBA teams, Washington Bullets, Phoenix Suns, New Jersey Nets and the last time in 2005 Toronto Raptors.. i think it says everything.
Last edited:
It not only about rules difference but also system difference.
At Europe there are less games so
1. Each game is important, more pressure about each game (and not only because of that, also because the sport taken with more seriousness, not only as a show), players who can handle better the pressure will have relatively bigger advantage at Europe than at the NBA. For example Sharunas Jasikevisious, one of the things that make him a big player is that at important game he'll always be 200%. The same with Papalukas. Maybe Greece wouldn't beat U.S team in a series, but when it comes to one match these player has stronger mentality.
At the last Olympic games he Spanish team lost by a huge margin to the U.S team at the Olympics at the first stage, they also where very close to lose to China, but we all remember that at the final they were totally different team.
Now conclude what it says about pre-season preparation games.
2. The gaps between the games at Europe used for practicing, for preparing the teams to specific opponents.
So the European teams at the pre-season are not close to what they become as the season continues.
At Europe there are less games so
1. Each game is important, more pressure about each game (and not only because of that, also because the sport taken with more seriousness, not only as a show), players who can handle better the pressure will have relatively bigger advantage at Europe than at the NBA. For example Sharunas Jasikevisious, one of the things that make him a big player is that at important game he'll always be 200%. The same with Papalukas. Maybe Greece wouldn't beat U.S team in a series, but when it comes to one match these player has stronger mentality.
At the last Olympic games he Spanish team lost by a huge margin to the U.S team at the Olympics at the first stage, they also where very close to lose to China, but we all remember that at the final they were totally different team.
Now conclude what it says about pre-season preparation games.
2. The gaps between the games at Europe used for practicing, for preparing the teams to specific opponents.
So the European teams at the pre-season are not close to what they become as the season continues.
Last edited:
Yeah, I wouldn't take that kind of pre-season matches as very serious. That doesn't mean there's still a gap but...pre-season is never serious.
It'd be nice to make a NBA champ - Euroleague champ match just after NBA finals...I think it's more possible than seeing an official united Euro team.
Right now the most possible chance to see something like that it's if the NBA itself makes a Euro stars vs. USA stars match in the All-Star weekend.
It'd be nice to make a NBA champ - Euroleague champ match just after NBA finals...I think it's more possible than seeing an official united Euro team.
Right now the most possible chance to see something like that it's if the NBA itself makes a Euro stars vs. USA stars match in the All-Star weekend.
Last edited:
So wait I'm a little fuzzy on the logic of this all? Because Spain played better in game two of the Olympics they are far more prepared mentally for high pressure situations than NBA players because they play more one and done scenarios?
Because teams are able to beat NBA teams under FIBA rules during preseason games this proves the gap between the NBA and FIBA is negligible?
My opinion is that under FIBA rules any elite European team should have a legitimate shot at beating an mid-level NBA team at any given time. Under NBA rules the European team probably shouldn't even show up. I mean for heavens sakes they should win given that's the rules they are used to playing by. Obviously this isn't the early 90's anymore and European teams aren't at the end of some cruel punchline. But by saying it would take an all Europe team under FIBA rules for it to be a close competition already speaks volumes for the size of the gap that still exists between the USA and other countries around the globe. Because lets be honest if that same game was played under NBA rules it would not even be close.
Because teams are able to beat NBA teams under FIBA rules during preseason games this proves the gap between the NBA and FIBA is negligible?
My opinion is that under FIBA rules any elite European team should have a legitimate shot at beating an mid-level NBA team at any given time. Under NBA rules the European team probably shouldn't even show up. I mean for heavens sakes they should win given that's the rules they are used to playing by. Obviously this isn't the early 90's anymore and European teams aren't at the end of some cruel punchline. But by saying it would take an all Europe team under FIBA rules for it to be a close competition already speaks volumes for the size of the gap that still exists between the USA and other countries around the globe. Because lets be honest if that same game was played under NBA rules it would not even be close.
Mmm, let's break this down for a minute. There should be two different discussions here:
1. NBA vs. FIBA teams - no doubt about it. The NBA is MUCH stronger. Like you said, under FIBA rules, top Euroleague teams can compete against mid-level NBA teams, but that's pretty much as far as it goes. I wouldn't go to such extreme as to say that under NBA rules, the FIBA teams shouldn't show up, because Maccabi has already beaten Toronto in Toronto under NBA rules, and was pretty close against other NBA teams, and there were some other European teams who beat NBA teams here. Regardless, there is still a huge gap, mainly due to the fact that the NBA draws all the best players, American and European, for obvious reasons.
2. European basketball vs. American basketball - the gap here is WAY smaller than most Americans tend to think, if it exists at all. Again, taking into account the victories of the US team against Germany, Spain, or any other European country would be equivalent to taking into account a theoretical game between a united European team vs. a team that would be comprised of players born exclusively in California, or NY, or Texas. The pummeling would be just as bad if it was the other way around.
1. NBA vs. FIBA teams - no doubt about it. The NBA is MUCH stronger. Like you said, under FIBA rules, top Euroleague teams can compete against mid-level NBA teams, but that's pretty much as far as it goes. I wouldn't go to such extreme as to say that under NBA rules, the FIBA teams shouldn't show up, because Maccabi has already beaten Toronto in Toronto under NBA rules, and was pretty close against other NBA teams, and there were some other European teams who beat NBA teams here. Regardless, there is still a huge gap, mainly due to the fact that the NBA draws all the best players, American and European, for obvious reasons.
2. European basketball vs. American basketball - the gap here is WAY smaller than most Americans tend to think, if it exists at all. Again, taking into account the victories of the US team against Germany, Spain, or any other European country would be equivalent to taking into account a theoretical game between a united European team vs. a team that would be comprised of players born exclusively in California, or NY, or Texas. The pummeling would be just as bad if it was the other way around.
Exploring the "bias" as you call it is the reason for the thread and for the discussions in general between FIBA fans and NBA fans. It's a big beautiful world out there, and regardless of the details, there are millions of fans of BASKETBALL... why not try and get to know and appreciate the varieties of the various programs?
V
For the love of Euroleague Basketball, the game for Top 16 will be on January 16, 2010 and on May 2010 for Euroleague Final Four. Option tickets available at Euroleague's Official Ticket partner - Ticket2final http://www.ticket2final.com.