PDA

View Full Version : Which USA team was worse/better... 2000 or 2004



shep33
08-01-2011, 03:34 AM
The reason I ask this is that the competition in 2000 wasn't as good as what they'd seen in 2004. Really nowhere near as good.

The 2000 team beat Lithuania by 2 points, and beat a very weak French team by 10 in the Gold Medal Game.

If you put them up against the competition in 2004 they probably would've lost as well.

Now... the 2004 team was pretty horrendous. From coaching to just the wrong mix of players, it just didn't work.

In 2004, the USA team finished 4th in their group. Losing to Puerto Rico by 19 points, beating Greece and Australia by 6 and 10 points respectively, losing to Lituania by 4, before getting knocked out by Argentina in the semi's by 8.

Remember the competition was a lot better in 2004, no question about that. Which team was better/worse? If they played each other, which team would win? Would the 2000 team win in 2004?

NYKalltheway
08-01-2011, 03:47 AM
both not that great. Only 2008 was very good in the last decade

RevisIsland
08-01-2011, 05:15 AM
We won in 2000, we didn't in '04, I think that answers the question, at least for me.

Raps18-19 Champ
08-01-2011, 05:18 AM
Both were shitbox.

knightstemplar
08-01-2011, 05:20 AM
why didnt Shaq, Duncan, and Kobe play in the 2000 Olympics?

Chronz
08-01-2011, 02:29 PM
You guys underrate the frontline of Zo-KG-Vince-Ray-GP and KIDD? IIRC They would have won gold in 04.

But the best team we have ever sent out to tourney play has been the 03 team.

THE MTL
08-01-2011, 03:15 PM
No one wanted to play in 2004.

Honestly, Iverson and Duncan were in the prime of their careers and played hard. And I just you can say Marbury was good in the prime of his career.

However, James, Wade, Melo, Marion, Amare were all 1st-2nd year players

Where was KG, Kobe, Shaq, McGrady, etc.

JordansBulls
08-01-2011, 03:26 PM
We won in 2000, we didn't in '04, I think that answers the question, at least for me.

This, but remember in 2000 they won a game by 1 point due to some guy missing the last shot.

Chronz
08-01-2011, 03:30 PM
No one wanted to play in 2004.

Honestly, Iverson and Duncan were in the prime of their careers and played hard. And I just you can say Marbury was good in the prime of his career.

However, James, Wade, Melo, Marion, Amare were all 1st-2nd year players

Where was KG, Kobe, Shaq, McGrady, etc.

Tmac threw out his back playing in the qualifiers the year prior, he couldnt afford the playing time. Shaq had already done his part and was at the stage in his career where he too had to limit his punishment, Kobe was nursing a legit injury, KG (I guess had already fulfilled his duty as well). Why werent Ray and Redd brought in at that point?

Hellcrooner
08-01-2011, 05:07 PM
You are taking the wrong point of view.
The difference is not the quality of usa team.

is the quality of competition.

smith&wesson
08-01-2011, 05:26 PM
it would help to have each respective roster.

smith&wesson
08-01-2011, 05:36 PM
ok here we go

year 2000 roster

shareef abdur-rahim
ray allen
vin baker
vince carter
kevin garnett
tim hardaway
allan houston
jason kidd
anotonio mcdyess
alonzo mourning
gary payton
steve smith

2004 roster

carmello anthony
carlos boozer
tim duncan
allen iverson
lebron james
richard jefferson
stephon marbury
shaw marion
lamar odem
emeka okafor
amare stoudemire
dwane wade


imo the 04 team is more talented.

smith&wesson
08-01-2011, 05:42 PM
92 was my fav year

jordan
pippen
bird
magic
barkley
ewing
d.robinson
john stockton
karl malone
clyde drexler

honestly whos beating that team ?

iliketurtles24
08-01-2011, 05:54 PM
^nobody

Hellcrooner
08-01-2011, 06:14 PM
anyh way the WORSE eggs usa team laid were 2002 playing on Home court and 2006

Chronz
08-01-2011, 06:28 PM
ok here we go

year 2000 roster

shareef abdur-rahim
ray allen
vin baker
vince carter
kevin garnett
tim hardaway
allan houston
jason kidd
anotonio mcdyess
alonzo mourning
gary payton
steve smith

2004 roster

carmello anthony
carlos boozer
tim duncan
allen iverson
lebron james
richard jefferson
stephon marbury
shaw marion
lamar odem
emeka okafor
amare stoudemire
dwane wade


imo the 04 team is more talented.
Talent is debatable but cohesion? Zo and KG were born to play together, they had the shooters, the defenders, the penetrators and scorers.

04 lacked shooters and had a mismatch of players some of which (like the big 3) were basically rookies. A horrible offensive flow, I dont think its close at all.

smith&wesson
08-01-2011, 07:28 PM
Talent is debatable but cohesion? Zo and KG were born to play together, they had the shooters, the defenders, the penetrators and scorers.

04 lacked shooters and had a mismatch of players some of which (like the big 3) were basically rookies. A horrible offensive flow, I dont think its close at all.


my opinion is based on talent alone. and its alot harder then it seems at first to determin which team had more talent.

If i had to compare each player it would look somthing like this.

stat < kg
duncan > zo
lamar > steve smith
carmelo > allan houston
james > vince carter
d wade = ray allen
marbury << payton
marion > abdur rahim
boozer > mcdyess
iverson < hardaway
emaka okafor = vin baker

its tough to compare. but this is the closest i could come to in terms of match ups.

all i know is that the 2000 pg's absolutley smoke the 2004 pg's or should i say point gaurd and a half.
jason kidd, tim hardaway, gary payton >>>>> marbury, iverson..

04 team had more sg's
allan houston, vince carter, ray allen > iverson & d.wade

seems like the 2004 team had way more small forwards
lebron, anthony, marion, odem, richard jeffereson >> steve smith, abdur rahim

04 team had more pf's. 2000 team had kg but other then that the 04 team was satcked at the 4.

stat, duncan, boozer > mcdyess, garnet, abdur rahim

2000 team had 5's. the 04 team had no real 5.
alonzo & baker > okafor

I tried to make comparisons between positions and realized the two teams had more players at different positions and alot of tweeners like marion, steve smith, odem, abdur rahim so i also made comparisons between the players themselves. its tough, theres no real way of determining which team is better unless you consider things like team chemistry and cohesivness like you said.

shep33
08-01-2011, 07:37 PM
Talent is debatable but cohesion? Zo and KG were born to play together, they had the shooters, the defenders, the penetrators and scorers.

04 lacked shooters and had a mismatch of players some of which (like the big 3) were basically rookies. A horrible offensive flow, I dont think its close at all.

I agree that the 2000 team is better than the 2004 team, easily.

I liked Zo and KG on that team, Vince was great too. However, do you still think they win in 2004? I mean the quality of the opponents alone from 2000 to 2004 was a huge leap. Lets not forget that Groups A and B in 2000 were probably the lowest level of competition in the decade (when compared with 2004 and 2008), like it wasn't even close. I mean Canada finished top of Group B with a 4-1 record. No Argentina, no Greece, and Spain's players were just not that great at the time (nowhere near the level they are today... they finished 9th out of 12 places).

I dunno if the 2000 team would have won in 2004. Spain, Lithuania, Greece, and even Puerto Rico put together some very good teams.

Spain for instance started putting together their core group of guys including: Pau Gasol, J.C. Navarro, Calderon, Rudy Fernandez, Garbajosa etc.

Argentina didn't even qualify in 2000 and they ended up winning it all with a prime Manu, Scola, Oberto, Hermann, Delfino and Nocioni.


That's an enormous change in talent just between those two teams, and although the USA beat Spain, it was by no means a real easy game.

Obviously we can't compare these teams in performance, but at the same time the 2000 team struggled in its own right. Barely beating Lithuania, then playing a terribly bad French team and only winning by 10.

I dunno it's interesting to see how that 2000 team would've done against the vastly improved competition in 2004

smith&wesson
08-01-2011, 08:09 PM
I agree that the 2000 team is better than the 2004 team, easily.


i have alot of respect for payton, kidd, ray, houston, zo, kg but its tough to say they are EASILY better then duncan, lebron, wade, melo, stat if were talking in terms of talent.

keep in mind that lebron, wade, melo were all in theyre 2nd year in 2004. if the 2004 team was consisted 4 years later with the same players they would have been alot better as a team imo.

i dont think its black and white. theres alot of things to consider. like the fact that the 04 team had no real pass first pg or a real center and theyre best players were only in theyre 2nd year of pro ball. they relied heavily on theyre small forwards while the 2000 team was more balanced and had strong players at each position. for that reason i think the 2000 team might win in a game between the two teams but in terms of individual talent i think the 04 team had an edge. but theyre telent was still really young. and theyre compitition as you pointed out was alot better.

GoPacers33
08-01-2011, 08:28 PM
04

Raph12
08-02-2011, 09:37 AM
You guys underrate the frontline of Zo-KG-Vince-Ray-GP and KIDD? IIRC They would have won gold in 04.

But the best team we have ever sent out to tourney play has been the 03 team.

This... People must have forgotten how good guys like Zo-KG-VC-Ray-Kidd were back in 2000.

NYKalltheway
08-02-2011, 09:49 AM
What's the 03 team?? :confused:

xM1GSx
08-02-2011, 10:35 AM
2000 they won which makes them better imo

Chronz
08-02-2011, 11:24 AM
What's the 03 team?? :confused:

Im making a thread that centers around FIBA teams as we speak, in short it was the team we assembled to fix the problems surrounding the Indianapolis team, our original redeem team if you will, before everyone began to pull out for the olympics we got to see them in the tourney of Americas. It was a team loaded with star power at the absolute apex of their careers, most importantly the stars blended perfectly. Every team had its faults but this team had less of them than any other IMO aside from maybe Dream Teams 1 and 3.

Brooklyn Mets
08-02-2011, 11:26 AM
we won in 2000 so i would say they were better regardless of competition..

now a better thread would be 92 vs 08

ivylleague1'
08-02-2011, 11:55 AM
my opinion is based on talent alone. and its alot harder then it seems at first to determin which team had more talent.

If i had to compare each player it would look somthing like this.

stat < kg
duncan > zo
lamar > steve smith
carmelo > allan houston
james > vince carter
d wade = ray allen
marbury << payton
marion > abdur rahim
boozer > mcdyess
iverson < hardaway
emaka okafor = vin baker

its tough to compare. but this is the closest i could come to in terms of match ups.

all i know is that the 2000 pg's absolutley smoke the 2004 pg's or should i say point gaurd and a half.
jason kidd, tim hardaway, gary payton >>>>> marbury, iverson..

04 team had more sg's
allan houston, vince carter, ray allen > iverson & d.wade

seems like the 2004 team had way more small forwards
lebron, anthony, marion, odem, richard jeffereson >> steve smith, abdur rahim

04 team had more pf's. 2000 team had kg but other then that the 04 team was satcked at the 4.

stat, duncan, boozer > mcdyess, garnet, abdur rahim

2000 team had 5's. the 04 team had no real 5.
alonzo & baker > okafor

I tried to make comparisons between positions and realized the two teams had more players at different positions and alot of tweeners like marion, steve smith, odem, abdur rahim so i also made comparisons between the players themselves. its tough, theres no real way of determining which team is better unless you consider things like team chemistry and cohesivness like you said.


Where on earth did you get the statistics that tells you that Hardaway can be compared with Iverson ? Iverson ranks top 10 or better in scoring / game all - time. He ranks top 5 in steals / game all time and ranks top 30 in assists all time while Hardaway only ranks top 10 in assists, 30th in steals / game and not to be heard of in scoring. Iverson was and is far more superior to Hardaway. Shelve your hate when making a post.

Chronz
08-02-2011, 12:06 PM
Its amazing how quickly the AI fans find anything related to him, props

shep33
08-02-2011, 03:54 PM
we won in 2000 so i would say they were better regardless of competition..

now a better thread would be 92 vs 08

Nah 1992's team was unstoppable.

NYKalltheway
08-02-2011, 06:00 PM
Im making a thread that centers around FIBA teams as we speak, in short it was the team we assembled to fix the problems surrounding the Indianapolis team, our original redeem team if you will, before everyone began to pull out for the olympics we got to see them in the tourney of Americas. It was a team loaded with star power at the absolute apex of their careers, most importantly the stars blended perfectly. Every team had its faults but this team had less of them than any other IMO aside from maybe Dream Teams 1 and 3.

Nice to see you show interest in that. I thought it would be the FIBA Americas qualifiers, but didn't know how the USA team works in such tournaments, if they send their best etc. I'm interested in seeing who was on that team and how it was different from the 2004 team

LakersMaster24
08-02-2011, 08:11 PM
Nah 1992's team was unstoppable.

08 was pretty unstoppable too. I mean, there was no challenge for them. It would be interesting to watch the 92 vs 08! Dont forget that players like Magic, and Bird back then where already past their prime, so it should be a pretty close game.