Team USA Basketball and Team Canada Hockey: A Shared Journey

Note: A few hours after writing this piece Spain defeated Greece 70-47 to deservedly win its first World title.

Many a theories abound about why the Americans lost to Greece at the World Basketball Championships recently. In fact, the debate is wickedly similar to what Canadians faced with hockey at the World Championships in past years. Both Canada and the U.S. are often at a loss to describe their apparent and baffling underwhelming performances at their respective tournaments.

These debates always seem to come down to American athleticism versus international fundamentals in basketball and Canadian grit versus European style in hockey. Different interpretations and development of the game from different parts of the world if you will.

Europeans often assert that Canadian hockey is ugly and physical teetering on gratuitous violence. Hit, crash the net and score ugly goals. They also feel that American basketball is a game rooted in a one-man power show. Pass; gain the lane and dunk.

While this may be true, it's also a little one-sided. Aside from the reality that you do what you have to do to win, Canadians and Americans are fully capable of playing with skill and gamesmanship. Conversely, Canadians until recently felt that Europeans often play with no heart despite the evident talent. Subjectivity leads us to a dead-end in such discussions.

Concretely, it's all a matter of how you deploy and select your talent. Deal with those factors that you can control. There is some truth in the notion that North American squads are quickly pasted together and thus have less time to become as cohesive unit. It has brought us success for two reasons 1) the raw talent and ability of our players and 2) periods by which our dominance was undisputed. Think 1950s in hockey for Canada and the Olympics for Team USA in basketball. It has become much more difficult to do so now as the rest of the world is on par with North America in these two sports. Now it becomes a question of commitment, development and management.

Often, European national sides play together all-year round. It is less in hockey these days because Europeans play in the NHL. The NBA, will reach this point soon, still has this discrepancy to deal with. Once more star players come over, you will see Team USA get back on track - not that they are completely off it. European sides will face similar obstacles moving forward. That is, the Europeans will no longer have the luxury of keeping their talent together for long periods.

In hockey, it would take three or four games before the thoroughbreds began to understand one another and adjust to international rules. I suspect the same rust had to be worked off with American basketball players. Notice, that almost every time team - and this can be applied to many sides in several tournaments - say they played their best games towards the end of a particular tournament.

These are not excuses but legitimate points. It should show alarmists that the issue is more structural than anything else. The points I bring up is not hinged on taking away from any victory made by Europeans.* That Greece nevertheless beat a team of NBA stars is a remarkable accomplishment. Though none of us should be overly surprised since Greece has a strong domestic league - as do Spain and Italy for that matter.

Team Canada began to reassert itself in the 1990s. It has been reinvigorated with a development program that helped to put an end of the Soviet hockey monopoly.** It did so, it must be stressed, playing Canadian style hockey. Team Canada plays to their strengths and Team USA is advised to do the same. I'm not saying that some U.S. players don't need some additional free-throw shooting practices but their game has a strong athletic element to it that should remain. Dictate and impose your style as Team Canada does.

Whenever Canada used to lose, the hysterical media would lament 'what is wrong with Canadian hockey?' and 'that we should learn from the Europeans!' All shortsighted nonsense. Of course, we should learn from different styles but it should never come at the expense of compromising the athletic DNA *** of our athletes.

I suspect it's the exact same thing with American basketball.

Notes:

*There can be little debate that Europeans have not only help to change hockey but enhance it. A point not lost on any true North American sports fan. The NHL is a better product and game because of the phenomenal contribution of European talent.

**The Soviets always sent their professional players to amateur tournaments whereas Canada was not allowed to do so by the IIHF. Canada often sent either senior amateur teams or pure amateur players. In periods where Canada dominated the results were in Canada's favour but as the game changed by the early 60s, it was not seen as fair. This was a sore spot for Canadian officials for decades. International hockey is finally on an even playing field. That is to say, it will never be perfect as we are dealing with different nations but hockey is much like soccer in this way - highly competitive. Albeit with far less countries.

*** Understanding your players limits and capabilities is a philosophical journey. Team Canada has reached that point. In soccer, Italy and Germany have always been there. Their coaching staffs know how to marriage their style with the personality and characters of their players better than anyone. By contrast, England has not figured this out. More often than not, their system has not been conducive to the English mindset as witnessed recently at the 2006 World Cup.

**** Just one of many positive comments he made about Quebec. Not that anyone bothers to point out. Ah, selective memory. What a tool! Anyway, he had become annoyed by the fact that Team Canada kept sending big, slow players on big international surfaces. Team Canada began to see results when they added more skill to the lineup and began to give a chance to small, speedy players. Maintaining the size advantage while mixing it with other factes of the game allows Team Canada to dictate the flow of a game - when things fall into place of course.