about pele, a war was stopped for 2 days so people would watch him play
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Was there ever a greater athletic team assembled than the 1992 Dream Team?
- Thread starter CountAntonio
- Start date
Sorry to break it to you, but the phrase had been around for decades before.
lol, they didn't "underachieve" they beat the crap out of every team. That's not a woulda/coulda, they beat the snot out of every team. Unlike say the 2004 "Dream Team" that embarrassed themselves and lost.
There's no "extra points" in basketball for winning by 70 or 80 points versus 40 points or point for that matter.
Quite frankly it would be somewhat embarrassing if they beat some team like 150-20, they were in '92 as is already getting some heat from the media for being "ugly Americans" and playing "too hard" with Barkley getting physical with some hapless dudes from tier 3 basketball nations.
Laettner made the team and lets be honest for white America's marketing sake. He was a white star from Duke, but Shaq was far and away the best college player, its why he went no.1 in in the '92 draft and Laettner went no.3. Shaq was supposed to be on the team, Laettner was chosen for marketing reasons, not that in the context of the '92 Olympics it even mattered. They didn't need him.
In all honesty any two of the DT '92 stars + the US college all-star team (Webber, Grant Hill, etc.) would've won the gold medal too. It wasn't even a competitive tournament. Karl Malone + Clyde Drexler + a bunch of college stars probably wins the gold medal.
Last edited:
It isn't being salty it is being genuinely amused by another example of American insularism.
I hadn't even heard of over half of that "Dream Team" and I was eighteen at the time of those Olympics. Being ordered that thes epeople were somehow bigger and more culturally impactful than anyone is just amusing at best and a worrying example of how Americans see themselves at worst.
Yeah, they were a great team, apparently. But don't try and paint them as something they aren't to the rest of the world whilst simultaneously telling us what was cultural important in our own countries.
It always goes this way when "greatest ever sports <something>" is discussed. Like greatest "sportsman" is always a load of people saying Gretzky or naming the footballer de jour. When someone says "Bradman" and points out that numbers that show how ridiculously ahead of everyone else he was they get shouted down pretty much because people don't understand cricket and therefore, apparently, people who play it don't qualify as sportsmen.
In short, this is just people trying to defend their favourite sport and doing so in a way that makes them unable to see things in context.
He is. Why is that so hard to understand? It's been more than 20 years since he last played and we are still talking about him in 2019.
You do know his brand is one of the highest selling sneakers to this day?
He's also pretty big in arguably the second biggest world wide market
I don't know if there's a soccer equivalent because at the time (1992) virtually all the great basketball players were American, I mean could you have a soccer team with like Pele, Maradonna, etc. all on it. There's a generational divide there too, whereas 1992 was kind of a fortitutous overlap of the end of the Magic/Bird era and the beginning of the 90s Jordan domination/rise of other stars type thing.
So it's kind of a unique situation.
So it's kind of a unique situation.
By '92 I think Jordan's fame was well past just "basketball player" he was basically one of the most famous people on the planet, full stop and in that "global mega-celebrity" club occupied by Madonna, Michael Jackson, Princess Diana, Tom Cruise, and Arnold Schwarzenneger.
I think the 90s was the peak era of "mega-celebrity" because there was no internet and so there was little this huge splintering of media attention. There was whatever the TV told you, and Nike and McDonalds and Gatorade (Pepsi Co) etc. were pushing Jordan non-stop.
I think the 90s was the peak era of "mega-celebrity" because there was no internet and so there was little this huge splintering of media attention. There was whatever the TV told you, and Nike and McDonalds and Gatorade (Pepsi Co) etc. were pushing Jordan non-stop.
I'd say Jordan is one the same level as CR7. Both are known by literally everyone on the planet.
In terms of greatest teams, I believe that nos. 1 and 2 on this list would definitely rank up there for the amount and sheer length of time they were dominant.
Edit: A bit nore info on what these teams did:
Edit: A bit nore info on what these teams did:
Last edited:
Point is the dream team was essentially an all-star team from the only country on earth that actually gave a shit about basketball. It's hard to judge the dominant results of a competition that only one place actually put any work in.
Like, the US team almost always win gold regardless and it's never the actual modern day "dream team" because half the best players just don't go and the competition in other countries is just WAY better now than it was in 1992. So what does that say about the dream team winning games by 40 points. It'd be more like the Warriors playing in the G-league.
The Dream team was the greatest collection of NBA talent at the peak time of the NBA.
The peak time of the NBA in America and America alone. Which is the point. It's the best players in the world on the same national team when nobody else had players.
If you want to compare them to the best assembly of other possible dream teams (read: if some of the top players actually cared to go the olympics), it'd at least be much closer than it looks.
Because basketball is nowhere near as important as football, that's why. Everybody in the USA knows him and not all will know the Ronaldos... anywhere else (except some small countries that love basketball, like Lithuania), MJ won't be the most famous one.
I think the point is the 92 Dream Team is still probably the best overall team, even relative to the modern US All-Star team. Not that they beat Angola by 70 points or something (that was totally expected).
Basketball teams extend their point differentials vs their opponents to send a clear message; you cannot beat us. The 1992 Dream Team played distracted thanks to unnecessary NBA marketing and publicity and under-achieved like they have no message to send which is very far from the truth back then.
To further illustrate:
The 1956 US Olympic Basketball composed of AMATEURS and led only by 2 future HoFers(Bill Russell and KC Jones) beat their opponents by 53 points including 30(at the prelims) and 32(at the gold medal game) point blowouts against their biggest rivals in the tournament, the Soviets. This was in response to the Soviets relatively good showing in Euroball tournaments and the previous Olympics(point differential was around 20 with 1952 Team USA only winning by 18 and 11 vs the Soviets).
The 1992 Dream Team, a team composed of almost entirely of NBA pros and HoFers ONLY and i repeat only, beat their opponents by 43 points including 30(at the prelims) and 34(at the gold medal) blowouts vs Croatia. This was supposed to be revenge for Team USA's humiliating bronze performance in the 1988 Olympics in particular against the Soviet team that relegated them but lucky for the Dream Team, that powerful Soviet team fractured into the CIS(Volkov and Tikhonenko, 4th place) and Lithuania(Marciulionis and Sabonis, bronze) in 1992.
If we are going to do a "woulda, coulda,shoulda" scenario, its more realistic to say that the 1992 Dream Team would not appear as dominant as it is now as a fully assembled Soviet team, while most likely would not win, would cut down that 43 point differential into something more respectable.
I looked it up because I remember there was a controversy, and yup:
During the team's first Olympic game against Angola, Barkley elbowed Coimbra in the chest and was unapologetic after the game, claiming he was hit first. Barkley was called for an intentional foul on the play. Coimbra's resulting free throw was the only point scored by Angola during a 46–1 run by the US.[35] Although this incident had no bearing on the final result (a 116–48 USA win), at the time there was a concern about the image of America to the rest of the world. After the game, Jordan said, "There just wasn't any place for it. We were dominating the game. It created mixed feelings, it caused a mixed reaction about the U.S. There's already some negative feelings about us." Even though this was the only incident of the game, it changed the narrative; instead of the Americans being viewed as a highly skilled team beating an underdog, some viewed them as bullies.
People were not happy with Barkley basically playing the way he does in the NBA, they toned it down a bit because there was a brewing backlash against such a loaded team picking on squads that had no prayer of competing against them.
A 46-1 run though ... lol ... that's not a basketball game, that's a farce.
And also this:
The closest of the eight matches was Team USA's 117–85 victory over Croatia in the gold medal game. Croatia,[39]participating as an independent nation in the Olympics for the first time since its separation from the former Yugoslavia, briefly led the Dream Team by a score of 25–23 in the first half.[34] By the end of the game, Team USA had pulled away and Stockton agreed to a Croatian player's plea not to shoot.
I mean maybe you wanted to see them play full tilt and elbow players, and run the score up to win by 80, 90 points ... but that's not really in the spirit of what they went there to do.
If you seriously think the 1960s Olympic US teams wouldn't get their ass waxed by the 92 Dream Team, you are out of it man. They are dominant and would be dominant in any era, including today.
There was no Soviet Union around in '92 to get worked up by anyway, and even if there was they would lose by 60 points if the 92 team decided to play them at full intensity. That Croatian team was pretty damn good with several NBA players on it, including Toni Kukoc and Drazen Petrovic who are better than any Soviet era basketball player from the 50s/60s ... they still got wrecked by 30+.
Were your born after 1992? MJ is the most recognizable athlete period. Who cares that he plays basketball. MJ was above basketball.
If you say Jordan everyone knows who you're talking about. Not just Lithuania. Spain, Portugal, Italy, France (all countries I've lived in).
In China he was/is still a ridiculous superstar.
We will see if people talk about Messi or Ronaldo 20 years from now like they do jordan.
This has nothing to do with popularity of basketball.
Also basketball is a global sport lol it may not be the most played sport in a lot of countries but it certainly at worst is the second most played.
The other issue is neither Messi or Ronaldo are really thought of as the "GOAT" of soccer. They are the popular players of today, so by virtue of soccer as a sport being popular, they are of course very popular.
But they're not like transcendant megastars. Warner Bros. isn't gonna do a Hollywood movie called Soccer Jam or something starring Messi.
I also think Messi not bringing home a World Cup brings his legend/stature down considerably. Maradonna delivered it, Messi has not.
Please. Both the 1956 and 1960 AMATEUR US Basketball Olympic Teams took their foot out of the gas too and yet they still have comparable (42 for 1960) if not better (53 for 1956) point differentials with a star-studded 1992 Dream Team(43). And they were playing at a time when Olympic sportsmanship was emphasized and 'thuggish' behavior especially from blacks were frowned upon.
And LOL at people thinking that imaginary, cross-era matchups like 1960 vs 1992 Dream Team would answer the question on how dominant so and so team is.
The 1992 Dream Team 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' dominated their Olympic opponents on a far greater degree than the previous US AMATEUR Olympic basketball did - especially with their biggest rival disassembled in the 92 Olympics - but they didnt. They underachieved. They allowed themselves to be distracted by NBA publicity stunts like putting Laettner and a back-injured Bird on the lineup and curtailing their usual competitive behavior because it might be misconstrued as thuggish and bullying. That would hurt the NBA bottomline.
No there has never been a football team, that was guaranteed to destroy everybody like the 1992 Dream Team.
Even the best football teams in history (Beckenbauer's Germany, Pele's Brazil, Maldini's AC Milan, Ronaldo's Real Madrid, Pep's Barca) have suffered losses and/or won very close one score games.
Of course it's easier to assemble a "Dream Team" if there's only one professional competition worth a damn with one nationality being over, over represented in it (back then, at least).
Football could never assemble a Dream Team because
a) the pool of top players is much wider, i.e. for every position you could realistically name ten players that could be argued to be the absolute best
b) far more professional leagues that all have world top options for players to go to, i.e. you will never find ALL top players at a single club because of the high levels of competition between both clubs and leagues
c) because talent is much more spread out, you will never have a national team with ALL top players playing there, it's simply impossible. A kid from the Faroer Islands could be the world's greatest, who knows.
I'd have been more impressed if the Dream Team was a league team instead of national.
Football could never assemble a Dream Team because
a) the pool of top players is much wider, i.e. for every position you could realistically name ten players that could be argued to be the absolute best
b) far more professional leagues that all have world top options for players to go to, i.e. you will never find ALL top players at a single club because of the high levels of competition between both clubs and leagues
c) because talent is much more spread out, you will never have a national team with ALL top players playing there, it's simply impossible. A kid from the Faroer Islands could be the world's greatest, who knows.
I'd have been more impressed if the Dream Team was a league team instead of national.
What difference does it make if they win by 40 versus 65 points? lol. Like you win either way, you realize that right?
They weren't there to embarrass other teams, and the Soviet Union didn't even exist.
The only competetive team against them was the Croatia which had 4 or 5 NBA players on it, and that Croatia team was way better than any 50s/60s Russian squad (or any Russian squad period). Toni Kukoc, Drazen Petrovic, and Dino Radja were legit good NBA players.
The 1956 and 1960 Olympic US teams would get their asses absolutely handed to them in any kind of serious competetion against the 92 Olympic team.
You're not getting 15-16 ppg Michael Jordan, he's gonna drop 40 or 50 on your ass for starters if you want to make it a competitive game. You're gonna get Scottie Pippen hounding your best player all the up from inbound, you're getting dunked on repeatedly by their front court, you're gonna elbowed in the face repeatedly by Barkley and Malone. You're gonna have Magic running that fast break full tilt with more athletes around him than he ever had on that Showtime 80s Lakers team.
That 92 Team is athletic, mean, long, with ruthless competitors, you are kidding yourself if you think some janky 1950s Olympic squad of amateurs + Bill Russell is going to hang with them.
Also Bird may have had back problems by 92, but don't get that shit twisted, he averaged 20 ppg, 10 rpg, and 7 apg basically in 91-92 (his final season). That's still an elite player. Laettner over Shaq was the only gimmick.
Last edited:
Lmao Pele won when football was a joke, it's like putting an average 100m sprinter of today in 1950s he would win everything everywhere but he would always be an average sprinter.
By contrast Maradona did what he did when football was way more competitive. Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi living in the same exact era is also detrimental for their GOAT status, if any of the two wouldn't have existed the other would be remembered as such but probably Pele and Maradona will still remain the main duality in the years to come.
---
My answer for the thread would be either Real Madrid Galacticos or Brasil 2002, those teams were just silly.
Not much actually but for basketball pundits it makes a difference because now you could ask the following question: how come the 1992 Dream Team, a team composed of NBA pros and Hall-of-Famers was not able to match the domination displayed by the 1956 US Olympic basketball team composed of amateurs and only 2 Hall-of-Famers (43 point differential for the Dream Team vs 53 for 1956)?
Another amateur team, the 1960 US Olympic basketball team (with 4 Hall-of-Famers) almost have the same point-differential as the 1992 Dream Team(42).
Yeah and it just showed how much of a cake-walk the 1992 Olympic basketball competition was and how much the 1992 Dream Team left on the table. This would have been prime opportunity to really show the world what the cream of the crop of US basketball can do.
The toughest opponents they faced (Lithuania and Croatia) are the fragmented remains of the gold(Soviet) and silver(Yugoslavia) medalists from the 1988 Olympic Basketball tournament. Im sure Kukoc and Petrovic (both Croats) would love to have had Jure(Slovenia) and Zarko(Serb) on the team when they faced the Dream team in the tournament. They would still lose but probably not by 30+ points (and further down goes the Dream Teams's point differentials relative to its amateur US Olympic team peers).
Let me just repeat it again: LOL at people thinking that IMAGINARY, cross-era matchups like 1960 vs 1992 Dream Team would answer the question on how dominant so and so team is. What makes you think that im trying to answer a "who would win between the two(1956 or 1960 team vs the 1992 Dream Team)"? Im comparing their in-era dominance and the Olympic team stacked with pros and hall-of-famers seem to have under-achieved considering that their amateur counterparts was able to match and exceed their point differentials.
Dominating crap competition isn't some impressive feat. That's not why the 1992 Dream Team is revered. You understand that right? No one gives a shit what the score of their game versus Angola or even Croatia was.
There was not one single game they played that was competitive, which was what was expected.
The legacy of the 92 Dream Team is the talent of the roster, not some hum drum competition they would destroy versus some random international team in 1956 playing against the US Olympic team that had one whopping player taller than 6'8.
I have doubts there is any basketball team ever assembled period that could beat that '92 Team in any time period. That's the interesting thing about the team, not margin of victory.
If I beat my kid brother one on one 11-0, it doesn't mean that if Michael Jordan only beats his brother 11-2, that somehow my victory margin means anything, lol. I would get killed playing Michael Jordan 1 on 1, it just means I played even crappier competition. Whoopity doo.
Last edited:
As i mentioned before in this thread, in terms of star-power the 1992 Dream Team has no peer but in terms of domination displayed in the Olympic competition, their amateur counterparts (1956 and 1960) was able to match or exceed their point differentials(43 for the Dream Team, 53 for 1956, 42 for 1960). The 1992 Dream Team left a lot on the table. They underachieved in 1992 especially given its the perfect opportunity to just waste the competition as their toughest rivals, the gold(Soviet) and silver(Yugoslavia) medalists from 1988 were gone and fragmented(CIS and Lithuania for the Soviets; Croatia only for Yugoslavia).
Underachieving is the 2004 US Olympic team.
Winning every game you played in a blow out, but not running the score up to 60 or 70 points (as opposed to "only" winning by 40+ points) to fully humiliate your opponent is not any kind of relevant pro sports metric. A 43 point differential not being enough is laughable.
I've literally never heard anyone ever make this argument in 30 years of following basketball.
I would describe 2004 more as an embarrassment not an underachievement.
When i described the 1992 Dream Team's performance as an underachievement in this thread, i made it within the narrow context of the dominance displayed by its fellow US Olympic teams in particular the point differential comparisons between them(43) and amateur teams from 1956(53) and 1960(42) team, nothing else. Its logical and sensible to think that a US Olympic Team composed of pro-players and Hall-of-Famers would CASUALLY break the point-differential record set by the amateur teams especially on a wide-open 1992 Olympic Basketball Tournament but it did not happen. People expect the 1992 Dream Team to win and win absolutely BIG. Too many distractions prevented them from fully realizing their potential for domination hence the underachieving label.
I think you're literally the only person on the planet with this opinion, but ok, lol.
I don't know if you've ever played competitive basketball, but after you're up by 30 points it's kind of gravy one way or another.
Those games were a clown show too, you had opposing players asking Dream Team members for autographs and photos *during the actual game*, you have a Croatian player begging Stockton to stop shooting the ball, lol.
This isn't competitive basketball and it wouldn't look good on anyone (the NBA, the IOC, sponsors, etc.) to see Team USA bullying/running the score up to embarrassing heights for no good reason.
Everyone and their grandma knows the 92 Dream Team is miles better than the 56 or 60 Olympic teams, that's not even a contest/comparison that anyone cares about to begin with. In a realistic scenario I don't think the 56 or 60 teams even beat the 1984 Olympic US team that had Jordan, Ewing, Barkley, Mullin, and several other decent NBA pros-to-be on it.
The more relevant and interesting discussion is there any team ever assembled that in a serious context could match up to that team and beat them and I think the answer is probably no.
Last edited:
I'm not the only basketball fan/mediocre player who was expecting the 1992 Dream Team to break the point-differential record (53) set by the Bill Russell-lead 1956 Olympic team composed of amateurs. The fact that they did not was mildly disappointing. Just because very few knew about it back in 1992 or even now doesn't mean this piece of knowledge does not exist.
You know the 1956 US Olympic Basketball team composed of amateurs could have made the same rationalizations and eased-up on their dominance . . . . but they did not. You can't definitively pin a number on a team's ability or willingness to dominate the opposing team, anyway.
These marketing and publicity considerations are the main reason why i say the Dream team is distracted and underachieved. If the Dream Team's control of the game was absolute and they wanted to make their opponents look good, for me, they should've just pick-up the pace and allowed them to score 100 while they go for 150. At the very least everyone including the opposing star players could go home and be proud of their Olympic stats.
In an imaginary matchup, the 1992 Dream certainly beats the 1956 and 1960 US AMATEUR Olympic Basketball team. No shame in that. Within the context of what ive been arguing throughout this thread which is in terms of domination displayed in the Olympic competition they participated in, 1960 was able to match or in the case of 1956 exceed the point differentials by what you and most consider as the most stacked, talented Olympic Team ever assembled (43 for the Dream Team, 53 for 1956, 42 for 1960). And this is why within that narrow context, i could logically say that the 1992 Dream Team underachieved.
Temp_User if you got in a time machine and showed MJ and co. your arguments from this thread right before the Olympics and told them everyone in the future believed them, you don't think they'd go on to change their average point differential to something like 60-70? Negative PR be damned, they would.
They didn't run up the score because they didn't need or want to. There's no incentive or motivation. They needed and wanted to win and dominate, and that's what they did, not "win and dominate and also make sure you beat the crap out of opponents by more points than our previous top Olympic teams did", because you're probably the only person on the planet who considers doing the former but not the latter "underachieving" (especially with the point differential already so dramatically high). Breaking that record for point differential isn't something they cared about. But if you gave them a reason to (extra money, hurt their pride, etc) then they'd have no problem doing it.
Their primary goal the 1st time they played Croatia wasn't even winning, it was to completely and utterly embarrass Tony Kukoc, and shut him down. And that's what they did. They were that competitive and that ruthless. Don't confuse "not trying" to do something with "not being able to" do something.
They didn't run up the score because they didn't need or want to. There's no incentive or motivation. They needed and wanted to win and dominate, and that's what they did, not "win and dominate and also make sure you beat the crap out of opponents by more points than our previous top Olympic teams did", because you're probably the only person on the planet who considers doing the former but not the latter "underachieving" (especially with the point differential already so dramatically high). Breaking that record for point differential isn't something they cared about. But if you gave them a reason to (extra money, hurt their pride, etc) then they'd have no problem doing it.
Their primary goal the 1st time they played Croatia wasn't even winning, it was to completely and utterly embarrass Tony Kukoc, and shut him down. And that's what they did. They were that competitive and that ruthless. Don't confuse "not trying" to do something with "not being able to" do something.
So many things could happen with a hypothetical time-machine especially in a sports related argument. People have some really strong opinions that so-and-so would have to happen and that's why i always avoid them especially in sports that's why i judge them within their time and place and their peers.
What's stopping the 1992 Dream Team from going ape-shit and have an average margin of victory of 70 after hearing my arguments in this thread? NONE.
What's stopping the amateur 1956 US Olympic basketball team from going ape-shit and have an average margin of victory of 70 after hearing my arguments in this thread? NONE also.
What's stopping the amateur 1960 US Olympic basketball team from going ape-shit and have an average margin of victory of 70 after hearing my arguments in this thread? NONE again.
What's stopping the fully cybered and juiced-up 2056 US Olympic basketball team from going ape-shit and have an average margin of victory of 70 after hearing my arguments in this thread? Bugs Bunny who is playing for the newly reformed Soviet Union of Canada.
Hypotheticals are quite fun but the most part useless.
Your rationalization applies also to the 1956 (and 1960) US Basketball Olympic Team. In 1952, the point differential average by Team USA was just 20 points and the then point-differential record was 33 points from 1948 but the Bill Russell-lead 1956 team have the ability and willingness to dominate. They could've stopped their domination when they were at 20 or 30 or 40 but no, they go for 53. Not bad for a bunch of amateurs.
If you acknowledge that none of these teams were focused on or optimizing their play around point differential (and could've done better if they wanted to), then why are you so hung up on using that as a metric (and in your case, the only metric) for arguing that the amateur teams were more dominant? It doesn't make any sense to take some stat that none of them cared about and compare them against each other by it.
Your rationalization ("They didn't run up the score because they didn't need or want to. There's no incentive or motivation.") as to why the 1992 Dream team did not want to dominate the 1992 Olympic Basketball tournament and therefore coming-up short on the point differential record (only 43) applies also to the amateur 1956 US Basketball Olympic Team but apparently they did not give a sh1t about it. They wanted to dominate and they did not stop when their point-differential was 20 or 30 or 40 (like the Dream Team and 1960) but no, they have to go 53.
Hell your rationalization of having no incentive or motivation to dominate was pretty strange to begin with since you're applying it to a team with Jordan in it.
Last edited:
You know some people are too hooked to stats in sports when they start comparing teams by how many points they scored against different teams in different scenarios.
But yes, 1992 US basketball Dream Team is still the king, and I don't think it'll ever be toped (unless we start competing in some intergalatic championships with a team representing Earth or something). Too bad it was so overloaded that it never had any true competition back then, so it end up not looking as impressive as some other teams that dominated their respective sports.
But yes, 1992 US basketball Dream Team is still the king, and I don't think it'll ever be toped (unless we start competing in some intergalatic championships with a team representing Earth or something). Too bad it was so overloaded that it never had any true competition back then, so it end up not looking as impressive as some other teams that dominated their respective sports.
But they did dominate the 92 tournament. You're the only person clinging to this narrow definition that a team's dominance is reflected in a single stat: breaking the point differential record.
You didn't address anything from my previous post. Re-read it and try again.
It's funny in hindsight since he was a huge fucking bust in the nba compared to expectations.
All rookie team and 1 all star to his name. Ok bench player but should not even be allowed to sniff these other folks.
I can't believe someone is putting so much effort into arguing that the 1956 USA Olympic Basketball team is somehow on the same level as the 1992 Dream Team or that the Dream Team underachieved. It's just so stupid. What are you trying to gain with such a stupid argument?
Listen I love stupid basketball arguments as much as anybody. Could peak Bill Russell compete with peak David Robinson? Would 1947 Holy Cross Champion Bob Cousy hold his own with 1987 NBA Champion Dennis Johnson? Who knows, maybe, probably not, absolutely; it's a good dumb argument that you have while drinking beer.
But when you're talking about ... Charles Darling, Robert Jeangerard, and Dick Boushka, compared to ... Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, and Larry Bird ... c'mon now.
Listen I love stupid basketball arguments as much as anybody. Could peak Bill Russell compete with peak David Robinson? Would 1947 Holy Cross Champion Bob Cousy hold his own with 1987 NBA Champion Dennis Johnson? Who knows, maybe, probably not, absolutely; it's a good dumb argument that you have while drinking beer.
But when you're talking about ... Charles Darling, Robert Jeangerard, and Dick Boushka, compared to ... Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, and Larry Bird ... c'mon now.
Last edited:
But im NOT questioning if the Dream Team dominated the 1992 Olympic Basketball tournament because they certainly DID with their 43 point-differential. What i''m questioning is why they DID NOT DOMINATE ENOUGH to exceed the point-differential record (53) set by an AMATEUR TEAM , the 1956 US Olympic Basketball Team. Their point differential barely eclipsed the one set by another amateur team (42 by 1960 US Olympic Basketball Team).
The 1992 Olympic Basketball Tournament was the perfect opportunity to break the point-differential record and showcase Team USA Basketball's dominance for the following reasons:
- 1992 Dream Team is most likely the greatest assemblage of basketball talent in history.
- It is composed almost entirely of seasoned NBA professionals with Hall-of-fame careers some of their key stars like Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley on their prime. A lot of their opponents have a 'happy just to play with them' attitude towards their idols asking shit for photographs and autographs in the middle of the game.
- Team USA's biggest challengers are not on their competitive best to say the least.
- The Soviet and Yugoslavian basketball teams who won the gold and silver respectively in 1988 Olympic Basketball Tournament has split up. The Soviet team split into Lithuania(1992 bronze with Marciulionis, Sabonis etc.) and the Russian Unified Team(CIS)(1992 4th place, Volkov,Tikhonenko etc. ) while the Yugoslavian team split into its constituent states with Croatia(1992 silver, Kukoc, Petrovic etc.) retaining some semblance of its former self but still missing key players that were from places like Slovenia and Serbia and Montenegro.
- The 1992 Olympics is supposed to be the revenge tour for Team USA Basketball for being relegated to bronze in the 1998 Olympics.
- One of the main reason as to why the 1956 Olympic Basketball broke the previous point-differential record of 33 (from the 1948 Team) was to send a message to its rivals, particularly the Soviet who first entered the tournament in the previous 1952 Olympics. The Soviets challenged Team USA in that tournament and the latter only won by 11 points against them (20 point-differential for the entire 1952 Olympics). The 1956 team led by Bill Russell came and just flat-out dominated everyone even the Soviets with 30+ point winning margins twice and 53 point-differential for the entire tournament. One would expect that the 1992 Dream Team would be just as motivated if not more so than the 1956 team in sending a message about their dominance.
This feels like some serious goalpost shifting.
You're welcome to feel slightly disappointed. It sounds like that record is pretty important to you. Bummer that we missed probably the last best chance to break it, I guess?
