A question of logic amongst fans

Comming home today, I thought to myself why are certain players hated so badly. Iverson, Marbury, Coach Larry Brown etc. It made me think of the 2004 team USA team. Sure a bronze medal was disapointing for America, but alot of basketball fans seemed to take delight in "America getting their arse kicked", and used that as a reason to further criticise those players.

Now compare that to the sentiment to that of the 2006 team usa team that won bronze in the world championships. Alot of fans called it "positive progress"?

Can anyone even try to justify the difference standards here? Or is it just blind hate and ignorance?

Hate to say it, but the powers that be have alot to do with the way fans percieve players. Sort of like a marketing strategy even. 2004 usa basketball was hated hard, same results in 06, but for some reason not as bad? Because the league sent their new faces of the game out, cleancut, humble,and for the most part trouble free. The new image of the league, if you will. Lebron, Melo, D-wade all were present in 04 but none of them had the stature they carried this year as top players.(and on top of that LB didn't really play them much ) 04 on the other hand had Iverson(aka superthug) and Starbury. We already know AI is everything the league doesn't want to be represented by, why else would he do everything short of beg for a roster spot and get snubbed for guys like Bowen or Battier(no offense to these 2).

I don't know where things went wrong for Marbury, talented ball player who can score as well as he can dish the rock, hated like Bush. Is he hated for being so damn good or did I miss something?

Kobe is probably the most talented object of hate in the NBA today though. He's building his rep back up after the rape-bs. Bad press is a mother.....

Ask Carmelo who had his little issues last summer, had a great season and didn't make the all-star team.

Stars of the past didn't have their every move publicized, so they enjoyed more loveable careers. MJ might have rode around with blunts in his benz, but we never knew that, no one knew about Magic until the HIV thing, you know.

This team was supposedly selected perfectly and they selected the "right players". But the players that they choose cannot play international basketball. LeBron James is a terrible player overseas and doesnt relate to the game at all.

For the subject about the 2004 team, I think that people thought that they didn't prepare or pick the team good enough. In 2006, they carefully selected all the players. There was also a huge amount of media coverage on this years basketball classic compared to the 2004 olympics.

But thats still not explaining why people hated and criticised the results of the 2004 team, but praised the efforts of the 2006 team when they both finished 3rd.

would the magnitude of the event they were playing in make any difference?

I don't think so. The olympics is considered the mecca of international basketball competition, so you'd think fans would support the players even more in that regard.

Who praised the 2006 team? I think it's got more to do with the fact that people are realizing how good the rest of the world is, not how bad USA teams are.

The whole mood with most fans is "the peices are in place". That's praising the selection and the performance of the players.

I think most of the fans are really disappointed though. The media were the ones praising the USA team. All the people at my school and my friends all said that they were mad at how the USA didn't bring home the gold. I was pissed too.

I don't know where things went wrong for Marbury, talented ball player who can score as well as he can dish the rock, hated like Bush. Is he hated for being so damn good or did I miss something?

"I am the best PG in the world"

That effects you how exactly?

I dunno...reaction to both events were the same amongst my friends. They were disgusted by the lack of fundamental team skills on both our US teams.

The big difference this time around was that there were a lot of Pro Team USA bandwagoners when we were beating up on the non-powers like China and Bahamas (or whatever). But once the real competition began and it wasn't just a highlight reel fest...people's reactions seemed the same to me.

For the subject about the 2004 team, I think that people thought that they didn't prepare or pick the team good enough. In 2006, they carefully selected all the players. There was also a huge amount of media coverage on this years basketball classic compared to the 2004 olympics.

In addition to the above, I think the expectations was that they were supposed to win it all in 2004, but in 2006, despite expecting to win it all, there were no guarantees based on the previous elimination. Personally, I think, as Fenix said, is that North America is starting to realize that the world is catching up.

So its ignorance from the fans?

And the media itself.

How many times I have read things like, "If only Kobe was there" or "If Amare was playing healthy".

The "savior" sentiment is still there. No matter how good a player Kobe is Team USA can't win it all because of just 1 or 2 "savior" players.

Most of the media and the fans still don't realize that the rest of the world is catching up, as what have been mentioned before.

Exactly. Maybe it's because the media painted a picture that this was the year to right the wrongs of usa basketball, remember they called these guys the redeem team. Was really not much negative press this summer against them.

I think the major difference why I preferred watching this years team is because they made a greater effort in trying to play more organized, team-oriented basketball. I dont recall exaclty how it was in 2004 but just to throw out what first comes to mind thinking back, I think they were just out there running around trying to showboat (not respecting the quality other teams may present) and blow out their competition like the teams in the 90s. I watched a few of the games during the summer and while at times thy werent overly dominating, I was truly pleased to see they were at least willing to put in the extra effort and there werent as many 'what ifs' after they lost.

I don't know where things went wrong for Marbury, talented ball player who can score as well as he can dish the rock, hated like Bush. Is he hated for being so damn good or did I miss something?

All his teams do better after he goes away, he sometimes slacks off on defense and he is thought of as a locker room cancer, whether true or not.


"Stephon is the worst teammate I've ever had," Tim Thomas told Peter Vecsey an hour after the Suns had eliminated the Clippers, echoing the sentiments of Jayson Williams, Keith Van Horn, Kurt Thomas and several Suns and Knicks who wish to remain anonymous. (New York Post)

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/vi ... hp?t=74204
"There is a story often repeated around the Meadowlands that dates back to a night in 2000-01. It's about Stephon Marbury and his teammates leaving the court after getting trampled (a common event in those days), when they were suddenly met by the point guard's mom, the redoubtable Mabel. And Mom, in a very loud voice, had some advice for her son: "Don't worry, Stephon, it's not your fault," she said. "It's all these other lousy players."

Upon which a veteran Nets teammate observed, "Now you know why he is how he is."

USA 2004 had people like Carmelo whining in interviews after games about playing time and stuff. USA 2006 everyone had a better attitude and didn't complain about their roles.

Stephon Marbury was involved in the collision that broke Jayson Williams' (one of my favourite players ever) leg, thus ending his career. I've hated him ever since then.

And that story about his mother has never surprised me at all. He's never grown up from being a snotty-nosed brat. The only difference is that he's a millionaire now.

Lol, so people are blaming the reaction of the 2004 team on Stephons Mother?

Also, its hard to call anyone who had 6 or 7 siblings in the ghetto spoilt.

Maybe this was the wrong kind of question to ask on this forum.

Lol, so people are blaming the reaction of the 2004 team on Stephons Mother?

I don't think that was the suggestion, but it's one of those things that contributes to a negative image of Stephon Marbury which in turn likely contributes slightly to a difference in attitude towards the 2004 US team compared to the 2006 squad.

When you're talking about basketball fans taking delight in America's loss in 2004, you're talking about basketball fans from all over the world who are going to have their own national pride and be excited that for the first time in more than a decade the US basketball team looks beatable and that their country - in theory - has a chance to no longer just compete for second place. Having established that line of thinking, when you flash forward to 2006 Team USA isn't seen as this awesome force that must be toppled. Plus, their bronze medal performance in the world championships isn't as big a story since it's not unprecedented.

The way players are portrayed does have an impact of course since it's difficult to be sympathetic towards someone you don't like. Whether a dislike of someone or something is right or wrong is really a matter of opinion since at the end of the day we're all entitled to our own point of view. The dislike/hatred some fans have towards players like Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury may seem ignorant but both have said or done things that make them seem very brash and/or selfish, and brashness and selfishness usually rub people the wrong way. Obviously you need a lot of self confidence to succeed in anything in life, particularly professional sports, but there's a fine line between having total confidence in yourself and being boastful. And few people admire boasting.

In all fairness to AI and Starbury though, the media is great at making mountains out of molehills and portraying individuals a certain way. Ultimately we fans don't know the whole story so it may seem wrong to pass judgement based on snippets from news reports, columnists and "insiders" but at the same time not knowing the full story means we can't dismiss the idea there's at least an element of truth in what's been reported. We have to draw our own conclusions and stories like the one about Marbury's mother, former teammates criticising him and so on can't help but influence the way people see him.

Getting back to Team USA, as I said before dislike/hatred towards certain players on the team probably played a small part in the different way fans look at each loss but I believe it's more a case of the 2004 team being the first team made up of NBA players to lose in the Olympic tournament. I'd say it's a case of simply being disappointed by that fact to begin with, disappointment I believe would be there even if every member of the team was well-liked by most basketball fans. And again, the international reaction is going to be more positive because it bodes well for other nations who are hoping to see their team succeed in international competition.

Slightly off-topic, but if anyone has been following the European games against NBA teams, the European teams are very impressive. Most of the European team losses are single digits. Just recently, the LA Clippers got their asses handed to them by CSKA Moscow, losing 94-75.