Kobe vs. Jordan - a tale of two flu games

Kobe Bryant has played a careerlong game of one-upmanship with the NBA's greatest. This is most pronounced with Michael Jordan, the player with whom he is most often compared. It's no secret that Kobe wants to be the greatest ever and that he's almost painfully aware that to be so considered, he has to surmount Jordan in achievement and legacy.

There is no end of comparison. Their careers cross over on many levels, from skills, to gifts, desire and even career achievement. Despite his stated protests, by so patently aiming to dethrone the NBA's all-time greatest, Kobe actively invites the Jordan comparison. And he can't ever hope to win. This futile struggle, perhaps more than any other, is the core of his narrative. He will never be as universally respected and admired as Jordan; his presence in the internet era (where naysayers proliferate) and the simple fact that he is so often compared to his motivation underlines that.

Bryant is certainly admirable: his desire to be the best and to work hard to achieve is laudable; his blatant pursuit of the title “Greatest Ever” even lays bare an honesty not normally associated with pro ballers, least of all the enigmatic Bryant and calculating Jordan. However, that honesty works against him: Jordan never felt the need to publicly state his ambition/case for being the best baller ever; it was unstated and dignified.

It is telling that Kobe has felt – and at times appears to service – that need.

Book review: Sacred Hoops, by Phil Jackson

Phil Jackson is one of the greatest and the most respected coaches in the modern era. Jackson is famous for being the man who moulded the Chicago Bulls from being almost solely reliant upon Michael Jordan, into a NBA championship force as a team (with a lot of help from Jordan as well). Following from this he was able to control the egos of Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal as he coached the Los Angeles Lakers to championships as well.

Cover Image Courtesy of bookdepository.co.uk

Jackson is also described as being not your a-typical personality of professional sports and someone a little 'left of centre'. Although this may be true one must recognise the following: 1) That in the egotistical world of professional sport it is hardly difficult to be considered different; and 2) having read this book I wonder how much of the perception of Jackson is objective and not down to his own self prophecy.

Sacred Hoops purports to be a description of the spiritual journey that Phil Jackson has gone on during his life and career in basketball and also the spiritual journey he sought to lead the unstoppable Chicago Bulls on as they won six championships in the 1990's. At best it is a philosophical reflection as rarely could it be said that Jackson describes his research or reflection as looking beyond his self for the divine.

In reality as I read through the book it felt more like a cobbled together series of quotes from Christianity, Buddhism, and Native American tribal culture that speak to the events in Jacksons career with the benefit of hindsight. This probably is not a 100% true statement, Jackson no doubt is widely read and has been for a great proportion of his life, but it appears too cute in places during this read that these single quotations from religious texts can speak wholly to the scenarios described by Jackson without reference to the greater contexts of the religious texts themselves. One could even go as far to say that it is disrespectful to practitioners of each of these religions that Jackson seemingly cherry picks bits and pieces that suit him and his story.

For those of us who grew up through the 1990's and loved Basketball and the Chicago Bulls for a period will get some satisfaction from reading back through the history of these great seasons where basketball glory rained heavily on the Windy City. Jackson does provide an honest insiders view of what he believed made the Chicago Bulls tick during this period and what helped them to be one of the most successful teams in history.

But it is not a great read. Particularly so if you reflect back (with greater hindsight) that if Jackson truly led this team (and its individuals) on a spiritual journey to betterment should they have obtained some more permanent value? Why is it then that most have seemed to continues living as ego-maniacs post their playing days?  One star.

By Ben Roberts

Dallas vs Miami - the NBA Finals rematch noone predicted (or wanted)

When Miami signed Chris Bosh and LeBron James in July last year, not only sports fans but the world sat up and took notice. The best player in the league changed teams of his own volition and took deserved heat (oww ... unintentional pun) for leaving his hometown club for beaches and booty. And rings.

When the Heat filled out their roster with a few role players - Mike Miller and Udonis Haslem - and a series of stiff big guys like Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Juwan Howard, Jamaal Magloire, Erick Dampier and Joel Anthony, they were the popular tip to make the NBA finals even though their squad wasn't originally built for this year. Their start was slow - what would you expect with three new major cogs? - but as the 2010-11 NBA regular season rounded to a close, the Heat had gathered speed to the point where they dominated East playoff opponents Philadelphia, Boston and Chicago.

Of Dallas, it seems only Jason Terry really believed the team was destined for the NBA finals. Their playoffs have been a symphony conducted by Dirk Nowitzki and with feature solos from Terry and mighty mite Jose Juan Barea. The squad, hard and veteran, have coped admirably with the loss of starting SF (and likely LeBron stopper) Caron "Tuff Juice" Butler. They ploughed through Portland, the Lakers and Oklahoma City on their way to the rematch.

Rematch, because the teams met in the 2006 Finals. Only four players remain from those squads - Nowitzki, Terry, Dwyane Wade and Haslem; but the hurt still encompasses the Mavericks organisation. Much of the backroom staff remains the same and it's an easy bet that Mark Cuban wants an NBA Championship so badly he can taste it. But it's not the popular rematch that league observers throught we were getting: before the playoffs started, most analysts predicted a Chicago/Los Angeles decider, harking back to the twentieth anniversary of their 1991 encounter, a series which launched "Michael Jordan ... oh ... spec-TACK-ular move", a rain of John Paxson threes and the last games in Magic's first Lakers stint.

Nobody wanted this finals match outside Florida and Texas because, quite simply, the Heat are the bad guys (see WWE Superstar Chris Bosh at 2:15 - so schlock it's funny) and Dallas, until the playoffs, were seen as the "same old" - a veteran squad with minimal personnel changes from an ultimately unsuccessful 2010 campaign. As rematches went, the ones people thought likely were Lakers/Bulls, Lakers/Celtics and perhaps even Bulls/Blazers. But not the Mavs and the Heat. That both clubs have managed to proceed to their current peak is testament that really, nothing beats experience - or all-timers playing out of their collective skins, as LeBron and Dirk have.

As much as the Heat are nigh-on unstoppable, the popular vote will swing to Dallas. For redemption (game six, 2006, the infamous game brought into question by disgraced referee Tim Donaghy), for popular star Nowitzki, who's dominated the Western Conference playoffs and cohort Jason Kidd who has toiled for seventeen years without a Championship. Finally, they'll be favoured just because they're not the Heat. The South Floridians became the league's arch-enemy so fast thanks to that gaudy opening ceremony and the kerfuffle surrounding "The Decision" that it would take another Kobe case to dethrone them. A ring would start the process, but only increase the target on their backs next year (if there is one).

Predictions: Going with the head rather than heart here - Dirk and JJ Barea dominate just enough offensively for designated Wade and LeBron stoppers to do the same (just enough) to get the Mavericks through in seven.

Thanks to Bill Simmons for spec-TACK-ular phrasing & Chicagonow.com for the photo.

NBA: Never Been Altered

Ben Roberts

I potentially risk the ire of Balanced Sports' editor-in-chief with the following reflection. Having been on paternity leave recently an old flame has been reignited. Probably it has been since the Chicago Bulls collected their first 1990s 'three-peat' when I last engaged with Basketball and watched the NBA consistently.

Not only have I been taken in by the current play-off series' but I also decided to borrow a couple of DVDs from my brother (who has maintained the fire for the hoops over many years) containing two of Michael Jordan's great performances: 1995 just out of retirement against the New York Knicks, scoring 50 plus points, followed by a flu-ridden Jordan in the 1997 NBA finals helping the Bulls to victory over the Jazz in Salt Lake City (see image).

The combination of the current play-offs with the trip into history led me to surmise that really the game of Basketball hasn't changed all that much, thus the title. Don't read into this negatively or positively, I certainly haven't made a judgement call, nor will I probably be able to back it up with expert opinion. But is it not surprising that someone can make such an observation 18 years since there last serious viewing of the game?

Watching a current match compared to these now 15 years old matches only three things stood out to me as clearly indicating a difference: The sepia toned film of the older matches, the fashions of players differed (though only slightly, spectators differed dramatically) and finally the logos of teams adorning the court. Noticeably none of this reflects the actual gameplay despite some rule changes having occurred.

While I may be mistaken, if it's true, what does this say about the game? Is the controlled environment – constant climate, consistent court, combined with the smaller number of competitors limiting the amount of variation. Minimal adjustment to rules over history? Again let me say that this is no means a negative, just an observation. Most other sports to watch bear little to no resemblance to past matches, certainly Australian football has changed markedly even since the mid 2000s and continues to change season by season and does not have the aforementioned characteristics.

Potentially this observation extends to other USA sporting pursuits where statistics play such an important part of analysis. Few sports with cultural centres outside the United States ever feel free to compare statistics half a century even a century apart, yet this is common place in Basketball and other US sports. Two sports that I have the longest history of following, Cricket and Australian Football, you cannot compare generations with great success given the changes in gameplay, but they do not exist in the heavily controlled environments that characterise Basketball and other USA centric games.

Many have been drawn once again to the NBA this year. I have heard more “water-cooler discussions” on it this year than I probably have in the last 10. How should this be viewed?

To look at it negatively; does this mean that despite my interest being pricked to continue watching this year's play-offs (and supporting the Bulls again), the fact that I cannot see any marked change potentially means that I'll tire of the sport like I did previously. Positively a generational consistency exists. If its true, you can genuinely ask the questions of whether Wilt Chamberlain could have cut it today, or Kobe Bryant in yesteryear; would the Celtics of the 1960s, Lakers of the 1980s and Bulls of the 1990s be successful at any point in history?

Image courtesy: argumentking.blogspot.com

The NBA doesn't deserve men like Jerry Sloan

Two basketball stories in two days! The Utah Jazz have accepted the resignation of head coach Jerry Sloan after twenty-three years at the helm of the Deseret franchise. After the team's leanest period in some time, matters came to a head last night as the Jazz's slip became a landslide against a strong Chicago team. Sloan was understandably incensed at star PG Deron Williams' ignoring his play calls to run his own set. Sloan, a proud, commanding but intense man who was a key member of the hard-nosed 1970s Bulls teams, kept the team locked indoors after the loss and met with Jazz VP Kevin O'Connor. It's thought this was to discuss his resignation just a week after signing a one-year contract extension. Apparently his team-over-player ethos had passed it's use-by date.

Yet another example of player power in today's NBA. A man who will be a free-agent in a year thought highly unlikely to re-sign with the NBA's most inappropriately named franchise, dismisses the instructions of his highly respected coach - a man whose combative nature wouldn't settle for such disobedience; a man for whom Williams has played for six years and would know his actions would provoke a reaction. Williams obviously had decided to tune out his boss in an act of civil disobedience of which Gandhi would be proud.

The autocratic Sloan, and his long-time assistant Phil Johnson probably realised their time had passed. When a player whose entire life is only two years longer than Sloan's Utah tenure - no matter how important a player - disregarded his instruction, there could be no way back from such punkdom. It was time leave, and fair enough too. As a player, sometimes the feel of the game comes easier to those involved on the floor, better than to those watching it; but to diss your coach like this? To the point of him walking away? A slur, and not one Sloan was prepared to live with. So he's taken his patterned, incredibly efficient offense and decided life was too short for players like Deron Williams.

An incredibly stable franchise for twenty-five years suddenly is thrown into flux. Karl Malone's replacement, Carlos Boozer, left this offseason. Sloan exits half-way through this season. Williams is likely gone next year even if he does like the new coach's methods. The man in charge of creating those new methods, Tyrone Corbin - remember him in the PC game Lakers vs. Celtics? - will either adapt Sloan's procedures or ramp up his own. Today is a fixed point, from here: the Jazz will go one of two ways - a normal, successful future or a parallel reality like in Back to the Future 2. With that one action, Sloan farewells the longest one-club tenure in professional basketball and 1000 NBA regular season wins being the only man to achieve that feat with one team.

He shouldn't coach another team. It would be too much like seeing Michael Jordan in a Wizards uniform. After three middling years coaching the Bulls soon after retiring as a player, Sloan has spent twenty-three years in what amounts to the middle of nowhere, leading teams with great, but never championship talent to the playoffs year-in, year-out. For the longest time Utah has been respected as a group of team-first guys led by Williams; taught and mentored by Sloan. But like all things, it was time to end.

After his wife of forty-one years died of cancer, Sloan has recently remarried and probably decided that spending the last third of his life was better spent enjoying his retirement and not fighting with petulant hip-hoppers a third of his age. At sixty-five years old, hopefully his coaching tenure has come to a close. The NBA doesn't deserve people like Jerry Sloan any more.