A response to What we learned in the NBA Finals

I regularly read, enjoy and appreciate Charley Rosen's articles on this website, but it is fairly obvious in this instance that he was trying to jump to the defense of Phil Jackson, his former colleague. When else have you know Rosen to dedicate an entire article to a postmortem of the Finals, and in such great detail?

Actually though, there are two major misconceptions about the Lakers and Celtics Finals that I have seen recurring amongst media types and fans, which I would like to address here.

Misconception 1 (Amongst Celtics Fans) - That Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant let the Lakers down.

I am by no means a Laker fan, and have absolutely no love for Kobe but give me a break. Phil and Kobe were both working with what they had - which, in this case, was some noticeably limited resources. Sure Kobe was never able to turn it on to the tune of 62 or 81 points as he has in the past, but do not underestimate the job that the Celtics defense did on him. Consider too that, had his teammates been able to step up when called upon, it would have opened up the game considerably for No. 24 as it would have forced the defense to be more honest.

And sure Phil seemed to be outcoached at times but this mostly because he lost. Had Kobe's teammates been able to keep the defense honest and the Lakers won, Phil would look like a genius right now. But let's not forget that, save Pau Gasol and Derek Fisher, this is essentially the same Lakers team that was eliminated by Phoenix 2 years straight in the first round of the playoffs. So all along I could never figure out - why are people expecting miracles from this team?

Misconception 2 (Amongst Laker Fans) - That Danny Ainge and the Celtics bought themselves a championship.

This particular misconception couldn't possibly be larger load of ####. PLEASE!

Danny Ainge simply did what any other GM in the league (except maybe the Spurs') would have done if given the chance - he saw an opportunity and went for the gusto. Here's an example - take Pau Gasol. Wasn't the Laker front office credited with having pulled off a major steal when they landed him from Memphis for next to nothing? If the Lakers had won the championship, would we be saying now that the Lakers bought themselves a championship?

And think back a little further...wasn't there a time when LA was reportedly one of KG's possible destinations when it became clear he wouldn't be staying in Minny? If Laker fans could go back to last summer, and there were rumours that they could land Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen for, say, Lamar Odom, would they not have wanted Kupchak to snap up that opportunity? Of course they would have.

Besides, even with 3 All-Stars, the 2007-2008 Celtics were not knowing for coming into arenas and blowing their opponents off the floor with superior scoring, flash and flair a la Phoenix. If you think about it Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen and the rest of the Boston team are not particularly flashy at all.

No, they did it this year with defense. All season long they got low and dirty and beat other teams by grinding out victories (with some especially impressive ones on the road). So, even with their, um, imported talent, they went out and worked hard for their championship day in day out like any other team. There simply is no easy way to win a championship. What's that you say? 82 regular season games, plus 26 more games in the playoffs? Doesn't sound that easy to me.

So forget it, naysayers. It is no mere irony that the Lakers mostly looked like a threat in this series when Boston took its foot off of the defensive gas, most notably in the 4th quarter of game 2 & quarters 1 & 2 game 4, and oops none of game 6 because that was the game Boston contested keenly from tip to buzzer. They may have the firepower, but the truth is that Boston's defense is what drives its offense, and what won them a championship.

Referees are, without a doubt, the most hated breed in all of sports . For they are reviled by all sports fans alike, at some moment or other, regardless of team affiliation

In my previous post, I alluded to the media's (ab)use of Zidane in seeking to create a negative portrayal of this year's World Cup. Of 105,728 supposed individuals responding to a question which asked "What will be the most lasting memory of the World Cup" on FoxSports' soccer website, 49% indicated that Zidane's headbutt was the memory which was most firmly entrenched in their collective subconscious; a distant but significant second marjority of 16% indicated that the poor officiating would be the aspect of the tournament which would last longest in their minds.

If we use this online poll as a yardstick, it gives rise to a fairly clear picture of the overall public perception of this tournament now that it has reached its end. But wait, this website is actually one of the very media channels that we speak of, which begs the question: Is it that members of the public form their opinions, then log on and visit these websites to vent their frustrations? Or, is it that members of the public visit these websites, form frustrated opinions and then vote?

Is it the chicken or the egg? If you are hearing all around you that the World Cup is disappointing, then you will tend to believe this. If you are hearing all around you that the officiating at the World Cup is abysmal, then you will tend to believe this too.

Sports fans' hatred for referees seems to have reached unprecedented level this year, and soccer is no different. It has always been all too easy to cast blame on the referees for unwanted outcomes of matches, but something I seldom hear acknowledged is the fact that we viewers (and commentators) are blessed with the enhanced visual gift of slow motion replays.

In game situations, referees are continually presented with split-second events which require split-second judgements - sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. On the other hand we, the viewers, get to watch these same split second events repeated frame-by-frame, often over the course of several minutes in forming our own not-so-split-second, and usually biased judgements.

And so, much was made this time around of the record number of yellow and red cards issued, never once taking into account that this was exactly what FIFA wanted after issuing tough talk of clamping down on certain types of play during the tournament. FIFA, in turn, only made the situation worse by seeking to divorce itself from proceedings, exercising its own version of the blame game by portraying the refs as an out of control train. This posture reached its peak when FIFA President Sepp Blatter stated that the referee of the Holland-Portugal 2nd round match ought to have shown himself a red card.

An arm slowly extends in a horizontal manner, finding its end in the form of an outstretched and accusing finger. Before this finger stands a referee; we're all human, but yet the onlooker seems irrevocably convinced that he/she could do a better job of officiating than the referee on-screen. What referees need is an organised, universal body which spans the world of sports; because if I was a referee at this moment in time, I would feel at my most disowned and isolated ever. And my response would be to let these naysayers run a few games of their own without my presence just to see how well they fare without my supposed bumbling.

 Today, the international media is indeed a force to be reckoned with. It reminds me of a story I once read which, ironically, was a humorous look at the king of France. It stated that back in the eighteenth century, the king of France was the most powerful of all the kings in Europe. This was not beacuse he possessed great wealth or military might, but because he simply had the power of persuasion, and the type of subjects that could be easily persuaded. So, if the king wanted to wage a war of invasion on another country but lacked the funds necessary to compensate an army of soldiers, he had but to convince his people that one franc was actually worth two (double its normal value), and proceed to build up his army.

And such is today's media. It holds the power to convince you, the listener, reader, or watcher that this was not a good World Cup; this was actually the worst World Cup ever, despite producing several debutants, an unexpected Final and eventual winner, and no major acts of hooliganism. According to the media, the tournament lacked goals and this should be of grave concern to us, the watchers, even though soccer is universally known to be a low scoring game.

First it was the teams' fault, for playing such defensively-oriented tactics. Then it was the referees' fault, for making such bad calls. Now, ever since Sunday when the Cup reached its finale, more than everything else it's Zidane's fault. Join us dear reader as we write article upon article to ponder what Materazzi could possibly have said to provoke Zidane in that manner; join us dear watcher, as we replay the infamous incident ad nauseum as if to see if we replay it enough times, he will actually manage to draw blood and help us to portray it to be even worse than it already is. The horror. The HORROR.

Please. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would know that it makes absolutely no difference what was said to Zidane on the pitch, the simple fact is that he reacted in the worst possible manner. One which is inexcusable according to the rules of soccer and civilised human behaviour.

The media has been having a field day with this particular incident, going as far as to bring in lip readers, all in an effort to convince us, the watchers, that this is the worst thing to ever happen to soccer and to sports. It does not matter that the World Cup was successful. It does not matter that a new champion has been crowned. All that matters is that the media is trying to build up its collective army of watchers (i.e. targets for advertising), by convincing us that one franc is actually worth two.

In sporting terms and with his actions in last Sunday's World Cup Final, Zinedine Zidane may have single handedly redefined the word 'goat'  to epic proportions. Indeed, the sheer magnitude of media buzz surrounding the fallout of those actions over the last two days would seem to suggest that Zidane is being depicted not only as a scapegoat for the Finals' result, but also for the standards of the entire tournament.

Personally, I have never understood how one person can be blamed for a loss. Unless we're talking tennis or golf, that is. To say that team sports are played by teams would appear to be redundant, yet individuals are blamed for teams' demises on a daily basis. Just ask the referees.

In the case of soccer, the game is played over the course of ninety minutes, or one hundred and twenty if we use Sunday's game as a point of departure. It would seem to be clear then that the final result of the game is the product of those hundred and twenty minutes and the collective team effort, rather than that of the split-second decision of an individual player.

Of course it can always be argued that many of these games 'turn' on events that often play out over the course of a few moments; the media likes to call these "turning points" or "the difference in the game". My counter argument is simply that if the losing team had taken care of business during the rest of the game, then that non-call, penalty or red card would be rendered superfluous.

But I digress; back to Zidane. His fate is a most interesting one, as he chose in this instance to have his 'turning point' not only during a World Cup Final, but also during the final game of his professional career. And so, he made the transition from entering the game with the chance to end his career on the highest possible note to being the biggest 'goat' in World Cup and soccer history.

The soccer annals are replete with famous players who have stumbled in big games - Roberto Baggio and David Beckham jump to mind here. But Zidane has outdone them all. Much of the media's debate has circled around what was said to him on the pitch and what may have caused him to react in this way, but the truth is that none of this really matters. Many people fail to realise that Zidane - as great as he is/was - had a history of behaving in that manner. Anyone who watches the game outside of the World Cup with any regularity would know this.

There has been talk of his teamates, there has been talk of the entire French nation and whether of not Zidane let them down. The most opportunistic critics have even pounced on Zidane in labelling him as the standard-bearer for a disappointing tournament.

But, truth be told, Zidane has done the greatest injustice to himself. For following a magnificent club and international career which saw him win everything that there was to be won, he shall now forever be remembered for his head  rather than his feet. Maybe it is indeed fortunate for him that his career is at an end, as he would have become the target of every possible defender capable of a simple insult.

Forget about pre-tournament predictions. Are we all finally ready to stop ignoring the rather large elephant in the room?

Nearly eighty years of World Cup soccer, with an average of three tournaments per decade - ok, seventy years, if you exclude the fallout of World War II. 70 years, seven overall winners...England, Germany, Italy, France, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

Anything that jumps out at you about that list? Europe, plus Brazil, Argentina, and Ururguay. The Uruguayans have not come remotely close to hoisting the Cup in the modern era, so that leaves us with Europe, plus Brazil and Argentina. The Argentinians, for their part, have not won the cup in the last generation and have largely disappointed since their Finals appearance versus Germany in 1990. So that whittles us down to Europe plus Brazil.

And it is largely Brazil's historical dominance of international soccer that has prevented the growing conspiracy theories from developing sooner. In recent times, Brazil has won the Cup in USA '94, lost in France '98, won again in Japan/South Korea2002 and has now been eliminated from Germany 2006 .  

The 2002 World Cup marked the first time that the internationally celebrated event had ever been staged outside of either Europe or the Americas. Back in 2001, South Africa came oh-so-close to being named hosts for this year's tournament, but had to settle for a seeming make-up prize of being granted the 2010 games after the rights to 2006 were *gasp* awarded to yet another European country: Germany.

For its part, France pulled off the most ironic of stunts by winning its single World Cup when they were hosts of the event in 1998. Fast-forward to 2002, when only two of the seminfinalists were former Cup winners, and the other two were South Korea and Turkey. Advance the clock yet again to 2006, and here we are: the who's who of the European Union.

Is it any great wonder that France has managed to mirror its 1998 performance thus far? It only shares a border with Germany, after all, and didn't part (or all) of France belong to Germany at some point in history? After a woeful showing where they did not manage to produce a single goal as defending champs in Japan/South Korea 2002, France is back at large claiming to have never been gone.

Japan and South Korea, and even the USA are fine examples of teams that, while managing to qualify consistently for the Cup from their respective zones, almost always fail to impress when pitted against Europe's finest. It will indeed be interesting to look forward to the more balanced playing field that will be presented in South Africa 2010, but to say that the results this year have made the status of the game painfully obvious would be a gross understatement.

So Brazil (and to a lesser extent Argentina) is all that the rest of the world has to show for itself since the inception of this supposedly international football tournament in 1930. Forget the countries that managed to make it for the first time under the most miraculous of circumstances. Forget the first-time second round and quarterfinal appearances. We, the Rest of the World, want change. We want results. We want hardware. And we want them now.

After all, these European countries settle for nothing less than a championship. Why should we? 

A response to Real Madrid targets Adriano, Gerrard:

Can someone please tell me what has changed at Real Madrid since Florentino Perez finally decided to take a hike? They're still targeting 'high-profile'-everything!!!!

I heard great cries from the new Club President of the end of the Galactico era, and bold talk of revamping the squad and holding each existing player accountable for his performance.

Then what does he do? He targets every high profile coach he can find on the continent to take over after the season. Now they're after Adriano, Gerrard and God knows who else. So maybe in 5 years we'll be celebrating with Real or we'll be looking back at another 5 years in the wilderness. This club has lost its way big time, not in terms of overall performance but in terms of the standards they have set for themselves and what they hope to achieve. At Real, they've got it, they've got it BAD!

 

 

A response to Kobe, Lakers ready to face Nash, Suns:

I keep hearing people ask "Which of the Suns is gonna keep up with Kobe?" "How're the Suns gonna cope with Kobe?"  How come no one's asking "How're the Lakers gonna cope with Steve Nash?"

Geez! Two MVP-caliber seasons and the guy still can't get any credit! People still continue to underestimate what the guy can do on the court, and the influence that he can have on a game. I became a believer definitively last season after watching the Suns-Mavericks closing game; the guy was a one-man dynamo!!!

I'm taking a different route from that of most commentators; rather than predicting that the Suns won't be able to stop Kobe, I predict that the Lakers will not have an answer for Steve Nash. Kobe's a game-changer, to be sure, but I think his influence on a game tends to come in (big) spurts, whereas Nash has an incredibly subtle influence on the flow of the entire game.

A response to CL: Giuly scores to give Barcelona 1-0 win:

WOTTA WIN BY BARCA!!!!

I was hoping that Milan's ageing backline would be the difference in this one, but who knew that one moment of brilliance from Ronni would turn the game? Who knew that the Milan defense would allow Ronni so much breathing space?

 A truly satisfying win from the perspective of a diehard Barcelona fan; I just wish, as with Chelsea, that they didn't take their foot off the pedal after the first goal. A second one would've finished Milan off for good. But they proved me wrong with Chelsea so here's hoping they'll be able to do it again. For sure, even if one goal does not put the tie beyond reach, a first-leg shutout at home may be enough to demoralize Milan into a poor performance on the road in a week's time.

 

A response to World Cup 2006 Draw:
I think I enjoy watching the Brazilian brand of the beautiful game as much as the next soccer fan, but the boys of the vaunted yellow jersies would seem to have an interesting road ahead of them at this year's World Cup.

The Brazilian boys are set to arrive in Germany at almost the complete opposite end of the spectrum than they did in Japan/South Korea in 2002. Indeed one of the many things that seemed to propel the Brazilians during that magical run to the 2002 championship was the humble position that they uncharacteristically occupied as not being among the favourites to take the prize that time around. This was a team that up until then still seemed to be searching for its true identity; it had 'struggled' through the qualifying rounds (by Brazilian standards) and it seemed to lack a true leader, as hardly any of its stars could have boasted of having career years. Ronaldo was still on the comeback trail from the injury that had plagued his career since the 1998 Final. Rivaldo was reaching the turning point in his career at Barcelona/AC Milan, from which his prominence would drop precipitously. And Ronaldinho was yet to rise to stardom and grow into the celebrated player that he is today.

They were underdogs. They were a long shot. They were not picked to win. And yet, they would not stop winning, from the group stages to the quarter final versus England. All of a sudden, everyone sat up and took note.

They had arrived. They were back. They snuck through the proverbial backdoor. To the extent that, by the time they reached the Final, they were odds-on favourite to steamroll Germany. And they did.

Fast-forward to 2006. My, what a different ball-game this seems to be. No such possibilities of being ascribed only an outside chance to win the 2006 instalment of the competition. Many pundits claim that you would be foolish to bet against the Samba boys this time around. Ronaldinho: European Player of the Year two years on the trot. Adriano: the centre-forward of the future. Ronaldo's swansong in international competition. Robinho. Kaka. The stars would seem to be perfectly aligned for Brazil to stroll through the tournament and claim top prize without any major resistance.

And yet, the spectre of complacency threatens to rear its ugly head. A Ronaldinho with nothing to prove but how fancy he can be with the ball. A Ronaldo having arguably his most forgettable season - outside of the injury years - to date. A walkover group for the first stage. Media celebration of the team at levels comparable with those of 1998, when the fooball wizards of Brazil were also coming off of a championship. All of the makings for overconfidence.

Will Brazil indeed pull it out and do it all over again this time? They certainly won't be able to rely on the adrenaline and raw emotion that arguably saw them through in 2002. And of course with success come the swollen egos that, according to the laws of football physics, can't occupy the same field at the same time. What will Brazil bring to World Cup 2006?

Entertaining football, if nothing else.