Reply With Quote
i want to agree with him because i hate/fear the mavs. but it sounds a lot like the criticism on the Spurs every year they won the le.
Interesting read.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...9&sportCat=nba
i want to agree with him because i hate/fear the mavs. but it sounds a lot like the criticism on the Spurs every year they won the le.
Lame read. He just looks at the team at face-value.
Why should he look any deeper? The absolute worst thing about lakerfans during their run is that they insisted everyone else love their team as much as they did. spurfans have done it to an extent, mainly out of some weird small-market, backwater inferiority complex. mavfans are now showing all the signs.
I don't particularly care for his language: "no defining moment", "no signature move", "they have no style", etc. That kind of bull is stupid. "Moses was Moses and Doc was Doc"?? Who the ever expressed appreciation that way? Hey, I'll go next: Derrick McKey was Derrick McKey, Clem Johnson was Clem Johnson, Slick Watts was Slick Watts, and Matt Goukas was Matt Goukas. I can play the stupid tautology game all day long.
My guess is he said the Moses-Doc thing because he actually doesn't remember a thing about that championship but didn't want his credibility to take a hit for not mentioning the '83 Sixers. Well, why didn't he go with the "Kareem was Kareem and Oscar was Oscar" instead of leaving out the 66-16 Milwaukee Bucks of 1971? What, they don't earn a mention because they played in Wisconsin?
I actually hated the article, really.
The Mavs are playing for a championship, not for this guys love. So...who really cares?
This guy is a idiot if he needs any more than their record right now
While there are exceptions (and it seems to be an internet law that the exceptions are the noisiest), I think mavs fandom is more obsessed with 'respect' than 'love'. A legacy of 10 years of being the biggest doormat in pro sports followed by the Nellie years where we had fun, exciting teams that won lots of games but outside of Dallas (and often even in Dallas) were always tagged with a 'but' (but they can't win it all).
And in that respect I definitely don't have a problem with this article. So the Mavs are not his cup of tea--no big deal. The fact that the Pistons are his cup of tea tells me all I need to know about his tastes--and in saying that I mean no disrespect to the Pistons; both the Isaiah Thomas championship teams and the Larry Brown championship teams deserve a lot of respect; I just never enjoyed their style.
As for me, I like the current Mavs' somewhat amorphous iden y--'just win baby.'. Or to quote the team's slogan for the year, just 'Finish'. I love Dirk's almost stereotypically German efficiency and the way the rest of the team just does their ing job. Over and over and over again.
Go Mavs, Go?
It's not really a bad article, because it's not based off of stats, but rather this guy's opinion. You might disagree with him, but it's not like he's saying something truly outrageous. I pretty much agree with the whole thing--it's easy to respect the Mavs for how efficient and great they've been this year, but it's difficult (as a basketball fan) to like them. They just aren't likeable.
*yawn*
Frankly, I don't think that many in the broader sports media are actually watching the Mavericks. I don't say that to blast the Mavericks -- I say it more to recognize that the Mavs as Spurs circle might now be complete.
I heard a comment on Mike and Mike this morning that "the Mavericks play a fun style." That might have been true under Nellie, but now the Mavericks play the same "fun style" that the Spurs have played for years. For years that "fun style" has been described, invariably, as "boring" by the sports media. Unless there's been some monumental change of tack in that media, or unless the label was universally reserved only for the Spurs and was meant less to describe a style than it was to describe a demeanor, the same guys who've called the style boring now think it's "fun." That, or they think the Mavs are still some sort of AJ/Nellie hybrid that runs it out on the offensive end while knuckling down on the defensive end. While the Mavs can run (just as the Spurs have done throughout their stretch of excellence) they statistically play at just about the slowest pace in the league right now -- the Mavs only average 92 possessions per game, placing them 28th in the league (tied, of all things, wit the Spurs). Only the Pistons and Blazers play games with fewer possessions.
The Mavericks' style is a "fun style" if you enjoy great execution, excellent tactical decision-making, solid team defense, and things like that. As a Spurs fan, I happen to enjoy that kind of play and think there's no coincidence in the Mavericks' change of style corresponding with their dominating performances this season.
But I don't get those who've been bashing that precise style for years suddenly finding it to be "fun" -- particularly those who would describe the Mavericks' style as "fun" could do so while, in the same breath: (1) applauding the Suns' style of play; (2) hoping that either Cleveland or Miami will reach the Finals; and (3) expressing a hope that the Pistons not make the Finals. I don't think anyone could do that without being intellectually dishonest (not uncommon among the media) or without having spent any significant time watching the Mavericks.
I certainly applaud the Mavericks. They've proven me wrong. I've openly stated here that I didn't think they'd end up among the elite regular season teams of all-time. They seem destined now to do that. They might not be adored, but they have to be respected. My post isn't intended to be dismissive of the Mavericks. I hope its taken as more respectful than anything else -- after all, there's something wonderful about being boring and winning.
Pretty much the same thing everyone was saying about the Spurs pre-Ginobili/Parker.....even a little bit after
all i know is that winning is fun, doesnt matter how it happens
the article's tone didn't bother me, just one opinion and somewhat valid. there are parts that are silly though, like describing the three all-star pistons as the "scrap heap collective" and acting as if fans don't find anything exciting about certain mavericks. for me, while i love the quiet play of dirk, jho has started to acquire a brash side to him that i absolutely look forward to when they play, not afraid to punctuate a particularly good play or stick it to his opponents, vocally or physically. as for the suns, when they fail for the third time this year and fall to either the mavs or spurs, the hype will quiet down and people might start comparing them to those "freestyling, lyrical ball movers" who never got anything done in the early 2000s. the poster above is correct, sounds like the same disses the spurs used to get....that's one comparison i'm fine with considering how well that ball club has done.
oh yeah, maybe one of the reasons we're boring has to do with all the mediocrity that has seeped into many formerly *promising* teams. step up the ball play of the opposing team and mavs may show more energy, enthusiasm, fire, all that giddy crap.
Dallas is a methodical team with a foreign superstar in a flyover market. They are not going to be a glamour team, no matter how many games they win.
Can't compare this to the lack of "respect" the Spurs received during their le years. NBA style in 99, 03, and 05 was more of a plodding and slower-paced game. That was the first year the Suns started running and trying to change the pace up and they fell in 5 games in the West.
Secondly, Spurs have had some kind of flash with players like Horry and Ginobili creating (at a bare minimum) limited excitement during those years. I appreciate exactly what this guy is saying because I love watching basketball and I love watching the NBA but I don't feel like I'm going to "miss" something if I don't see a Mavs game.
He also implicitly concurs with one of my contentions throughout this year: Josh Howard was only involved in All-Star talk because he is the second best player on the best team in the league. I'm not doubting he's a good player and I think part of what makes him so good is that he flies under the radar (i.e. he has 20 points or 10 boards before you even realize it), but I don't think he would be a "great" player if he were on a different team. Role players win les, though, so that's not such a bad thing.
Not trying to be a hater, just agreeing with parts of this article because I was thinking the same thing the other day (Mavs' race for 70 is "boring"), while also thinking about how angry lots of Mavs fans got at all the attention the Suns received for their 17-game streak. That, and all of you know my feeling about the Mavs...
1. You certainly can compare this to the Spurs because you're full of if you think *horry* adds any kind of excitement to the team, unless it involves his teeth. He had one great basket for the Spurs and that's it. Ginobili is a very good player but the guy is not necessarily the embodiment of flashy, gimme a break. The reason they're being compared relates in part to the makeup of the team, not solely based on their style of play, which is also closer than you are *willing* to admit...probably a self-defense mechanism seeing as how the Spurs or the Mavs are going to beat your team like a drum in about a month and a half.
2. Of course you're not going to *miss* anything if you don't watch a Mavs game, you can probably predict that the outcome would be a win without watching the game. As for the Suns lately, who knows? They might pull out a win at the end but sometimes you can't tell, they seem to be losing some of that *drive* from earlier in the season...definitely worth watching!
2. As a Suns fan, you really need to stfu about Josh Howard and whether he deserves All-Star status. When your other two All-Stars can win a quality game without the the MVP then we'll talk.
3. Of course you think it's boring, it's not your little Suns who have not garnered the attention that the Spurs are now getting. Mavs will continue to roll and they don't need to *come up with a big one* in the waning secs of the game the way your Suns had to against the Bobcats the other night.
As for your disclaimer about "not trying to be a hater".....F-U-C-K Y-O-U, keep it real. BTW, I think the article is fine, you just chose to be selective about a few parts and tried to spin it into some b.s.
Last edited by ponky; 03-09-2007 at 07:52 PM.
This is the media's response every time the Lakers or Bulls don't win a le.
complete and total pwnership of you, Ron...
I heard the same comment this morning and had the same reaction. It reminded me that I don't usually get good NBA analysis from Mike and Mike. I think they probably just haven't actually been watching the games. It seems to me that the Mavs are actually getting surprisingly little media attention.
It was kind of amusing to read what was essentially a cut-and-paste opinion piece that is the same type of thing usually written about the Spurs. I think my brother mentioned one time that he went to grad school with that guy; I'll have to ask him, since this is the second recent piece of his I've found kind of pointless (the first being the overly dramatic "is Wade's career over" one--at least I think that was him).
The thing with this article that I hate is him basically calling the Mavs a boring team without an iden y.
Granted, I am by no means a Mavs fan but I refuse to believe this isn't one of the top 5 teams to watch in the NBA.
They can run and gun and slow it down.
If I wasn't such a Spurs homer I'd probably enjoy watching a 7 footer drain three's like there is no tommorow.
Granted, they don't alley oop every other basket like the suns, but the thing that most fans associate boring teams with is the lack of a perimeter game/ability to score.
Think about it, the Spurs back in '99 would slow the game down but ALSO go through several offensive lulls. That's what bored the casual fans and that's what also happened with Detroit. You'd have these teams that would often go 6 minutes without an FG and final scores of 77-69.
Dallas hardly has offensive lulls and are so incredibly efficient offensively that I don't know how you could find them boring. Maybe they don't have a trademark style of play but that is most certainly to their advantage.
The Spurs are the best defensive team (yet have several moments where they can't buy a bucket)
The Suns are the best offensive team (yet couldn't stop a wheelchair team from hitting 95 points)
The Mavs are the best/most even of both these teams.
So what I'm saying is I don't agree with the article at all.
I don't find Dirk a guy with "wooden jumpers", I see him as a guy who hits the most impossible shots I've ever seen.
Maybe its because he makes the game looks easy (like TD) that some people may find him boring, but if anything, I see Dallas as the ultimate NBA team as of right now
and yes, Josh Howard was very deserving of an all star and one of the most well rounded players in the league
enjoy the praise mavs fans I don't do it often!
*on a side note, while Ginobili may not be "flashy" by casual fans standards, I refuse to believe that he isn't a fun player to watch with his unorthodox style of play though I could be wrong since I am a Spurs fan after all
Mike and Mike get NBA analysis from Vitale. That tells you everything you need to know about how much that show sucks when it comes to basketball.
What is it about them that is unlikeable?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
