Reply With Quote
Gotta go with Jordans Bulls on that one! Either way it's a win/win for me.
Boston Celtics VS Chicago Bulls
(PF)Kevin Garnett (PF)Dennis Rodman
(SF)Paul Pierce (SF)Scottie Pippen
(SG)Ray Allen (SG)Michael Jordan
Is it the 08’ Celtics team can compare with the (KING) 96’ Chicago Bulls???
Both of them are quite similarly, but the deeper analysis can let us more clearly to see that what they are actually different.
Celtics really can grant the achievement like the three-part harmony of Jordan-Pippen-Rodman (three-part harmony of Garnett-Pierce-Allen)? Like us to do some analysis to explain this:
Fundamental player
Before the KG (Kevin Garnett) joins the Boston Celtics, it is actually lack of the star player to lead it to the champion. Therefore, Celtics buy the KG from Timberwood and get the Ray Allen from the Sonic. These two star players plus the leader of the Celtics-Pierce. It is actually combined out a super three-part harmony strategy which can compare with the three-part harmony of Jordan-Pippen-Rodman.
However, Jordan + Pippen + Rodman are brought up by the Chicago, so the annual salary of them quite low than the KG + Pierce +Allen.
KG + Pierce +Allen = USD $ 5600 million
Jordan + Pippen + Rodman = USD $ 2351 million
Three-part harmony
Base on the Boston Celtics’ fundamental player, we can realize that it is a powerful team. KG can controls the inside part (offensive/ defensive rebound and inside get points), Pierce be in charge of the make a breakthrough and get the chance for point or assist, Allen is only concentrate in his shooting job especially his 3-points shooting. Three of them can help each other to get the points and lead to champion. Without one of them, this harmony maybe be breakdown.
However, in the 96’ Chicago Bulls, Michael Jordan act as super star (basketball king) to lead the Bulls grab the champion. Pippen and Rodman act as the supporters to help Jordan in the compe ion. Therefore, they can do nothing if the Jordan is no around at the court. They do not have the leadership aura like the Michael Jordan.
Subs ute players
Subs ute player also act as an important role in the game. 06’ Chicago Bulls had a lot of great subs ute players such as (F)Toni Kukoc, (G)Steve Kerr, (C)Bill Wennington. All of them contribute a lot of points, assist and rebounds to the team.
However , the subs ute players of 08’ Boston Celtics must be regrow and move on to improve their power. Prove that Celtics can defeat all of the opponents and get the last champion. (G)Eddie House, (F)James Posey, (SG) Tony Allen – subs ute players.
07-08’ Boston Celtics performance
http://bp1.blogger.com/_yeFOLxkvU_8/...h/un led.bmp
95-96’ Chicago Bulls performance
http://bp0.blogger.com/_yeFOLxkvU_8/...un led+1.bmp
More information you can get from http://www.nbaliveblog.blogspot.com/, thz
Gotta go with Jordans Bulls on that one! Either way it's a win/win for me.
What language was this translated from?
Sry, my language seem poor, it is translate from chinese , can guide that where m i wrong?
More information you can get from http://www.nbaliveblog.blogspot.com/, thz
Last edited by Mrhaha; 04-25-2008 at 01:53 PM.
It's mostly word order differences and some strange locutions. It isn't difficult to understand, though.
The "is it" is superfluous.Is it the 08 Celtics team can compare with the (KING) 96 Chicago Bulls???
Can the '08 Celtics team compare with the '96 Chicago Bulls?"Both" and "similar" is redundant, yet insufficient; "can" is unnecessary with the participle; different could use a modifier to flow in spoken English.Both of them are quite similarly, but the deeper analysis can let us more clearly to see that what they are actually different.
They are similar in many ways, but a deeper analysis clearly indicates that there are important differences.The modal goes to the beginning of the sentence in a question. "Grant the achievement" is not a phrase that would be used; "grant" and "achieve" have very different meanings. "Three-part harmony" is a very grandiose metaphor, but that's not going to kill you. The parenthesis would be best replaced by a preposition.Celtics really can grant the achievement like the three-part harmony of Jordan-Pippen-Rodman (three-part harmony of Garnett-Pierce-Allen)?
Can the Celtics match the achievements of the Jordan-Pippen-Rodman trio with their own three-part harmony of Garnett, Pierce, and Allen?"Like" shouldn't be used here. "To do" isn't conjugated. "Explain" refers to a previously made statement, not a question.Like us to do some analysis to explain this:
Fundamental playerLet's do some analysis to answer that.
Very few people have a "the" in their names. Your tenses aren't in agreement. "Lack" needs to be verbed; "star player" needs its article removed; "champion" is a person, not a state of being. A team isn't usually referred to as "it", but that doesn't matter so much.Before the KG (Kevin Garnett) joins the Boston Celtics, it is actually lack of the star player to lead it to the champion.
[quote]Before KG (Kevin Garnett) joined the Boston Celtics, they lacked a star player who could lead them to the championship.
"Therefore" is one of those words non-native speakers rely too much on. KG's former team was the "Minnesota Timberwolves". Still no "thes". Sonics are plural. The second sentence is a fragment, lacking a verb.Therefore, Celtics buy the KG from Timberwood and get the Ray Allen from the Sonic. These two star players plus the leader of the Celtics-Pierce.
That's why they acquired KG from the Timberwolves, and Ray Allen from the Sonics, to play alongside their longtime leader, Paul Pierce.Tense. Was, not is. "Combined out" is not a valid phrase. Can should be replaced. From now on, I'm going to replace "three part harmony" with "Big Three", 'cause I wanna.It is actually combined out a super three-part harmony strategy which can compare with the three-part harmony of Jordan-Pippen-Rodman.
[quote]These trades resulted in the Celtics adopting a "Big Three" strategy, like that practiced by Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman in Chicago.
There are a couple of issues here. First, the sentence is ungrammatical; I don't know what you're trying to get across. But, I suspect it involves problems with inflation in player salaries between the two eras due to different collective bargaining agreements in force. And, in English we have the billion.However, Jordan + Pippen + Rodman are brought up by the Chicago, so the annual salary of them quite low than the KG + Pierce +Allen.
KG + Pierce +Allen = USD $ 5600 million
Jordan + Pippen + Rodman = USD $ 2351 million
Based on, not base on. In any case, you shouldn't be using "based on" in a clause with a noun instead of a gerund. "Can" is unnecessary. "They are", not "it is". The sentence should be inverted.Three-part harmony
Base on the Boston Celtics fundamental player, we can realize that it is a powerful team.
We realize that, because of the Celtics' fundamental player, they are a powerful team."Can control" is inexact; "The inside part" is inelegant. "Rebound" should be "rebounding", "get points" should be "scoring".KG can controls the inside part (offensive/ defensive rebound and inside get points),
KG can dominate the interior game (offensive and defensive rebounding and inside scoring)."He is", not "he be"; what does "make a breakthrough" mean? "only concentrates on" not "is only concentrate in"; "job" is superfluous; "point" not "points". Instead of repeating "shooting", many would use an idiom.Pierce be in charge of the make a breakthrough and get the chance for point or assist, Allen is only concentrate in his shooting job especially his 3-points shooting.
[quote]Pierce is the Celtics' playmaker, who can score or make assists. Allen concentrates only on his shooting, especially from beyond the arc.
Etc.
I'm tired and drunk, so don't take this too badly. I've been known to be wrong in these conditions. In any case, your language is understandable; it's really your analysis you need to work on. At this point it's nothing new or really profound.
wow~ thank you, i really felt embarrassed after saw your reply. SAD case , my engish....
Actually i am Asian, so hope can learn more from you especially in english , haha
More information you can get from http://www.nbaliveblog.blogspot.com/, thz
Last edited by Mrhaha; 04-25-2008 at 01:57 PM.
Which team had Michael Jordan again? Yeah, i'll go with that one. He managed to deny many a talented teams the elusive championship ring. The guy was just unstoppable and imposed his will on everybody, no matter who the you are.
??? sorry,atxroker? wad r u talking about? haha
...
Last edited by atxrocker; 04-25-2008 at 03:05 AM.
Jesus Christ, this year's Celtics haven't won anything yet, and they're already being compared to Jordan's bulls?
^Seriously this x 10000...this thread is about two years premature, and that would require two straight championships from the celtics, and then maybe if it looks like they are contending for a third ring then you can bring stupid like this up... but until then:
Jordan's Bulls>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Celtics
Duncan's Spurs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Celtics
These guys weren't good because they had 1 year of dominance, but because they sustained their dominance over an era.
+1^Seriously this x 10000...
Jordan's Bulls>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Celtics
Duncan's Spurs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Celtics
These guys weren't good because they had 1 year of dominance, but because they sustained their dominance over an era.
Championship Forum.
Sorry dude, but this is premature.
thz for u all reply and suggestion . i translate this paragraph from a chinese magazine, i apologised if the paragraph was lousy T_T
More information you can get from http://www.nbaliveblog.blogspot.com/, thz
Last edited by Mrhaha; 04-25-2008 at 01:59 PM.
Mrhaha, add a poll.
And the bulls in my opinion, we're the better team.
Maybe we should wait for this years version of the Celtics to actually win something before making such a thread.
ya, you r right , but this is a guess thread , dun take it so seriously, ok? haha
More information you can get from http://www.nbaliveblog.blogspot.com/, thz
Last edited by Mrhaha; 04-25-2008 at 02:00 PM.
i think the fine people in China should stick to making cheap disposable items for Wal Mart and stop analyzing basketball....Jordan's Bulls all the way.
lol , i am no staying china , but chinese still can post right?
More information you can get from http://www.nbaliveblog.blogspot.com/, thz
Last edited by Mrhaha; 04-25-2008 at 02:00 PM.
Lets get to s, with their CHING CHONG CHING, We can't understand you go back to your country! WHITE POWER!
== , no discrimination her please, i thought this forum is pure......
then stop posting with a translator, and making up jackass threads, it's really embarassing to read.
It's from Chapelle's Show. I guess they don't allow humor in communism.
lol, this forum does not accept translate paragraph? i just done a good deed for your all white man who does not know the chinese language. Translate a good paragraph for sharing only.
Don't worry about the trolls, they're just being morons because they lack the brainpower to be anything else. Welcome to the forums. =)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
