Reply With Quote
I'll attribute the loss of willingness in the latter periods of game one to fatigue. But game 2, there's no excuse for the poor performance of Spurs.
, the bench couldnt even score, and they rarely play. You cant attribute that to fatigue.
Do you think the outcome of the first two games would have been different?
I'll attribute the loss of willingness in the latter periods of game one to fatigue. But game 2, there's no excuse for the poor performance of Spurs.
, the bench couldnt even score, and they rarely play. You cant attribute that to fatigue.
Who gives a ?
I think so.
The result of the Game 1 might have been totally different.
But there is no excuse for the Game 2 loss.
If Ginobili's ankle is so bad the coaching staff was considering shutting him down, then its pretty clear that there is a major injury problem.
I hate it that the Spurs are unable to compete on an even playing field given Manu's current state (I'm not sure he is even 75% of his normal self).
Given the way the Spurs are built right now, there must be a healthy big three with the role players filling in. That is not even close to happening. Too many jump shots for Manu and TP.
In a word no. the score in game 2 might have been closer but in L.A. it was going to be 2 wins for the Lakers no matter what.
Lets see what the Spurs have got in game 3. They better bring the kitchen sink or it might be over in 4?
I just get the feeling that this every other day games will now catch up to them, especially after such a long hard fought series with NO. I still believe though!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
