OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Cavs in 7 imo
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official NBA Thread***
- Thread starter Mister Wright
- Start date
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
I picked Warriors in 5 before the series with the chance of a sweep. Today didn't change my mind but it's only one game, of course.
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Both teams are hateable IMO. People who hate on GS - Cavs did the same thing before. This year in nba sucks.
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
i like having dominant, great players and teams, that's what defines generations in sports and what makes sports worth watching for me...taking the nba example, that's how you push the limits of what is possible, how you redefine what's possible...not by having 30 average to good teams who fight out overtimew wins in mostly mediocre battles...a one-sided win with one team playing exceptional basketball is so much better (for me) than two average teams duking it out in a "competitive" setting...and one-sided doesn't always mean one team is bad...for example, the last time the spurs and the heat met in the final...the heat super team of 'bron, wade and bosh were destroyed in 5 games by some of the most fantastic basketball i have ever seen, from the spurs...i wouldn't trade that series for a grind-out average and "exciting" 7 gamer for anything...
Last edited:
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
right, the same argument applied to tennis too until just a couple of years back...the big 4 of federer, nadal, djokovic and murray were so much better than everyone else, why bother having a tennis season at all? we can just give nole the aussie open, rafa the french, wimbledon to federer and rotate between the 4 at the u.s open and be done with it, right?
the great west indian team of the 80s, the great aussie teams of the 90s and the early 2000s, why did we bother having test series after test series or the one day tournaments, just hand over the trophies to these great teams and be done with it, right? what was the point if one team had so many great batsmen, great bowlers and the best fielders?
apparently the fact that these great teams and players raise the bar/the playing standards/the quality for everyone, give the fans a new level of enjoyment and appreciation for what the game can offer is a bad thing in your eyes...
also these teams don't have all the best players...golden state has curry and durant as the truly great ones and cleveland has lebron and irving at the elite level...as an example the 3 mvp finalists are all terrific players and most likely future hall-of-famers, none of them play for either of these teams...
what makes golden state great is their cohesion, unselfishness and team-first attitude, especially of their stars...and what makes the cavs great is the fact that one of the greatest players and play makers in the history of the game leads their team...
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Tennis players are individuals. You can't split the individual. International teams are not a nation running sports league. Don't see why you are comparing these two with a league like NBA.
And you are kidding yourself if you think GS is just that great because of cohesion etc. Superstars makes a difference. Else why do they need KD at all.
And you are kidding yourself if you think GS is just that great because of cohesion etc. Superstars makes a difference. Else why do they need KD at all.
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
it is the same scenario whether it is an individual or a team...and i have seen the same reaction...
read my earlier post about why the team philosophy (if you think the golden state is just about offensive power (read talent, star power whatever you want to call it), i am not sure what you understand about the situation, they are an elite defensive team as well and that requires everyone including the stars to buy into their team philosophy) makes a difference...the success of the san antonio spurs over the past twenty years is another prime example...i don't see any point in repeating myself...the thunder had durant and westbrook at one time in addition to harden and ibaka as well as good role players but a very different approach to the game. they were certainly contenders for a few years but never played at this level or won, what do you think was the difference?
Last edited:
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
everything about golden state is anything but routine...when did i say it was? they are a great team, and if the core unit stays together for the next few years have a chance to be one of the all-time great franchises, i am talking about the essential qualities that make them great and sets them apart from other teams except maybe san antonio...of course the superstars make a difference but a bunch of stars in one team don't necessarily mean they always win it all...and i gave a couple of clear examples...i am not saying one-sided battles are always better than solid contests...but for me, excellence even at the "cost" of one-sided battles is what focuses my interest...
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's the usual pre draft tactics. There's basically zero chance he doesn't end up a Laker.