The 2007 NBA Finals is a joke. So far, the San Antonio Spurs are dominating the so-weak-it-hurts Cleveland Cavaliers. What’s supposed to be a thrilling match between two top teams in the association is turning into a ho-hum blowout. What went wrong?
Digital Journal — Even if you don’t like sports or basketball, the NBA Finals is usually a thrilling competition. High-flying athletes turn up their energy levels and bball IQ, and fans from the respective cities rush into stadiums to support the teams who made it to the Finals. But this year, the match-up between San Antonio and Cleveland is as exciting as watching celebrity poker. This isn’t the Finals I was prepared for.
With the Spurs leading 3-0 in the Finals, they’re practically assured another victory, their fourth in seven years. Basically, the Spurs are the most successful team in sports today, winning 15 division titles since 1978. Sorry New York Yankees and Detroit Red Wings…don’t mess with Texas.
What makes the Spurs so dominating? Two words — Tim Duncan. The all-star forward is a beast in the post and just beyond the key, threatening opponents with bank shots and quick spin moves to the bucket. He’s a solid defender, a player with incredibly sharp court vision and a consummate professional — he rarely lets his emotions negatively overflow onto the court.
As integral as Duncan has been to the Spurs, he’s also injected a low-key drudgery to the team’s style of play. The Spurs aren’t exciting to watch; if anything, they are a coach’s team, one where they set up their offense with precision and execute plays like clockwork. There’s little fastbreak action or alley-oop impulses. The Spurs prefer to work the offense through Duncan, or hand the ball to Tony Parker or Manu Ginobli, two speedy scorers.
On the other end of the spectrum in this year’s NBA Finals, you got the next Michael Jordan, the superstar to watch: LeBron James. King James might be only 23 but the all-star is already turning heads with precision passing and strong power moves to the hole. In the playoffs, he’s proved naysayers wrong by scoring big points at clutch moments, bringing his team to the Finals for the first time in the franchise’s 37-year history. Undoubtedly, James is fun to watch but not in the past three games.
By design, the Spurs have double-teamed James and forced him to make passes to his teammates. True, Daniel Gibson and Sasha Pavlovic have stepped up at key moments, but James is turning to caution when he should turn to aggression. The Spurs have slowed the Cavs’ offence, and taken the first three games in the Finals handily. James is scoring big numbers, but not the kind he’s used to — in the Finals, he’s shooting 37 per cent, while his team is shooting 40 per cent. That makes for some lame TV viewing, to say the least.
What this means is that the NBA Finals won’t be incredibly fun to watch, unless you live in Texas or enjoy watching gang-up defense. Sure, it’s intriguing to see the Cavs make their first post-season appearance in, oh I don’t know, forever. And yes, Tony Parker’s Finals presence means celeb watchers can catch the obligatory camera pans of Eva Langoria. But for the ardent basketball nut, this means the Finals could have a legacy of being less interesting than the playoff matches that preceded it. I enjoyed watching Pheonix play a lot more than I enjoy watching the Spurs play right now. Does that mean the Spurs are a less superior team? No, but they take less chances than the court visionary excellence of Steve Nash and company.
I’ll likely be watching the next Finals game with a chip on my shoulder. I’ll wonder what kind of Finals it would’ve been if the Nets had faced the Mavs, or the Raptors had squared off against the Suns. But it’s foolish to play what-if games; instead, it’s advisable to bide time until the next season rolls around, with the hope of watching the 2008 NBA Finals full of players and team that make basketball worth watching.
