The Special One

José Mourinho quit his position as manager of the Chelsea Football Club last week. Or Roman Abramovich fired him. The parting of ways was described as mutual but I tend to doubt that. Whether Abramovich actively sacked Mourinho or gradually created an unsuitable working environment, the owner meant to dismiss the manager. Irrespective of the reason why, I was fairly certain that “the Special One” was finished with the club after a listless 1-1 draw at home to Rosenborg in the Champions League.

From afar, it appears that Abramovich erred, becoming involved with Chelsea personnel and tactical decisions one time too many. Whilst the owner - or any president, general manager, or athletic director - is entitled to some degree of control over their club, the coach or manager is entitled to do their job and apply their expertise. Administrators build organizations, coaches build teams. Jerry Krause did not win six titles for the Chicago Bulls, a team comprised of Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and many others, coached by Phil Jackson, did.

Captain Jean-Luc Picard was a model of leadership, commanding an outstanding crew, yet whenever Starfleet indiscreetly interfered with the operations of the Enterpise, the result was much consternation, near insurrection, and abandonment of the Prime Directive. An owner who acquires a player who doesn’t fit the system and demands that he get burn might elicit similar emotion reactions within the manager.

Like the National Football League, the window for success in soccer is brief. Although Mourinho had won two Premiership titles at Chelsea and held a 4-1-3 record against rival Manchester United. However, he had fallen short on the grandest stage, the Champions League, and Abramovich had lost faith in him.

I don’t think that Chelsea’s window of opportunity had closed but changing managers will be disruptive. First of all, Mourinho’s replacement Avram Grant was practically hired in July. Since Grant took over, the team has already lost to United and F.A. Cup and Champions League chances could be further sabotaged if he does not stabilize the situation promptly.

Teams that succeed over the long-term usually feature stable leadership and a consistent philosophy. Alex Ferguson at United, Jerry Sloan and the Utah Jazz, Bill Cowher and the Pittsburgh Steelers are all examples of master coaches who have won, developed excellent players, and instilled a strong philosophy. Athletes who buy into these philosophies become intrinsically motivated; they aren’t fired up because of the intensity of a particular coach but because they believe in themselves, their teammates, and the team.

José Mourinho was a similar master coach, winning the Champions League Cup (the hardest trophy in the world to capture) at F.C. Porto and respected by both players and peers. He - and countless other coaches - should have been given the opportunity to succeed. When those higher up the organizational ladder think they know best, the team’s fortunes become collateral damage to the inherent conflct. Contrast the low-key, professional approach that Joe Torre applied with the New York Yankees in the late 1990s to the team today when George Steinbrenner pressures the front office to acquire (and latter dispose of) player after player.

Let coaches coach and let players play. Micro-management will chagrin those affected to no end.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Interesting film. Promoted to excess. Well shot and director although it could lose a half-hour in length. One of Brad Pitt’s best performances although the supporting cast did better. All things considered, certainly worth seeing in theatres.

Certainly, the wide-angle shots of the Midwest make this movie. Viewing this movie at home rather than at the theatre would detract significantly from the experience. I appreciated the time-lapse shots of the sky and the recurring motifs of wheat crops and reflections in glass. There was a feeling that significant events passing and recognition of the characters’ introspection.

The film provides intriguing anecdotal evidence of morals. Jesse James, despite his crimes, is portrayed as a sympathetic hero whereas Bob Ford is completely ostracized by the public for his - seemingly righteous - actions. One would think that the world would be glad to be rid of Jesse James and the danger he posed but his celebrity was not without a certain type of charisma that drew others towards him. Similar to pop culture today, I suppose, given how so many attain renown for marginal, self-destructive actions.

Some suggest that Brad Pitt deserves recognition for his performance as Jesse James. I disagree because Academy Awards and nominations are usually allocated to extremely strong performances. Nevertheless, Pitt puts tremendous effort into his acting, allowing the audience to see into Jesse James’ thoughts at times. The eyes were also part Casey Affleck’s exceptional performance. Bob Ford was a complicated character and Affleck shows how Ford went from an unknown fringe character early to the protagonist of the latter half of the film.

The length is a severe drawback, although it is a two-edged sword. The film definitely dragged during the final third. On the other hand, the deliberate pacing is required to showcase the development of the characters. While he may be an outlaw at the outset, there is a sense that Jesse James may be remorseful and seeking redemption as time passes.

Crashing the Borders

Harvey Araton, sports columnist at The New York Times argues a two-fold thesis in his latest basketball work, Crashing the Borders: How Basketball Won the World and Lost Its Soul at Home. On one hand, basketball has reached incredible heights of popularity world-wide, becoming second to soccer as international players take up the sport and professional leagues thrive across the glove. Meanwhile, basketball in the United States is deeply troubled.

Television ratings barely reach a third of the highs recorded by Michael Jordan in 1998 and less than a half of what “Magic” Johnson attained in 1980. Fundamental skills are lagging and poor performances abound in international competition. Most importantly, the game is wreaking social havoc across the country: taking advantage of poor communities, ignoring the education of student-athletes in order to promote the “Next One”, and casting aside skill development in favour of winning games.

As outlined by David Halberstam (and countless others), Michael Jordan was one in a million. Jordan ushered in a new age, pairing sport with media to sell products and earn unimaginable sums of money. Most people, including players, see only the riches. “Magic” Johnson has said repeatedly that what separated Jordan from his peers was his mastery of the fundamentals and intense competitive spirit, attributes lacked by many young American players. However, European teams practice six hours daily, a work ethic fuelled by the players’ desire that permits all team members - from guards to posts – to develop exceptional skills, especially shooting, ballhandling, and footwork.

In many ways, basketball is exemplifying trends that can be found throughout modern pop culture. Poor players are exploited and cast aside in a manner similar to what happened to Britney Spears at the 2007 M.T.V. Video Music Awards.

College isn’t for everyone and there are definite questions regarding whether student-athletes receive and education and learn critical life skills while playing collegiate basketball. Certainly, many don’t graduate. Araton quotes observers, like Spike Lee, who argue that the system is racist. To some degree, that is an easy answer which is also inflammatory. The system is definitely elitist, a description that I feel better explains a number of the book’s examples.

As summarized in Breaks of the Game and Playing of Keeps, a sense of entitlement has evolved among players who want the benefits of success without the requisite work. When the U.S. National Team falls short at the 2004 Olympics, excuses pervade the subsequent press conferences. Few take responsibility for their short-comings, blaming bad F.I.B.A. officiating instead of bad outside shooting.

This sentiment has fostered a lack of respect for the opponent, demonstrated by taunting behaviour at the 1994 World Championships or complete dismissal of George Karl’s scouting report of Argentina in 2002, arrogance that may have contributed to a very ignominious loss.

Araton hopes that the November 2004 brawl at the Palace of Aubrun Hills between the Indiana Pacers, Detroit Pistons, and fans is rock bottom, a nadir that inspires everyone begin improving themselves and the sport. There are a number of highlights in the Association today, showcasing the joys of the game and its ability to bring people together.

The Detroit Pistons - built by Joe Dumars as a true team of complementary players - defeating the Los Angeles Lakers in the 2004 Finals, team defense overcoming a collection of individual stars. The San Antonio Spurs paying tribute to Red Holzman by excelling at both ends of the court, adept at all manners of play. The Phoenix Suns, led by the enthusiasm and creativity of Steve Nash, winning with great skill and also having fun.

Just Win Baby

Struggling to keep up with all the latest cheating news and unsure about how my coaching philosophy places all of this in context, I used Al Davis’ motto as a title. From Tim Donaghy to HGH to the New England Patriots, I’m not sure whether the rules should be black and white or shades or grey. How does one define bending the rules to gain an advantage and how is this different from outright rule-breaking by a coach or athlete? Is sport more like professional wrestling - where Hulk Hogan must overcome not only the Iron Shiek but his blatant cheating as well - than a true competition?

There has been no shortage of scandals in recent months (dubbed Cheatwave ’07 by ESPN.com). In order of severity:

Tim Donaghy

Obviously, this is the most serious example of cheating. Referees influencing the outcome or nature of games and players betting against their own teams should not be tolerated. Even those who are tempted to bet for their own teams or gamble on other sports because it can give organized crime leverage over a coach, player, or official.

I’m mildly surprised that the basketball officiating scandal had been limited to Tim Donaghy, who was involved with two of the five most badly officiated games that I watched this year, including a game in the Phoenix-San Antonio season that could have determined the championship. It would make a lot of sense for Association referees to become caught up in gambling; weak calls could be blamed on an interest in the game’s outcome instead of lack of ability, poor position, favoritism towards stars, home court advantage, politics, and the innumerable other factors required to create such inconsistency.

Due to the severity of gambling and the consequences, including threats and violence, infractions should be swiftly and strictly punished.

Performance Enhancing Drugs

One on hand, I believe that professional sport is for entertainment only and athletes should be allowed to do whatever they need to put on the best show. On the other hand, I don’t want sport to get to the point where athletes must endanger their health in order to compete. At some levels, I think that society doesn’t care to have pervasive cheating so it’s necessary to define the murky area of performance enhancing supplements, like steroids and H.G.H..

The scale of the B.A.L.C.O. scandal proves that this is no easy task. As science uncovers more ill effects of controlled substances, it seems more obvious that they should be banned, perhaps at the behest of a health committee comprised of athletes and doctors. Any restrictions on substances should also be standard across all sports, not unique to particular sports and countries.

Espionage in F1 Racing

McLaren-Mercedes’ F1 team was fined one hundred million dollars for attempting to photocopy some of Ferrari’s designs. This malicious attempt to cheat was punished harshly, with good reason. It’s known that auto racing teams often tamper with opposing staff members, poaching pit crew members and engineers in order to gain knowledge about their competitors but this is worse because it laws and rules were consciously broken.

Scouting, noting tendencies, and analyzing signals are part of the subterfuge that occurs in all sports. But like attempts to injure a competitor, teams should not be able to actively sabotage each other or tamper with another organizer in a way that unjustly rewards the team with greater resources.

Using Technology to Cheat in the N.F.L.

It’s tremendously difficult to identify everyone who cheats throughout sport and often the exercise involves splitting hairs: is stealing signals in the N.F.L. different from stealing signs in baseball? I think that it becomes different when technology is involved. I don’t think one thing should lead to another so that game preparation becomes more Spy vs. Spy than us vs. them.

Conceivably, a home team with more staff on hand or a large-market team with more money to spend could make use of video technology unavailable to the visiting team. Coaches covering their faces to prevent lip-reading or scouts in the stands with binoculars is a throwback to yesterday; when excessive technology is employed, it changes the nature of the game.

Questions to Ask

How do gamesmanship and sportsmanship co-exist? Some cases of cheating are clearly over the line and should be banned because they comprise the integrity of sport. Other examples are less clear-cut and difficult to define. I’d set the rules based on protecting players’ health and preventing the home team from having an undue advantage but there would be a fair amount of anything goes, so to speak.

Professional sport owns an auspicious history of players and coaches doing whatever it takes to get an edge: altering the field of play to suit the home team (As Buck Showalter said: “One of the best relationships you need to have is with your home groundskeeper. Whether it’s length of grass or the texture of the dirt, there are a lot of things teams try to do to accentuate their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.”), telephoning the visiting players late at night in their hotel room, making the opposing locker rooms tremendously uncomfortable, and more.

Many fans look back on “old-time” cheating with nostalgia. I think there is a place for this, as it rewards those who use their head and think creatively. Accurate knowledge of the rulebook from cover to cover is part of a coach’s responsibilities. Referee interpretations of different cases is part of the rulebook so when a player recognizes when an official isn’t watching their area and understands the freedoms that they have during these times, they are still playing within the rules.

No to gambling, pressuring players to compromise their health, and intending to injure an opponent. Likewise, situations that provide the home team an advantage should be eliminated. But in the other situations, it’s so difficult to nitpick and allow one action while preventing something similar. Rules should be fair and even-handed, not subjective.

Fundamentally, sport is a vehicle for self-actualization. Athletes and coaches play the game in order to make the most of themselves. People must also follow a set of morals that satisfies their own needs, most of all. But if someone is performing and winning by compromising principles like fairness and respect for the opponent, are they truly reaching their potential?

“A gold medal is a wonderful thing. But if you’re not enough without one, you’ll never be enough with one.”
- Irv Blitzer

Practice Makes Perfect

Discussing a number of basketball topics at the corner of Yonge and Eglinton and in the Athletic Centre Fieldhouse led me to reflect about why coaches do certain things the way that they do.

For example, apparently the former coach at the University of Tennesse didn’t care for behind the back passes. Throw one on his watch and you were done for the rest of the practice. I disagree because although the behind the back passes are a low-percentage play on average, there are specific situations when it is the highest-percentage option.

If two defenders go to the ballhandler after a side screen and the screener rolls to the baseline, the best pass is one thrown behind the back. This bounce pass requires tremendous arm strength and precise technique. Players need to be taught how it should be executed and how it is not for everyone.

“There are three reasons we make mistakes: don’t know, don’t care, or not able (ignorance, apathy, ability).”
- Mike Davis

Coaches that avoid “flashy” plays are not teaching players necessary skills. Bob Cousy believed strongly in this point; he threw “fancy” passes on the fastbreak because he was skilled enough and knew it was the best play for that particular play. Furthermore, if players are forced to sit out after making a bounce pass in Knoxville, they are missing out on anything else taught during the remainder of the practice.

I think that it’s important to incorporate advanced skills into everyday practices. From a short-term perspective, these skills are a change of pace and break up the monotony of a long-season of practices. Considering the big picture: these teaching sessions allow players to better understand their limits and the strengths and weaknesses of their teammates. Even if it’s a fact as simple as “don’t throw this particular player a tough pass in transition” it’s information that players must know.

Teaching players to read on the court is easier said than done. Cousy’s thought process on the break included decisions like (i) where are my teammates? (ii) can I make this pass? (iii) can my teammate catch this pass? (iv) what pass leads to the best scoring chance?, all made and executed in less than a second. Repetition is required to build that type of quick recognition.

“Truth is knowing that your character is shaped by your everyday choices.”
- Vince Lombardi

Learning how to handle pressure is a critical skill for young basketball players. Relative to the high intensity level of intercollegiate competition, there is not much pressure in high school sport for the supremely talented prospect. Sometimes, it’s necessary to learn the hard way, by trial and error in practice.

I think that coaches must instruct players in this decision-making. It’s crisis management in a microcosm, the development of intrinsic motivation one step at a time, and self-actualization in the face of adversity. Coaches should use the game of basketball to build positive habits.

“We don’t receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a journey no one can take from us or for us.”
- Marcel Proust

Note: It’s true that some players are stubborn about their abilities and won’t listen despite repeated “lessons”. Others don’t realize that while the Association overflows with creativity and inspiration for everyone who follows the game, professional basketball is for entertainment purposes only and any skill should only be executed with due care in the proper context. Sometimes you have to put your foot down for the sake of the team. I dislike conflicts that get to this point and fundamentally believe that there is by and large a better way to get that message across.

The Breaks of the Game

During his career, David Halberstam wrote two books about the National Basketball Association: The Breaks of the Game and Playing for Keeps (concerning the break-up of the 1977 Portland Trail Blazers and the construction of the 1990s Chicago Bulls respectively). Halberstam’s two works - written roughly seventeen years apart - cover a dramatic shift in the game of basketball, a change from a marginal sport without a full television contract to the second most popular sport in the world.

The 1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers may have been the last true team (greater than the sum of its parts) to win the N.B.A. Championship. At the time, the Blazers were so popular in the Association’s smallest market that thousands of fans would pay to watch the team’s home games at a Portland cinema. For a period lasting a little longer than a full season, the Trail Blazers were one of the best teams of all-time.

Bill Walton, between foot injuries, was one of the most talented players in the league, leading the team with defence and sparking the offence with his rebounding and passing. Maurice Lucas and Lionel Hollins were two other great players who played their best for Coach Jack Ramsay. Other role players, like Dave Twardzik, Larry Steele, and Lloyd Neal complemented the stars perfectly.

In 1977-78, the defending Association champions possessed a 50-10 record; by the end of the decade, the team had been dismantled. The team lost its superstar to a stress fracture injury, rebounding and ball handling to contract disputes, and other vital cogs to retirement. A team once known for exceptional chemistry and court-vision became a group of players that played one-on-one offence.

The breaks of the game that destroyed the Portland Trail Blazers affected the entire league. There is something to be said about playing for the love of the game, which was the case when all four North American professional sports leagues were founded. Players maintained part-time jobs in the off-season and didn’t expect to make a living a basketball stars. As salaries increased, a divide emerged between the older generation of players who had experienced the Association’s modest beginnings first-hand and the younger players who felt entitled to six-figure contracts as rookies.

Now, professional sport is a business, to be enjoyed for entertainment purposes only. Decisions are influenced as much by putting the ball in the basket as dollars and cents. The Association grew tremendously in the sixties and seventies but still lacked a viable television contract. As the 1980s began, professional basketball was not the cash cow that it is today. Owners who operated teams at a loss, subsidized by their small businesses, were forced to sell to larger companies.

In time, the Association rebounded, David Stern replaced Larry O’Brien as commissioner and began expanding basketball’s presence in the media. Michael Jordan was drafted in 1984 and dovetailed nicely into Nike’s plan to push a new line of basketball shoes. A new sports cable network, ESPN, was launched and needed programming. Globally, the popularity of the game exploded.

Jordan’s Chicago Bulls won six Association titles but still faced some of the same obstacles that the Trail Blazers did. Halberstam chronicles how Jerry Krause put the team together only to destroy it in 1998 because of ego. The Bulls were a unique team because of Michael Jordan’s tremendous talent and competitive nature and Phil Jackson’s unique coaching philosophy that valued creativity and individuality, allowing Jordan’s gifts to flourish. Krause may have made a number of key signings but he is - rightly - not perceived as the Bulls’ architect.

Michael Jordan is a one of a kind talent who pulled basketball ratings out of the basement and set records for endorsements. He only got paid extremely high salaries during the last few years of his career. Other players expect his salary from the beginning of their rookie season, without the financial and professional accomplishments, and this has thrown the economics of the game out of whack.

One of Halberstam’s insightful themes is the number of players who have short-changed their career on the court, in order to make more money in contracts and endorsements. Jordan re-invented the game, but he deserved to. Fundamentally, Michael Jordan would not let money get in the way of winning.

Another interesting topic covered by both books is how the Association evolved from a close-knit group tied together by the love of the game to a series of adversarial relationships: players vs. media, agents vs. owners, coaches vs. players, fans vs. management, and more. One isn’t automatically worse than the other but if players resent others in the basketball family without understanding the context, they create a negative influence for no good reason.

The goal is to play and win. At a certain point, it’s necessary to make money and get paid and pay rent etc. but if there is not self-actualization or improvement, life and sport are ultimately unfulfilling.

Irrespective of exceptional talent, it’s imperative for teams to be led by a highly-skilled coach, like Dr. Jack Ramsay or Phil Jackson. Coaches help teams execute systems but the anecdotes in David Halberstam’s book cannot underscore enough how important coaches are to a team’s chemistry over the course of a long season. Ask Bill Walton or Michael Jordan.

Federer def. Roddick 7-6 (5), 7-6 (4), 6-2

Reminiscent of that Sampras-Agassi match in the 2001 - which was also regrettably scheduled for the quarter-finals due to a poor draw - Roger Federer ousted Andy Roddick from the U.S. Open in straight sets last night.

Like the classic match half a dozen years ago, the first two sets were played without any breaks of service. However, Roddick could not match Federer’s relentless play. At key times, it seemed that Roddick made poor judgments or tried for too much; Federer remained focused and played his (superb) game.

In the 2001 match, Pete Sampras prevailed because he possessed a more well-rounded game, which proved more consistent in the tie-breakers. Likewise, Roger Federer won because of his shot-making and determination. Not only is he the best tennis player in the world, he knows he limits, and plays within them.

Federer always gets the ball back and makes his adversary hit and extra shot. There is something to say about consistency throughout an entire game, race, or match and letting the opponent make mistakes. Federer was aggressive at times (during his service games, tie-breakers and break points, and when Roddick came to the net) but he was always in control.

Andre Agassi provided a number of salient points on commentary; it was certainly enjoyable to listen to insightful sport announcers (a rare occurrence).

1. One comment concerned Andy Roddick, who has yet to match the Grand Slam success that he achieved at the 2003 U.S. Open. During that time, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Marat Safin have won all of the Grand Slams. While it may be reasonable for Roddick to have a mental block against Federer, Agassi insisted that he should focus on leaving it all on the court. Playing a game with no regrets and losing wouldn’t contribute to his mental and physical struggles with the world’s top player but playing tentative and losing would.
2. “When you get around a weakness by avoiding it, it just adds to your struggles when you have to face it. The best thing to do is to tackle it head on.” - Andre Agassi
3. Agassi also suggested that Jimmy Connors’ biggest accomplishment since he began coaching Roddick last year was convincing Roddick that he had improve, irrespective of what actually happened.

P.S.: Why do athletes grimace or grunt while playing or lifting weights? It consumes energy which could possibly be a factor in longer matches. Does the psychological feeling of comfort and security enhance performance? In the end, the quiet player won last night.