2011 is the New 2006

It's almost midnight now, and in the words of David Foster Wallace, I'm trying to form a sort of "sensuous collage" of this NBA Finals experience. I'm not sure I'm able to process every aspect of it now, but I do know a few things. 

For instance, I know that this is more complex than just my favorite team making it to the Championship series, and then beating team x for their first NBA title. The attendant story lines are too numerous and complex.

I know that with Dirk now 32 years old, and playing uncommonly good basketball, this was perhaps his last chance at wiping away the 2006 Finals and finally being an NBA Champion.

I know that the Heat had more talent than the Mavericks, and that Dallas would have had to play ice cold basketball to win each of the four games required to clinch the series. (And actually, the real description of what the Mavs needed to do each game would be something closer to "hot ice." That's what they needed--to heat up the ice cubes. And they did.)

I know that Miami represents an evil empire of sorts. Less because of LeBron's decision, or their preseason pep rally, and more because they were evolving into an absolute juggernaut. Think New York Yankees of the mid to late 90s and early 2000s. It's difficult to imagine any team stopping them from winning three or four titles in the next five or six years. If Dallas couldn't succeed while the big 3 were still learning to play together their first season, it would have painted a bleak picture for all teams not from Miami.

I know that Dirk Nowitzki is my favorite basketball player ever. He played hurt, he played sick, he pushed through patches where his shot wasn't quite on, he rose above childish taunting from Wade and James, and absolutely owned the fourth quarter all series long. 

I know that I lost sleep in 2006. It was so devastating that I changed the way I rooted for my favorite sports teams. From that point on, I went into each postseason expecting teams to lose as a defense mechanism; winning in the playoffs only meant more opportunities to lose in the future, only with the circumstances even more heart wrenching. After being up 2-0 in '06, I was determined not to be fooled again.

I know that now, my outlook is much more optimistic. It's not always going to turn out badly. Sometimes, it turns out to be magical.

In a way, the Mavericks couldn't have asked for a better way for it all to play out--meeting the Heat again, Dwyane Wade again. Dropping the first game, stealing the second in historic fashion. Then, down 2 games to 1, they reel off three insta-classic victories to bury a more talented Heat team than their 2006 predecessor and vanquish the bad memories in the process.

Incredible. Unbelievable. And man, do I. Love. Sports.

Since You're Going to Do It Anyway, You Might As Well Know the Facts

I'm not sure what the obsession is with tennis fans and ranking the greatest of all time (oft times shortened to the unfortunate acronym "GOAT"), but in the wake of Roger Federer's loss to Rafael Nadal in the French Open Final on Sunday, there's no escaping the argument.  It's everywhere.  And the tide is shifting pro-Nadal. This is incomprehensible to me. (And in the first place, I think the debate itself is silly, designed to drum up conversation points and get people reading about tennis. To begin with, just try defining "greatest" exactly).

At this point, it's boiled down to two people: Federer 'cause he's been so dominant for so long, and Nadal since he always beats Federer. 

Now, you may be tempted to form your own opinions on this and engage in the debate. This is not advised. But if you're going to do it, here's what you need to know to make an informed decision. If my own bias spills through, forgive me.

--Rafael Nadal is 17-8 against Federer all time.

--Of these 25 matches 14 have been on clay. This is a lot of matches, and Nadal is 12-2 against Fed.

--On all other surfaces, Fed leads 6-5.

--They've met in six grand slam finals: 4 French Opens, 3 Wimbledons, and an Australian Open. Nadal has won all of these matches except for 2 Wimbledons (2007 & 2008)

--Rafa has won 10 grand slam singles titles total.

--Roger has won 16.

--Nadal has had one great year (2008) where he won two grand slam singles titles, (Plus the gold medal, but come on.), and one out of this world year (2010) where he won three.

--Roger has won three of the four grand slams in the same year on three separate occasions.

--Federer made 23 (twenty-three!) consecutive Grand Slam semifinals. That's six years worth of major semifinals. He's also made 28 consecutive GS quarters. Both are records, the former a record by a mile.

--Nadal's semi/quarter streaks are not findable with a Google search.

I think that's a good start. Now, since you asked, here's what I take away from the above stats. (Full disclosure: Roger Federer is completely responsible for making me interested in tennis in the first place. He's my favorite player of all time, and watching him play is, I think, as near to watching Michaelangelo's David come to life and hurl a rock at Goliath as we may see in all of sport.) First, Rafael Nadal plays a particular brand of tennis that matches up extremely well against Roger. On top of that, he's really good, and is mentally very tough, and in each of their 25 encounters played very well on big points, including/especially all of Roger's break point opportunities. Also, 14 of their matches were on clay, and this is Rafa's favorite surface, and it highly favors his game. Plus, Nadal is five years younger than Roger and is in the fortunate position of "padding his stats" against the Swiss while they meet up in the descent of Fed's career.

Second, Roger Federer is the most consistently dominant player in the history of tennis. He's also won the most grand slams of any player ever. If somehow you've defined "greatest ever" to mean winning the most slams, or performed the most consistently for the longest time, then fine. He's the greatest. From 2004 to 2007, he could beat everyone badly on any surface except clay. On clay, he could beat everyone badly except one person, Nadal. Conversely, during the same three year stretch Nadal couldn't come close enough to consistently face Roger on any other surface that would have favored Roger and swelled his rivalry win total.

Fed's three year stretch of dominance is unlike anything the sport has seen. And actually, Nadal seems to be in the GOAT discussion less because of his own accomplishments in general, and more because of his favorable match-up with the most consistently dominant player to ever play. Without Roger's brilliant, sustained play Nadal would probably just be in the "good as Agassi/Borg" discussion. (Each of Borg/Agassi/Nadal's accomplish are very comparable.)

I guess my bottom line is this: Let's say (borrowing a very useful scenario from ESPN's Bill Simmons) that Aliens challenge Earth to a tennis match, losing planet's subjugation on the line. (I know, it's very Space Jam). My first question would be what surface is the match on. If it's clay, I'd pick Rafa from 2010. If it's any other surface, I'd choose Roger from 2006 and then laugh all the way to whatever intergalactic bank was brokering the planetary bet.

Ra-Ra-Roger

Al-right! Everybody feeling good yet? Roger Federer puts an end to Novak Djokovic's scintillating run and takes everyone on a stroll down memory lane in the process--this was the magical Swiss Maestro of old, in a Herculean performance that was just enough to derail the most dominating start to a tennis season ever.

What a match! Thanks to NBCsports.com I was able to catch it on replay after spending most of the afternoon scooping the court-cast on ESPN. So how, exactly, did Roger do it?

Well, it seems to have been a combination of what Roger did, and also what he didn't. What he did not do: Roger did not try and plant himself on the baseline and hit through Djokovic. It can't be done. Not by anyone playing today. Roger Federer from 2006 could do it. But in 2011, no one has the firepower to trade bombs with the Djoker.

Rather, what Roger did do was mix up his pace and spins, move Djoker around, and patiently wait for opportunities to strike. He also (and this is big) minimized his unforced errors just enough to come through. Lately, Roger's "demise" (and I would put that in double quotes if a) it didn't look so weird and b) I thought anyone would understand what I was going for) has been characterized by his ugly play. His movement seems there, but the errors were getting uglier and more frequent by the tournament. Not this time. It was vintage Fed. And Djokovic tried repeatedly to pick on his backhand, to no avail. Lastly, he finished the match in four sets--key since the longer the match went the more you had to favor the younger and better rested Serb (Djokovic didn't play a QF match because Fabio F0gnini's withdrew with an injury).

Some thoughts on the hysteria surrounding the match:

It was a lot of fun to come home and see Twitter blasted with live match tweeting. Tennis fandom can sometimes be a lonely road, and when it takes center stage like this (and rightfully so with the level these two were playing at) it's a rare communal experience.

As someone who very nearly worships Roger Federer, it was particularly satisfying to see him in his element again. Here he was, if only for four hours, back to the magician that ruled the tennis world for so long. The movement was crisp, the forehand was eviscerating, and the backhand was dependable. His serve (which can be added to the list of things Fed did right today) was absolutely clinical and punishing--18 aces and who knows how many easy set-ups on top of that.

What was even more fulfilling was the way Fed carried himself during the match. I often theorize that Roger is so good he lacks mental toughness in tight matches. The list of evidence is long, and not worth getting into here, but this theory hinges on his superior talent being in some ways detrimental. This is because for most of his career he could just outclass everyone--in real knock down, drag out fights he tended to shrink, almost incredulous that his super powers weren't allowing him to just cruise on by.

But today? Fed provided us a rare mixture of his customary athletic poetry and street fighter instinct. Yelling during big points, loud "come-ons!" with every successful set point. It was a new Fed. One who didn't back down from a fight, but rather found his inner alpha dog and came out swinging. Djokovic has been compared, correctly, by a very good friend of mine, to the liquid-morphing, police-uniform-wearing terminator from T2: Judgment Day. He had been obliterating everyone in his path all year, on his way to winning everything. And Fed looked him in the eye before taking him apart.

He is the greatest tennis player to ever play. And it's fitting that he's the one to bring Djokovic's streak to a halt. It seems like only Roger, playing in this way, could have done it. I'm not sure anyone else has the skill set to beat someone playing as ruthlessly as Djokovic has been playing this season.

But most of all, for me, it was one more Federer moment. It has been painful to watch my favorite player start to descend the mountain top he owned for so long. The truth of it is, Djokovic is still the best player in the world. Probably the favorite for Wimbledon, and may only lose a couple more times this year. And sadly, I don't think Roger can win on Sunday either. Nadal has the blueprint for beating Roger, and their earlier meetings this year (they were bad) still demonstrate that. And I won't be shocked when he goes back to exiting from lesser tournaments in early rounds.

But, for one glorious moment, with the world watching, he ruled the court again with swagger. I saw him vaporize an ace down the T to win the match after dropping two match points. And I got to see him walk authoritatively to the net after that mammoth serve, smiling and wagging a knowing finger with the utmost perfect blend of confidence, satisfaction, and enjoyment.

So thanks Roger. And best of luck on Sunday.

Step One, Don't Say Anything

Since our TV in Provo was basically a glorified piece of garbage, Natalie and I left it behind when we moved to Houston. And in our short time in the 77021, we've done a lot and seen much. But buying said TV's replacement, we have not done.

This is why, for the first two games of the NBA finals, I've been huddled around our laptop listening to the live feed of ESPN radio's broadcast (Mike Tirico actually does a first rate job with the play-by-play). I have no words for what I heard last night. I have since seen the highlights. Still, no words.

That's why I'm not going to say anything about game 2, or any subsequent game, for the rest of the series. I was contemplating writing an extended piece about how Dirk is not Obi-Wan Kenobi following what I figured would be the Mavs' game 2 loss. I was planning on sharing all of the relevant comparisons that Ben Wagner and I had listed for this year's Finals, including Ben's latest comparing of Dirk to John Connor and LeBron to the Terminator. Let those analogies hence be outsourced to Ben, if the world is to ever hear them. For I will say nothing about this series until it is over. It means too much and my thoughts are too unprocessed.

Until that time, good night Mavericks fans. And good luck.

Doomsday; But if Doomsday Happened Twice and the Second Time Was Even More Sickening

Oh Man. Man oh man oh man. Sometimes I spend nights contemplating why I even follow sports. Actually, the more appropriate question is, "why do I have favorite teams?" Why would I go and become attached to certain team and certain players? Wouldn't it be easier to just be a Chuck Klosterman-esque sports agnostic?

It most definitely would be easier. But alas, against my better judgment, I have favorite teams. The Dallas Mavericks are one of them.

Some back story: The Anderson family move to the DFW Metroplex coincided with young, hotshot billionaire Mark Cuban's purchase of the Mavericks, as well as the arrival of Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash. Before long, the Mavericks were relevant again, and I was on board the revivalist train.

Fast forward to 2006. In one of the best four-week spans in my life, the Mavericks (my Mavericks) shake off big brother San Antonio (one of the most thrilling Playoff series ever, remember) and then thump the Suns to make the finals for the first time. With Dallas leading Miami 2 games to none, and enjoying a comfortable lead in game 3, Dwyane Wade suddenly--and with the help of the officiating crew--took control of the game, and landed an improbable come from behind victory for Miami. The Heat proceeded to blow out the Mavs in game 4, then eeked out two nail-biters in games 5 and 6 to win the NBA Championship.

I will not even attempt to conceal my bias regarding this series. Any of my friends who've been unfortunate enough to bring this topic up around me can/will attest (sorry, in advance, for rehashing it here). I firmly believe (conspiracy theory alert!) that the NBA wanted Miami to win that series, and ordered the refs to promote that outcome as much as possible. My reasons for thinking this are many. Here are just five: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. (And go ahead and add this illustrative video as reason number 6 while we're at it).

My rationale behind the NBA's motives revolve mainly around the Shaq-Kobe controversy, and Kobe's indiscretions in Eagle, Colorado. If you really want to hear the whole theory, let me know. I've got it on autopilot.

Obviously, I am a Dallas fan; so you're thinking "of course you believe this crackpot theory. It would justify your favorite team losing." And of course I can't dispute. But my point is this: As a Dallas fan, seeing the league take away the title from my favorite team was a terrible experience. One that Jazz fans have gone through at least once back in 1998. (I lived in the Chicago area for both three-peats, and while I was thrilled for MJ as an eleven year old, let's be honest with ourselves. There was no way the league was going to let Michael Jordan lose in '98). And only when it's your team on the wrong end of the referee gift giving do you truly understand how absurd it is. Look, if it was the refs jobbing the 76ers and giving a series to the Warriors, I don't think I would notice or even care. But it was my Mavericks, who had the better team, who should have won the NBA championship, but didn't, through no fault of their own.

And now, it's all set up again. Doomsday revisited. Same teams and everything. Only instead of the Mavs vs. Dwyane Wade, it's now the Mavs vs. Dwyane Wade and a LeBron James in full "eff you" mode. Plus the stakes are a little higher. Let me explain.

The Mavericks may be a surprise finalist this year to some, but maybe they shouldn't be. The West was unusually wide open this year, which is taking some time to get used to. My formative years were spent watching the heavyweight slug fests in the Western Conference between LA, Sacramento, San Antonio, Phoenix, Dallas, et. al. But between the Lakers' implosion (pick and choose whichever relevant explanation you would like, there are many), the Thunder being just a hair too unseasoned, and Dirk going Super Saiyan, the Mavericks were the obvious choice in a field desperate for a contender.

Any other season, and I would be thrilled with our chances. But the Heat look mean, and LeBron is unleashing holy hell on anyone who dared proffer that he was, as they say, "not clutch." And on top of the already formidable stress of my favorite team being in the finals, they (the Mavs) actually represent the last line of defense against the evil empire. Consider: The Heat embody everything we hate about pick up basketball. They're the best two, maybe three guys that team up and run the gym for two hours, winning every game and refusing to split up, thinking they're awesome the entire time.

"The Decision" was decried as a cop-out for LeBron, running to Wade's arms since he couldn't win on his own. Everybody swore up and down that three guys couldn't win a title by themselves, at least not right away. We may be kind of cooled off about it now, but this past summer, we were all pretty heated. Now the nightmare scenario--LeBron being rewarded for backing out of Cleveland and forming a super team--is just one seven game series away. And I think they're going to win. My guess is they overwhelm Dallas defense and run them into the ground. Tyson Chandler plays great interior D, but LeBron and Wade pose too many threats from all over the court for Dallas to counter.

Why did it have to happen this way? Why did LeBron have to go to Miami of all places? Why did they have to go to the finals in their first year? Why did Boston side step out of their way in the Eastern semis--a series Boston had a great chance of winning? Why couldn't Chicago's D keep beating up Miami inside like they did in game 1? And most of all why does Dallas (my Mavericks!) have to be humanity's last hope at avoiding LeBron celebrating his decision in South Beach?

So, if everything goes the way I suspect it will, I'll not only have to deal with the gut-punch feeling of another championship round loss for one of my favorite teams, but also the added knowledge that they couldn't stop LeBron from getting the first of those eight titles he promised all those bandwagon fans at Miami's "Welcome the Three Kings" pep rally.

Ugh. Isn't being a sports fan just great?

I'm Back, I'm Back; I'm Cool, I'm Cool

Well, "yes" to the first part of that title, and a strong "maybe" to the second (as long as you're asking my mom).

Thanks to the friendly technician from AT&T (our apartment has a contract with them--don't ask), Natalie and I are back online after an extended absence. The hiatus was due mostly to our move to Houston, which is very warm, and extremely muggy. I didn't even realize how long it'd been until I checked my last post--April 28! Good grief.

I am happy to report, though, that I'm officially back on my grizzly like a bear skin rug. Here's a quick list of upcoming posts:

-The Mavs' (kind of, but not really in retrospect) surprising run to the NBA finals.
-Their inevitable, will-most-definitely-be-heartbreaking-demise at the hands of the Miami Heat.
-Novak Djokovic's unbelievable streak/the French Open, both of which are ongoing
-The NFL lockout
-David Foster Wallace
-Survivor wrap-ups
-The baseball season thus far
-My idea of filing a class action lawsuit against American Idol for false advertisement (this one might actually have some legs)
-An observation about elevator buttons
-An ill-advised trip some friends and I took to Fuddruckers
-Anything else I can think of between now and then

Wish me luck.

The (Hopefully) Last of the Predictable Episodes

Oh, kay. This is why Survivor can sometimes drive me crazy (racist?). While marching to tribal council, Steve makes a very reasonable appeal to Natalie and Ashley. Basically, it goes like this: Rob is the strongest player in the game. Ralph and I are voting for him. As soon as we're gone, he's going to turn on you guys, and you're all going to be played. Vote with Ralphmeister and I, flip the game around, and head into the last ten days from a position of strength, instead of heading for the homestretch as Rob's puppets.

And do the girls even consider it? Of course not. 'CAUSE HARDLY ANYONE PLAYS THE GAME! No one takes any initiative. Which is why, I think, last season was pretty intriguing--Sash and Brenda going strong, til Holly made her move and flipped the tribe on Brenda. Then Jane going bonkers and calling out everyone. For heavens sakes, even Dan (Dan!) was scheming there for awhile, and during the entire episode you had characters like Marty making plays and shaking things up. Lots of initiative.

This season? Forget about it. Rob's calling the shots, and no one has any perspective. In the end, only one person wins--but for some reason Natalie and Ashley are under the impression that six people will win, and no one will have to do anything to save themselves once all the ex-Zap's are gone.

So the question remains: Who'll make a move? Given what we've seen so far, it seems like no one. Maybe Grant might, but he's actually in position to do really well if he just stays quiet. Same with Phillip. So Andrea, Ashley, Natalie, this one's on you. Is there going to be any intrigue this season? Let's all hope so.