Kobe Bryant is a little more gifted athletically than Michael Jordan was.
Kobe is a much better pure shooter. Kobe has risen into Michael's rare air when it comes to making great late shots. Kobe is a little taller, and just as quick and strong. Kobe plays with as much nightly energy and passion as Michael did, even on defense.
You can argue that Kobe is a little better looking. Kobe definitely is a more polished speaker. Kobe can be almost as charming as Michael, when he feels like it.
So why won't Kobe Bean Bryant ever realize his dream of being the next Michael Jeffrey Jordan?
Because the same Kobe who is invincibly confident in his strengths is astonishingly unaware of his weaknesses.
Because the same Kobe who can be so worldly and bright can also be so sheltered and dumb.
More on Kobe
Page 2's Jason Whitlock has penned a letter to Kobe Bryant, advising him to shut his mouth.
Because Kobe is lost in his own private universe.
Kobe doesn't get it. Michael always did.
When I was writing columns for the Chicago Tribune, I studied Michael, and got to know him a little. Michael arrogantly strode through many of the same mines that are exploding around Kobe. Michael wasn't the best husband after hours. Michael punched out two nice-guy teammates during practice -- Steve Kerr and Will Perdue. Michael ran off a coach, Doug Collins, in part because of their soap-opera feud. Michael was often at war with an opposing player or the Chicago media.
Kobe can't keep his mouth shut -- and he's getting killed as a result.
Yet many of these potential bombs went unreported because Michael never lit the fuse by answering questions about them.
Amazingly, Michael did not step on one mine, while Kobe all but plays hop-scotch on them. No matter how many risks Jordan took, he maintained a superstar-next-door image that hypnotized male and female consumers of all ages. It's as if Kobe, who so desperately wants to be loved, is hell-bent on committing image suicide.
Michael played the media as street-smartly as he played basketball. No matter how many stories circulated among reporters about Michael's carousing, none hit print. That's because Jordan was far too shrewd to answer questions that were even slightly controversial. Bring up anything personal with Michael, and a reporter might feel as if he were about to get punched out. Michael can be truly dagger-staring intimidating. Kobe, with his new tattoos, can only act intimidating.
Some of the raw, real Michael first surfaced in Sam Smith's "The Jordan Rules." Yet Jordan refused to comment on the book, which CAME! and went. A woman claiming to be a former mistress of Michael's sold her story to the National Enquirer as Michael wound up his career in Washington. But he had no comment and the story did no damage.
Many NBA sources believe Jordan took many more risks than Kobe has. Yet not once was Jordan accused of rape. Michael, from the tough side of Wilmington, North Carolina, has razor-sharp survival instincts. Kobe is still pretty much a spoiled-rotten brat from upper-crust Lower Merion, PA.
Kobe would have made a great coach-firing rock star of a tennis player. Unfortunately, the game he chose requires four teammates.
Michael's marital problems briefly hit the papers, but Jordan defused them. His wife, Juanita, has always managed to avoid the cameras and the spotlight. Many Michael fans wouldn't know her name or her face.
Kobe's wife, Vanessa, has become almost as recognizable and controversial as her husband is. Michael married a virtual saint. You wonder about Kobe's choice.
So how would Michael have handled the mess in which Kobe found himself with the teammate he called a "big brother and mentor," Karl Malone? The same way Kobe tried -- and failed -- to defuse it. Vanessa claimed Malone made a pass at her in near-full view of courtside fans at a Lakers game. Kobe flew into a jealous rage -- just what Vanessa wanted? -- and called Malone to tell him that if he ever so much as looks at Vanessa again ...
We know this because we read all about it.
Kobe said the Malone camp, led by agent Dwight Manley, began leaking details of Vanessa's claim to the media. Kobe said several reporters asked him about it, on and off the record, and that he refused to comment. Wise idea. So why did the story explode onto the nation's water-cooler stage?
Because Los Angeles Times columnist T.J. Simers, one of the few reporters Kobe trusts, asked Kobe about the rumors. Kobe, who prides himself on being a stand-up guy, acknowledged them. Then Simers called Manley, who cut loose with the juicy details.
Image suicide. A kid who can be so stubbornly aloof and private spilled his dirty laundry all over America's floor. Astoundingly, the bridge had been burned between Kobe and Malone, the one respected player who had always had Kobe's back, on the court and during interviews.
Yet on Wednesday, it was as if Kobe woke up and saw something in the paper that made him think that, Gee, maybe some people are getting the wrong idea about me. I'd better go on TV and correct that!
He contacted ESPN and spent "Five Good Minutes" on "Pardon the Interruption" and the entire half-hour of "NBA Fastbreak." Michael never addressed the media unless he looked like a billion dollars in trend-setting suit-and-tie ensembles. Kobe wore a warmup top. Michael never would have subjected himself to potential controversial questions on live TV without being thoroughly coached by his advisors and completely prepared to respond with convincing, crowd-pleasing answers. Kobe, who thinks he's above coaching, made himself look even worse.
Why hasn't he called Shaquille O'Neal to apologize for telling Eagle, Colo. police that Shaq has paid hush money to women?
"I didn't have his number," Kobe said, lamely.
At least Kobe could have explained that, when the authorities interviewed him shortly after the alleged incident in Eagle, he was scared and not thinking straight and he blurted something that he never thought would be leaked to reporters. But no.
MJ dominated people because of his smarts -- something Kobe hasn't figured out.
No game plan. No clue.
How would Michael have handled a shot similar to the one Seattle's Ray Allen took at Kobe during the preseason? Allen questioned Kobe's leadership because Kobe, he said, was too selfish. Michael Jordan was the most selfish gunner in basketball history. But Michael was coachable. Michael learned from Phil Jackson -- the coach who finally gave up trying to coach Kobe -- that he needed to bring out the best in his teammates and the worst in his rivals.
Michael would have flown into a joyful rage over Allen's blast. If Michael didn't have a feud with a rival player or coach, he invented one. Michael needed a reason -- real or imagined -- to teach his most dangerous rivals a lesson.
Yet Michael taught his on the scoreboard. Kobe gets even in the box score.
Tuesday night's game in Seattle was the be-careful-what-you-wish-for essence of the Kobe who wants to prove He Alone can win without Phil and Shaq. Kobe got even with Allen by turning into precisely the player Allen said he would be -- a self-absorbed superstar who considers teammates necessary evils at best. Kobe's sole goal was to outscore Allen, which he accomplished, 35 points to 26.
But Allen's teammate, Rashard Lewis, scored 37. Kobe's teammate, Lamar Odom, scored eight. Seattle won 108-93.
Michael's sole goal would have been to humiliate Allen's team in front of its fans. Before the game, Michael would have put the fear of, well, Jordan, in his teammates. Michael's teammates feared him more than they loved him. They were afraid not to make the open shots he created for them.
Michael made a psychological study of how to turn Scottie Pippen into a trustworthy sidekick. Michael broke him down and built him up and learned how to play to Pippen's strengths. If Michael were in Kobe's shoes, he would be turning the wondrously skilled, 6-foot-11 Odom into a secondary star.
At Seattle, Michael would have made sure Odom was far more than a spectator. Kobe needs Odom. But don't try to tell him that.
The Lakers, he said on ESPN, are now "a brotherhood."
For 13 brilliant seasons Michael Jordan danced the dance of greatness across hardwood floors of basketball arenas from New York to Los Angeles to Barcelona and Paris. With a warrior's heart and an artist's grace, Jordan long ago transcended the sport to become one of the 20th century's global icons.
The face of the best.
On the court, his almost mythic flair for the spectacular prompted former Los Angeles Laker superstar Magic Johnson to say simply, "There's Michael, then there's all the rest of us."
Off the court, Jordan's ability to alter markets and drive the business of his marketing partners is unprecedented.
Through it all, Jordan showed the world that greatness, true greatness, comes from the inside out. He remains perhaps the greatest practice player in the history of sports, his desire to improve upon his own example legendary. When critics questioned his all-around ability, he became the game's most dominant defensive player at his position. When teams decided to close down the lane and eliminate drives to the basket, he became a deadly jump shooter. Larry Bird and Magic Johnson had the most successfully teams of the 1980s but never won more than two consecutive championships. The Bulls won three straight--twice.
In For the Love of the Game, Jordan takes us through the wonder of his career on the court and away from the game. From the dream that preceded the game-winning shot against Georgetown in the 1982 NCAA Finals to the methodical dissection of the Utah Jazz prior to his game-winning shot in Game 6 of the 1998 Finals, Jordan pulls back the curtain on one of the most remarkable lives this century.
In the following excerpt, Jordan talks of living in the moment, life after basketball and the evolution of the game's next great players.
Excerpt from FOR THE LOVE OF THE GAME: MY STORY by Michael Jordan
"People don't believe I don't know what's going to happen next week, next month, or next year. But I truly live in the moment. That's what retirement means."
Tomorrow I don't know what I'm going to do. I think about today. People don't believe I don't know what's going to happen next week, next month, or next year. But I truly live in the moment. That's what retirement means. You can design and choose your moment. I can design shoes one day and ski the next. I have created the opportunity to have a choice. That is how I am going to live. I am not going to determine what the moment is going to be a week from now. I've never done that and I don't like living that way. I would feel too confined. To me, retirement is having no restraints. I won't be retired fully until I don't have to do anything. One day I won't have to do commercials, or talk to a board, or help in the design of shoes. I will be able to wake up when I wake up. As long as I live in the moment I don't believe I will ever get bored. I am not going to mind being out of the spotlight.
There is no such thing as a perfect basketball player, and I don't believe there is only one greatest player either. Everyone plays in different eras. I built my talents on the shoulders of someone else's talent. I believe greatness is an evolutionary process that changes and evolves era to era. Without Julius Erving, David Thompson, Walter Davis, and Elgin Baylor there would never have been a Michael Jordan. I evolved from them.
If I had been born on an island, learned the game all by myself, and developed into the player I became without ever seeing another example, then yes, maybe I would accept being called the greatest. But I have used all the great players who came before me to improve upon my game. I don't think I will live to see somebody score 100 points in a game again, but there will be players who evolve and move the game ahead. What could a player do to improve upon my example? They asked me the same thing about Elgin Baylor and Dr. J. And that's the beauty of it all. No one knows.
Somewhere there is a little kid working to enhance what we've done. It may take awhile, but someone will come along who approaches the game the way I did. He won't skip steps. He won't be afraid. He will learn from my example, just as I learned from others. He will master the fundamentals. Maybe he will take off from the free-throw line and do a 360 in midair. Why not? No one thought they would see a 6-foot-9 point guard or a 7-foot-7 center. But here we are. There are now more 6-foot-10 perimeter players than at any time in history. Magic would have been a center 30 years ago. Evolution knows no bounds. Unless they change the height of the basket or otherwise alter the dimensions of the game, there will be a player much greater than me.
I listened, I was aware of my success, but I never stopped trying to get better.
While the 2004 season wasn't very rewarding for the majority of the F1 drivers, for a select few it was a year of triumphs, records, and rewards and of course champagne showers. Planet-F1 rounds off its review of this year's drivers by critiquing the top five in the standings - the fabulous five...
Juan Pablo Montoya - 58pts
'Lethargic' rather than 'fantastic' would be the best word to use to describe Juan Pablo Montoya's 2004 season, which despite containing 13 point-scoring results wasn't at all memorable. At least not until the very end.
Encumbered by a tusked Williams FW26, that in hindsight had more in common with a white elephant than just its looks, the year got off to a slow albeit steady start for the Colombian. In five of the first seven races Juan collected points, the bulk coming from his podiums in Malaysia and San Marino.
However, after being disqualified from the Canadian GP and black-flagged in the middle of the United States race, his 'home' event, Juan's motivation seemed to fade.
Whether it was the realisation that he wouldn't be fighting for - never mind winning - this year's title or that he'd grown weary of competing in an ill-handling FW26 is something only Juan knows. The other possibility is that he was already looking to the future and his move to McLaren.
Whatever it was Ralf's return after a 12-week lay-off snapped Juan out of his daze. The Colombian's competitiveness returned with a vengeance and he claimed the victory at the Brazilian GP.
Yet despite clinching Williams' one and only win of 2004, what this year brought to the surface about Montoya is that when the going gets tough, this tough guy doesn't get going. Instead he switches to neutral. But ending the year fifth in the Drivers' standings after spending the majority of it in neutral also shows how talented he is. Grade: C
Fernando Alonso - 59pts
Having claimed the first victory of his F1 career in 2003, Fernando Alonso was being billed as a further World Champion. However, there was little sight of that potential this year.
Driving a much-improved Renault, that overtook both Williams and McLaren to join BAR as Ferrari's main challengers for the title, Fernando failed to wow or dominate in 2004 even though he finished 12 races in the points.
And although the Spaniard beat his team-mate Jarno Trulli in the Drivers' standings, he only achieved that after the team dropped the Italian three races before the end of the season. And he may have grabbed four podium results to Trulli's two, but it was the axed 'unmotivated' driver who bagged the team's only victory, the Monaco GP.
All in all it was passable season for Fernando 'The Future Champ' Alonso but it lacked the flair that F1 fans had come to expect from him. And even though the stats suggest otherwise, for the first half of the year at least, Alonso was very much Renault's number two driver.
Unfortunately for Trulli, though, in team boss Flavio Briatore's eyes, Fernando remained No. 1. Grade: C-
Jenson Button - 85pts
In February Jenson Button told reporters that if BAR failed to finish a race in the top three then something would be seriously wrong. Now 18 races later he can say with some conviction that everything is right - perfectly right.
Jenson won his first F1 podium finish in Malaysia, just the second race of the season, and validated it by finishing the next two events in the top three. His P2 in San Marino gave him his first runner-up triumph in F1 and his first podium hat-trick. The BAR driver secured seven additional podiums in the remaining 14 races as well as his maiden pole position, which he achieved in San Marino.
Although victories eluded Jenson he still succeeded in finishing the year third in the Drivers' Championship, having accumulated 85 points.
However, his rejuvenated golden boy image also took a knock in 2004 when he signed a deal to drive for Williams despite already having one with BAR. The ensuing saga didn't do his reputation any good and in the end it was for naught as F1's Contract Recognition Board told him to drive for BAR in 2005 or not drive at all.
So although Jenson clearly demonstrated during this year's Championship that driving an F1 car is his strong point, he's also shown that loyalty is not. Grade: A
Rubens Barrichello - 114pts
Rubens Barrichello's 2004 campaign was typical of a Ferrari number two driver's season although perhaps marginally better.
The Brazilian steadily wracking up the points, scoring in all of the first 11 events, nine of which he completed on the podium. In Germany, though, his run came to an end with a P12. However, Rubens was back on the podium for both Hungary and Belgium and followed those up with his two victories for the year.
The Brazilian demonstrated his determination and ability at the Italian GP, overcoming problems early in the race to win Ferrari's home race. He went on to win the inaugural Chinese GP, making it two in a row. It was the first back-to-back success of Rubens' career and demonstrated what he could do once Michael had the title and Ferrari felt it was safe enough to let their number two driver off the reigns.
Brazil yielded another podium finish for Rubens, who secured second place in this year's Drivers' Championship, 34 points behind Schumacher.
But although looking at the results it appears as if Rubens has had a fantastic season, when compared to Michael (and driving the same car as the German) it must be said that he still has a lot of work to do before he can rival his team-mate.
And as everyone knows, the most important thing for a Formula One driver to do is beat his team-mate... Grade: B-
Michael Schumacher - 148pts
I must confess that at the start of the year when members of the Planet-F1 squad were putting forward our predictions, I thought we'd seen the best that Michael Schumacher had to offer and that his dominance over the sport was about to come to an end. How wrong I was.
F1 had yet to witness the Ferrari driver's true speed, masterful skill, sheer superiority and all-round star quality - all of which were on display in 2004 as he stormed to his seventh World title, winning 12 of the first 13 races.
Only an incident with Juan Pablo Montoya in Monte Carlo's tunnel interrupted that streak, which Kimi Raikkonen eventually brought to an end in Belgium. But even in his first defeat of the year, Michael was still the victor because he won an unprecedented seventh Drivers' title that day in Spa.
However, questions were being raised about who exactly had won the title, the driver or the strategist, Ross Brawn, as in the majority of Michael's victories he seldom overtook on the track, instead gaining the advantage in the pits. His critics were silenced when in Italy he fought back from a lowly grid slot, sliced his way through the field, and finished in second place.
But while Italy confirmed his mastery, China showed that even Schumi is fallible. A bad day at the office yielded only his second nonsuccess. But as he had done earlier, he bounced back to take the chequered flag in Japan - his record-breaking 13th win of the year.
Love him or hate him, in 2004 Schumi firmly cemented his claim as the best driver Formula One has ever had, currently does have and most probably ever will have. Grade: A+
Don McLean's 1972 hit "American Pie" was supposedly written in honour of the death of the late Buddy Holly... "the day the music died." The 25th/26th October 1997 is when F1, for me, finally lost it's magic. The memories of that weekend are as black as the events of a similar weekend in May 1994, only for different reasons. Then we saw the death of our heroes, here we witnessed the moral death of our sport.
Regular readers will know that for some time I have had serious misgivings about the route F1 has been taking. It would be unfair to lay the blame squarely at the feet of Ecclestone and Mosley, however they must accept their share of the responsibility. Mosley's recent remark that he was not concerned with the heritage and tradition of F1 says it all. I was under the impression that as president of the FIA that was part of his brief.
Now that the British Government has capitulated to Mosley and Ecclestone's threats, the public floatation can go ahead. Did any of you out there really fall for this? Did you really believe that Bernie and Co. would kill the goose that laid the billion dollar egg?
I read recently that Roger Penske has replaced Paul Tracy with Andre Riberio who will probably bring $10 million in sponsorship with him. This was followed by news that Riberio was hoping to attract backing from a major Brazilian brewery for 1999 "when new anti-tobacco legislation will be in force in the US". Does anybody expect me to believe that after all these years of trying to get the US of A to come back to F1 that Bernie would jeopardise it all again for the sake of the tobacco companies?
No, I don't single out Bernie and Max for the blame, for they have had plenty of willing accomplices.
On three occasions this year before the Japanese Grand Prix, Jacques Villeneuve had differences of opinion with race officials. At Imola, Villeneuve and Frentzen both received bans suspended for one race. This was for ignoring the waved yellow flags following Nakano's accident in qualifying. In Britain, Villeneuve was in trouble again. This time he was given a suspended one race ban after failing to keep within five lengths of the safety car following Katayama's accident. Then came Monza. This time Villeneuve chose to ignore the waved yellow flags following Michael Schumacher's off during the morning warm up on race day. On this occasion his punishment was a one race ban suspended until the fourth event of 1998.
No matter how the facts are presented, and no matter what arguments you make regarding Schumacher's violation of the rules during a previous testing session at Monza, there is no getting away from the fact that Villeneuve knew the risk he was running. He had clearly broken the rules on three separate occasions and been punished accordingly. In Japan however he proved that he had not learnt his lesson. Following his much publicised admonishment for again failing to heed the warning flags, he had the temerity to question the steward's decision.
What happened next was absolute farce, the blame for which lies squarely with the FIA. Villeneuve was allowed to race under appeal. The scenario existed whereby Villeneuve could have taken Schumacher out, subsequently lost any points earned in Japan, yet still win the World Championship. This was a clear case of brinkmanship on the part of Villeneuve and his employers, made all the worse by the FIA's decision to go along with it.
Within a few days Mosley was advising Villeneuve/Williams to withdraw their appeal. Why wasn't this done at Suzuka, indeed why was Villeneuve allowed to appeal in the fist place?
Recently my partner received her first ever endorsement on her driving licence. Her crime was to have been driving at 43 mph in a 40 mph zone at 5.45 on a Saturday morning. OK it was early, the streets were empty and she was only exceeding the speed limit by 3 mph - tough! She had broken the rules and had to accept the consequences. The same goes for Villeneuve, Schumacher, Marques, Sospiri and anyone else involved in motor sport. Obey the rules - or face the consequences. Furthermore, we have got to move away from the notion of punishment and instead place the emphasis on deterring drivers from breaking the rules. It is pointless to ban Marques from a Grand Prix for being 2kg underweight when another driver is allowed to participate after risking lives.
And so to Jerez, Bernie couldn't have scripted it better (I wonder if he tried). You thought the plot to "Grand Prix" was implausible?.. Scott, Pete, Jean-Pierre and Nino. The two protagonists for the title sharing the same time, down to one thousandth of a second - riveting stuff. Then it's Frentzen's turn - 23.069, 23.070, 23.071, 23.072, amazing ! Yes, and extremely dubious. I don't know about coverage where you were, but in the UK we were informed that the timing system crashed twice during the first twenty minutes of the session. But hey, maybe I'm being over sceptical. After all there has to be an optimum time for any lap and maybe at Jerez that time is 1:23.072. Then again did any of you watch the splits for each of these boys, they were all over the place. So yes that's where I'm coming from - I don't believe that these times were correct.
Then came the race, and what a race it was - until lap 47. Up until that point everything had gone perfectly. Schumi had made a superb start, his first pit stop had been faultless and he had dealt masterly with the traffic. The second stop had not gone so well and it began to look as though Michael had a problem. Then in a few fleeting seconds the dreams of Ferrari fans the world over were cruelly dashed.
So here we were, so close - yet so far away. I continued to watch not in the hope that some mechanical problem might rob Villeneuve of the title (honestly), but to see how the McLarens would progress.
Then something happened that caused me to lose interest in the race, the championship, and Formula One. As events continued to unfold before our eyes a comment was made by the television pitlane correspondent to the effect that Patrick Head was in the process of visiting the McLaren garage. He then added that during the course of the race both Ron Dennis and Mansour Ojjeh had visited Frank Williams. As if this wasn't enough, Martin Brundle then informed viewers that Villeneuve had visited the McLaren motorhome on Saturday and that amongst other things, the Japanese GP was discussed. Villeneuve had told McLaren of his plan to slow everyone at Suzuka in the hope that someone might have overtaken Schumacher. McLaren had then asked why they hadn't been informed, why hadn't they been let in on the secret.
As the race progressed, it became clear that something very strange was afoot. Coulthard who had been reeling in the leading Williams was now unable to make any impression on 14th placed Fisichella. At the same time, Villeneuve was finding it impossible to shake off 10th placed Nakano. All manner of thoughts went through my head. OK, I was suspicious of events in qualifying but surely the race developing in front of me couldn't be fixed. On the penultimate lap my worst fears were realised. Fisichella was shown the blue flag to allow the new second placed man, Hakkinen through. Seconds later we get a long distance shot and guess what? Fisichella can't be seen.. The man who Coulthard was unable to pass (and matched Coulthard's times) for lap after lap has suddenly been passed by Hakkinen, Coulthard, Berger, Irvine and Frentzen - within the space of three corners! In the mad scramble to the line Hakkinen and Coulthard pass Villeneuve to take 1st and 2nd, whilst Berger misses out on 3rd by half a car's length.
Whilst seemingly the whole world is lauding Villeneuve and condemning Schumacher, my attention is focused on what appeared to be a deal struck between two teams on the outcome of a race.
There has been criticism from some quarters concerning the team strategy employed by Ferrari at Suzuka. Team strategy is nothing new in F1. Might I point out that the very first win by a British team in F1 was as a result of Tony Brooks handing over his car (placed 9th at the time) to Stirling Moss during the British GP in 1957. A year before that at Monza, Peter Collins (himself in with a shot at the title) handed over his car to Fangio who claimed his fourth world championship. Team orders are not something new, collusion between teams is.
The faces on the podium said it all. Coulthard was disgusted at what appeared to be instructions not just to ease up on Villeneuve but to allow Hakkinen through. Mika too didn't look over the moon, did I detect a slight look of embarrassment?. This was more than he deserved, we had seen Mika come too close too often, when that first win came it wasn't meant to be like this. Ron Dennis subsequently admitted that a pact had been made, the McLarens would ease up on Villeneuve and hold position providing Hakkinen was given the win. "In the end, the good guys won" said Dennis, an obvious swipe at Schumacher/Ferrari, the bad guys.
For me the most shameful aspect of this race was that for the last 20 laps it wasn't a race. This "pact" made a mockery of the European Grand Prix, of F1, of everyone attending the event and every mug watching it on TV. Is this what we can expect in the future? With the public floatation of F1 and therefore the interests of shareholders taking preference to those of enthusiasts, are we to expect more of the same?
Please don't let this sport go the way of so many others. I want to see future World Championships fought out on the track, the best drivers in the best cars. I do not want championships decided in corporate meetings, motorhomes or via video conferencing.
In recent weeks, we here in Britain have been overwhelmed by the coverage given to the trial in the United States of a young girl accused of killing a child in her care. Everyone you meet has their opinion. All of us seem to know something that the prosecution missed or that the jury didn't understand. The one truth is that only one person on this planet knows whether that young girl is guilty or innocent and that is the accused herself. We read the newspapers and watch our television screens, and based on a rag-tag collection of second hand information decide that we know better than judge and jury. Instrumental in all this of course is the media.. they dictate to us as judge and jury and we go along with it.
And so it goes that on Monday 27th October, the world's press decided Michael Schumacher was guilty of deliberately trying to eliminate Jacques Villeneuve from the European Grand Prix. The last driver to be so ritually and publicly vilified by the press was the chauffeur of a black Mercedes through a certain underpass in Paris earlier this year. Then, as now, the press decided who was guilty... and no quarter should be given.
I have watched "the Jerez incident" many, many times over. I am still not convinced. Regular readers will be aware that I see the world through rosso coloured glasses, yet I am trying my hardest to be unbiased. Michael made a mistake in not anticipating that Villeneuve would make such a move, certainly at that point in the race. It is quite clear that Schumacher was caught off guard. However, it appears to me that Villeneuve made no real effort to turn into the corner until it was too late, in effect using Schumacher as his "brake". The move was brave, but cavalier. When he took his opportunity, it was written large that he would emerge either as hero or villain.
In Britain, the press had a field-day. From the lowliest tabloid to the grandest broadsheet everyone agreed that Schumacher was guilty. Much was made of the fact that the German and Italian press had also turned on the double World Champion. This in itself is shameful. Whatever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Germany should be singing their star's praises and being supportive, not turning on him. As for the Italian press... who put Ferrari in a position where with two races to go, they were realistically in with a chance of winning their first Constructor's Championship since 1983? Let's be totally honest, the 310B flattered to deceive. The reason Michael Schumacher was in a position to win the title in Jerez was Michael Schumacher.
The F1 correspondent for one of the quality British newspapers went into raptures about Villeneuve's sportsmanship, even calling him "Gentleman Jacques" for allowing Hakkinen through to win! In many ways, that is what upsets me most about the whole thing. Villeneuve has dyed blonde head first into a dung-heap and emerged smelling of roses. This same reporter wrote "despite the disappointment of Monaco, where the heavens opened for Schumacher" suggesting that we should sympathise with Villeneuve for Schumacher's mastery of such conditions. Only a week before Jerez Villeneuve's race engineer Jock Clear had said "He (Villeneuve) is handling the pressure now, Spa was a real kick in the guts... had it not rained he would have blown Michael away." Can you believe this? They're talking about the World Champion? Alain Prost, one of the greatest drivers in F1 history also hated racing in the wet, however he admitted this and never used it as an excuse.
At the root of the anti-Schumacher feeling in the British press lay Adelaide '94. This and Jerez were two totally separate incidents though they shared some similarities. In 1994 as in 1997 the Williams-Renault package was the class of the field. In both seasons, however, mistakes by management and drivers meant that Williams were unable to press home their advantage. By various means, the FIA managed to get Schumacher disqualified from one event and banned from two further races. Despite missing three races, Schumacher was able to take the Championship down to the wire.
There is no doubt that Damon had Schumacher totally rattled on that long hot afternoon. The pressure was immense and eventually the young German cracked. After hitting the barrier, he vainly tried to continue - all was not lost. Similarly, Damon made a fatal mistake. He had a split second to decide how he was going to handle the situation, should he go for the gap or pass round the outside? I am certain that had it been Alain Prost, Ayrton Senna or Nigel Mansell in the Williams they would have gone the long way round and thus secured the title.
The British press has never forgiven Michael for depriving them of a British World Champion, even though in 1994 as in 1997, Schumacher was without doubt, the best driver. In the days preceding the Jerez event, all the usual racial stereotypical adjectives were used in association with Schumacher - cool, machine like, arrogant. Little credit was given to his several stupendous drives this season and even less column space was given over to the fact that Villeneuve was lucky to be participating in Spain.
The pre-race publicity had Villeneuve blasting Irvine for his tactics in Japan and asking for a clean fight. This is the same Villeneuve who had shamelessly criss-crossed the track, vainly trying to taunt Schumacher at the start of the race. The same Villeneuve who made a kamikaze attempt to block Schumacher as he emerged from his pit stop.
So, Villeneuve is the 1997 World Champion and in the opinion of journalists all over the world rightly so. All the superb work done by Schumacher in the last two seasons and up to lap 47 in Jerez has been obliterated. Wrong. In the eyes of most enthusiasts, Schumacher is the 1997 World Champion, no matter what the history books might say.
When it was first announced that Schumacher was to drive for the Scuderia, I was heartbroken. When visiting Monza in '95 I was angered to see "Welcome Schumi" T-shirts on sale. I wanted to see Jean and Gerhard continue the fight, for they, like so many of their predecessors had Ferrari in their blood. How wrong, how stupid I was. I was thinking with my heart and not my head. If we'd continued with Jean and Gerhard in 96 and 97, would we really have won 8 GPs? I don't think so. Michael may not be the most passionate of men, but he gets the job done, and with style. I believe that like Lauda, he will bring back the glory to Maranello and pass into history as one of the Ferrari giants... I certainly hope so.
Here's a post someone made over at F1Live and it's a poor translation of a spanish mag article featuring comments from MS's past teammates. Pretty interesting, especially Piquet's comments, since he might have been the best of the bunch.
---
Andrea De Cesaris : I never pay attention to the minor series, so I didn't know MS when he arrived to Jordan. I only knew he was very fast. But what really impressed me more was his absolute confidence: he was there among Mansell, Piquet, Prost and Senna but he had no fear at all, he was like a shark in the ocean! He performed a splendid work since the beginning: his speed and his confidence were his strongest cards. He was very fast on dry and on wet. He was a natural and very intelligent leader able to perform extraordinary stuff with cars far from the best ones. Now I can see he was able to improve a lot many of those qualities that were already remarcable, so it's natural he is out of reach for present drivers. But I think never a F1 driver reached his level of perfection: that's why he is considered the F1 absolute icon all around the world. He was unique translating into the track results that only his huge potential allowed. He won't last forever but I can't really say when and who will arise as his heir.
Nelson Piquet : Michael remebered me my F1 beginning when I did the same with Lauda at Brabham. I only knew he was very fast on qualifying (most people can't imagine how he had to be fast to make that Benetton go like that!). I got surprised by his team work approach: he was always quiet, in silence, but learning fast and pointing remarcable technical observations that left many experienced engineers with a big open mouth... Imediatly I understand he will beat me more times than I would beat him. Probably I wasn't motivated as him but I guess, after all I see, that wouldn't matter a big deal: he was getting prepared to challenge anyone, as we saw at 1994. What he reached at Ferrari is big, very big indeed: F1 never saw such a colossal and victorious work carried for so long by someone who have to motivate an entire team (not any team, but Ferrari, a passion team!) including himself! When a driver got that at Ferrari you must think he only can be exceptional. I can assure you there isn't --- and there wasn't --- any driver I met able to compete with his major force: his mental. I was broken by it, Senna was the next target as we testify during 2004 and the rest that came simply weren't even near his level: Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen were lucky to have a very better car when they crossed Schumacher's way: only a better car couldn't beat him, you'd need a very better car than him to keep the distance. With these modern drivers he is condamned to win for long if they don't get a better, better car than him.
Martin Brundle : I was impressed the way he smashed Piquet because Piquet was not an ordinary champion, a lottery champion. Many people wanted to believe Piquet was tired of F1 and he wasn't motivated anymore. The things were not like that at all. I remember Pat Symonds to say that Piquet only cares for a car able to beat Schumacher at Qualifying and only got that goal at Adelaide... Well, Pat confessed he had not the courage to destroy the moment of joy of Piquet and show him that the telemetry testified that Michael had gear problems during his lap... Michael was surprisingly fast but also very cautious and wise. Inside the team he expressed himself as a diplomate avoiding conflict positions and that always pointed him as the required leader for any team. But when he was behind the wheel he got transformed: a sort of Dr. Jekill and Mr. Hyde. Impressive and fascinating. I never was able to beat him at Qualifying and that disturbed me, but I admitt he reached very impressive marks that particular year. The Ford V8 was very brutal when delivering power and he was the only one to use it properly (as Ford remarked us all by the telemetry analysis!) with almost 100% of efficiency! Very impressive for such a young driver. I decide to target the races and I got to beat him at Montreal and one or two times more. He wasn't pleased with that but he was intelligent enough to learn the lesson and avoid the same errors next time. So a time came I realized I couldn't beat anymore. He matured very fast for a driver in the perfection way: he was prepared for everything earlier that any other driver I met. I realized that when he showed me at Spa he was able to take hard decisions on the battle field: he was racing very fast and it was raining; he got out of the track and he was able to comeback in my rear; he observed my rear tyres and he got the box at once to change tyres. It was his first victory and I knew it was only the beginning for him. He always expressed that special confidence possessed only by those few drivers destinated to great things: he seemed to spray an aura around him. He always used to be educated and gentle. He had the reflexes of a cat and the confidence of someone who knows he would win 7 WDC and 100 million USD per season. Many people take him as an arrogant: it's an error!, that's only a tremendous confidence on himself! He is the most evolved driver I ever met during my racing life: his technical, physical and mental skills allow him, at the present age of almost 36, to play with limits no other can touch.
Ricardo Patrese : I know many people dislike Michael. It's unfair, he is a great guy and the majoraty would be positively suprised if they real had opportunity to know him closer. At the team he fitted as the main piece, naturally integrated without forcing anything. Always focused and paying attention to every detail: he is the driver engineers dreamed for long! When he arrived he was driver number 2 but he deserved entirely the number 1 status the team provided him later when things begin not to work between me and the team. It wasn't his fault at all: you can't blame anyone because he is better than you. The team failed with me, not Michael: he was always loyal and open to dialog. I realized he was destinated to be a F1 legend: it wasn't normal to get together so many qualities and so soon as he got! Michael show me how he was able to reverse regularly a negative situation into a positive one: inside or out of the track! Whe he was champion for the first time, at 1994, I can say clearly his car wasn't the best one. Some people inside of F1 and with high responsabilities tried to pass, during years, the reverse idea to protect Senna memory, but I guess Senna himself wouldn't approve such mascarade. What happened at 1994 was a generation conflict: Senna was descending and Schumacher was rising. It was evident Senna was in difficulty with Schumacher: if you retire Schumacher from the scene and the accident of Imola, Senna would take it easily that year. It was a painfull sucession for the crowd of Senna supporters, and many of them always associate Schumacher to the death of Senna what produces an unfair feeling of rejection for Schumachers side. People should understand that Schumacher would take it that way or another, sooner or later, and it was not Senna or anybody else who was to avoid Scumacher's impulse to victory: everything was against him at 1994 but he was able to strike firmly and reverse the situation getting his first WDC. Now at a decade distance we can see no one deserved it more than him. Even the most demanding and severe judge I met at F1, Frank Williams, knows that. Schumacher was bornt to be a leader, a champion like he showed at Benetton and put it in the form of art at the most legendary team: Ferrari! The two biggest F1 legends are naturally together and writing the most glorious F1 history the world ever assisted! Michael deserves it all: he's a hard worker, a person with a tremendous sense of sacrifice and dedication: Ferrari is an extension of his family. I had very fast teammates: Piquet and Mansell, but younger Michael was already faster and better than them! I dare to say the Benetton wasn't a car for regular victories and he was able to reach WDC with it beating in the track a champion like Senna and a car as the Williams-Renault! The proof of his real level arised when he was able to set up the car as we wanted: nobody could follow him in the most demanding game F1 can force you: to go faster and faster lap after lap! That was the way he develloped and accomplished to beat champions like Piquet and Senna. I saw him testing during 80 laps and got out of the car dry as desert sand! One of his most impressive skills that make the difference is that one he sets the car to enter late at turns and suddenly he makes it kickback into the proper trajectory. Everyone that tried to imitate him finished out of the track. Some people point his few errors but they forget no other dare to touch the limits like he does: he should make much more errors compared to other drivers but he don't! Sometimes I hear to say he has too many titles and records... Well, he deserved each one of them!
J.J. Letho : He was very fast with a car not very good, and he seemed to me nice and friendly. But we met few times and he was always working. The team was setted around him and I could understand it: he got very impressive results with a poor car.
Eddie Irvine : when Michael went to Ferrari I ask Eddie Jordan to put me there too: I knew I would as rival the best F1 driver but I also would have my chances with better material, a big pay check, and the unique pleasure to race for Ferrari, a truly mytical team. I wasn't wrong: I had my chance at 1999 and I learnt something else: it's better to be the second driver at Ferrari that the number one at any other team. Michael always knows where he can go faster than the others and he know how to do it like no one! At the Mugello there's a very special turn called «La arrabiata». Alesi, Berger, Larini and myself passed there at almost the same speed. Alborreto tried to make it 20 km/h faster and he had a severe accident. Michael arrived and he was able to do it since the beginning 25 km/h faster than us! We tried several times to follow his way but it was impossible: it worked only with him! A very strong point of him: he never give up his goal and he is able to sacrify his results for team results: there are not many champions like that! His life his frantic: testing, training, learning, he never stops to do something... you know: not useful! At 1996 he won 3 races with a car named «disgrace»... Only Michael could do it! After a lapse of time I got he was the master of the game and I was beside him because I was a very fast driver. I learnt to be distanced 20s at the race but to keep happy because the driver who made it was really unique. When you got beated by Michael and you know him, you learn that's a natural situation: others would follow the same law. Many people are wrong about F1: they think the most remarcable perfomance you can achieve is at qualifying. It's a big error, because the most impressive perfomance you can reach is to race at qualifying rythm during lap after lap! That's what makes the real difference between great drivers in the track! And I can say I never saw other driver to excel Michael at that precise and most demanding exercise F1 can provide. That's with that terrific weapon he reached the top. Maybe he is not the party man I would like, but he is a decent guy, generous, and afterall he kept his feet on the ground, something others who won less than him couldn't do.
Rubens Barrichello : I began to get interested in Michael very soon, at 1993, because my friend Ayrton was worried with the level of difficulty Michael was putting him. I knew he was very fast but Ayrton insisted with me he wasn’t only fast, he was «special». He was right. At 1993 Ayrton still was the best F1 driver but at 1994 something changed: my friend Ayrton was severely affected on his confidence by Michael's perfomances since Interlagos. Ayrton couldn't understand the diabolic rythm Michael put at «his» GP and that forced him to make a mistake when he was trying to avoid Michael ran away from him definetively. Ayrton told me a single lap during practice at the rear of Benetton was enough to see it was a miserable car! If Ayrton wouldn't die at Imola he would realize that Michael’s most powerful forcel was already beeing heavily used against him that season: that unique way he uses to go faster and faster during important amount of laps. If he would continued at Benetton after 1995 he would have more titles than now. When I came to Ferrrai I knew what was expecting me: the world best driver. He still is stronger than me but I can resist him better and I'm still improving and learning with him. He always has been fair with me and we both agree team is overall: I was called to make sacrifices by the team but he also was. Now I understand perfectly why he is the best F1 driver: he is the most complete one. He can perform 80 laps without errors and going very fast, very motivated, always with the goal of the necessary result in his mind. He knows like no other to get full use of the car at very different situations and that is a precious advantage. The car is more at his taste but that's a natural thing to be: he gives the enginners 19 rights over 20 points and the other drivers give 15-17 over 20. So there is no mistake when come the moment to chose an option for devellopment! He's not perfect but he makes few big mistakes for someone that goes so fast and intense almost all the time. Most times he is out of reach but sometimes I can compete directly with him and beat him 3 or 4 times per season.
1. "Loads of overtaking is boring. You go fishing and you catch a fish every ten minutes and it's boring. But if you site there all day, and you catch one mega fish, you come back with stories that you caught a fish this big (indicates a big fish), intead of this size (indicating a small fish)" - Eddie Irvine on the lack of overtaking in F1.
2. "You know you're in trouble when the first person to get to you after a wreck is carrying a beer" - NASCAR driver, Jimmy Horton, speaking of his accident at Talladega in 1993.
3. "The car is such a dog we should have tied it to the fence" - Dick Johnson, former Australian touring car driver discusses an obviously less than brilliant vehicle....
4. "F1 won't change me" - Jenson Button, just weeks before dumping his girlfriend of five years and buying a Ferrari.
5. "Give me a few bits of wool to stick on the car, a good gust of mistral wind, and I could come up with a better aerodynamic package on the bridge at Avigon" - Jean Alesi on the dreadfully inefficient Prost AP02.
6. "He's just a total bloody idiot. Always was, always will be" - Derek Warwick on Rene Arnoux.
7. "Oh, we're just looing for the ear" - Niki Lauda replying to somebody asking what the former world champion was doing back at the site of the 1976 accident that nearly killed him at the Norschleife circuit.
8. "I am a non discriminating driver. I want to kick everybody's ass" - Greg Ray, IRL.
9. "The track is my canvas. My car is my pencil" - Graham Hill.
10. "Ukyo Katayama is undoubtedly the best formula 1 driver that grand prix racing has ever produced" - A questionable quote from commentating legend, Murray Walker.
11. "Anyone who doesn't speak English isn't worth speaking to" - Bernie Ecclestone.
12. "Clark came through at the end of the first lap of the race so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident" - An onlooker describing Jim Clark's incredible first lap speed at the 1967 Belgian GP at Spa.
13. "My game is going wrong - the star is setting" - Ascari speaking to Fangio in 1955 - just four days before his death at the wheel of a sportscar.
14. "Jimmy ranked with, perhaps even out-ranked, Nuvolari, Fangio and Moss and I think we all thought that he was in a way invincible. To be killed in an accident with a Formula 2 car is almost unacceptable" - Bruce McLaren speaking of the great late-Jim Clark.
15. "Drivers are just interchangeable light bulbs - you plug them in and they do the job" - Teddy Mayer, McLaren.
16. "And that is Ralf Schumacher - son of Michael" -Who else but Murray Walker, ITV commentator?
17. "I think I've proved that, in equal cars, if I want someone to stay behind me... well, I think he stays behind..." - Gilles Villeneuve.
18. "Break a leg" - Grid Girl at 1999 British GP offering some 'advice' to Michael Schumacer pre-race. A few hours later Michael was in a hospital and his leg was in plaster, following an early race shunt.
19. "Christ - I used to complain that this thing was underpowered, I must have been mad" - Chris Amon after driving a 1970's F1 car up the hill at Goodwood.
20. "Aerodynamics is for those who cannot manufacture good engines" - Enzo Ferrari.
21. "I'm fine, but I'm going to need to change my shorts when this race is over" - Greg Moore over the car to pit radio after a spin in the Michigan 500.
22. "It's been 2000 years since a Good Friday was this bad" - Benetton tech boss, Pat Symonds speaking at the 2000 British GP, the site of another dismal performance.
23. "No, it will never have enough power until I can spin the wheels at the end of the straightaway in high gear" - Too much power is never enough....Mark Donohue on the Can Am Porsche 917.
24. "Are you here to race or to crash?" - Chico Landi addressing drivers safety concerns in Brazil in the 1980's.
25. "You might think that's not cricket, and it's not, it's motor racing" - Yep. Murray again.
26. "It's almost worth retiring just so I can speak to you..." - Alex Zanardi speaking to Louise Goodman on TV during the formers awful 1999 Grand Prix season.
27. "F--- off" - Yvan Muller to Peter Cox, during the postrace press conference at the 1999 Snetterton British Touring Car Championship night race.
28. "Only a few more laps to go and then the action will begin, unless this is the action, which it is" - Murray Walker.
29. "The man's an animal" - John Cleland speaking about Steve Soper, at Silverstone BTCC race, 1992.
30. "...if they have any more drive-throughs, they're going to have to start selling burgers and fries in the pit lane" - Charlie Cox commentating on a drive through penatly for Laurent Aiello at Silverstone BTCC round, 1999.
31. "Racing drivers have balls, unfortunantly, none of them are crystal" - David Coulthard.
32. "You're a pack of Arseholes" - Jim Richards responds to a booing crowd on the podium of the controversial 1992 Bathurst 1000.
33. "You're a pack of lovely lovely people" - Jim Richards makes up for his 1992 speech after winning the 2002 event.
34. "The litte Mexican bastard tries to kill me!" - Jo Siffert on Pedro Rodriguez.
35. "Unless I am very much mistaken...I AM very much mistaken!" - Murray Walker.
36. "The passport changes but the blood doesn't" - Italian-American, Mario Andretti on the lure to drive at Ferrari.
37. "I knew I'd been beaten by the best driver in the world" - Rene Arnoux on his epic last lap battle with Gilles Villeneuve at Dijon 1979.
38. "When the flag drops, the bullshit stops" - Anonymous
39. "Finishing second means you are the first person to lose" - Gilles Villeneuve.
40. "In my day the drivers were fat and the tires were skinny" - Unknown.
41. "I want to stay in F1 but things have to get better for me to have a chance. No disrespect, but I won't go to Minardi" - Johnny Herbert, 2000.
42. "We'll be looking to give McLaren and Ferrari a run for their money" - Craig Pollock, BAR Team Principle, speaking prior to the team's 1999 race debut. As it turned out, BAR was even able to give Minardi a walk for their money, failing to score a single point.
43. "There's a bit of debris there, Rouse hits it, Oh, nice header from Menu!" - Murray Walker, Brands Hatch BTCC, 1994.
44. "Why did I take up racing? I was too lazy to work and too chicken to steal" - Kyle Petty, Stock Car driver.
45. "It was a Ford, so it didn't really matter" - Mark Skaife answering a question about a car fire in a touring car race at Barbagallo.
46. "I already tried that. Something heavy metal like. And sunglasses. But it didn't work I went to the gas station and when I left the guy at the counter said 'Bye Mr Schumacher' - Michael Schumacher on trying not be recognised...
47. "He's broken our camera lens that'll be six grand please Derek!" - Murray Walker after Derek Warwick crashed into a camera during a BTCC race.
48. "Presumably it's vitamin C they put in that Orange Arrows, Murray..." - Commentator Martin Brundle shows why he isn't a comedian.
49. "I want to win a couple of Indy car championships and I want people to say that Greg Moore was one of the best CART drivers that was ever around." - Greg Moore, speaking in 1997. In October 1999, Moore was killed in a horrible accident at Fontana.
50. "Rene Arnoux is coming into the pits ... lets stop the startwatch" - Murray Walker, BBC commentator.
It was a great drive by Michael Schumacher. It reminds me of Hungary 98, where he was pushing so hard to build up a 25 seconds lead in just 15 laps, making the 3 stopper of Ferrari beat the 2 stopper of the McLaren of Mika Hakkinen that time.
This time it was the Renault of Fernando Alonso, at Magny Cours... home of the Renault and Michelin. He made a 4 stopper win over the 3 stopper of his rivals. Those were mind blowing laps really... 11 secs in 10 laps is simply amazing.
Love him or loathe him.. you cant deny he is one of the greatest drivers of all time. The speed, the racecraft, technical and tactical brilliance, leadership, the awareness, and everything. He is just a complete package, perhaps the most versatile driver F1 has ever witnessed.
Ross Brawn just proved why he is the master of strategy, no one thought he would put MS on 4 stops. The pitlane in France is short, but 4 stops was optimistic to say the least. It was a gamble that paid off. And if anyone is going to pull it off - it is Michael.
I think this is his best win this season as of now.
The boys of Motor City did it...!!!! Congrats to them...
I knew they can win, but I never thought they will. Still I give credit where it is due. I would say that for this season, they are the best NBA team... and finally since Jordan's Bulls, a team from the East has won the title.
They played hard, scored well, defended like there's no tomorrow, and played excellent team basketball. To say that they only won because of the cockiness of the Lakers is nothing short of rubbish. They beat the Lakers, and by that virtue, they are the better team. And being the champions.. they are the best team in the league this season.
The Lakers played well, its just that their individualism with Kobe and Shaq backfired. Kobe and Shaq did what is expected. But Malone and Payton looked like mediocre players. Credit the Pistons defense there. Fisher, Rush and Medvedenko are just hanging around. Jackson couldnt motivate his role players to step up.
The Pistons played as a team, but also played with great individual performances. Billups deserved to be the MVP, becoming the only guard since Isiah Thomas back in 1990 to win the award. Hamilton delivered the shots. Prince limited Kobe's scoring. The two Wallaces did their offense and defense. The role players rose to the occassion. And Larry Brown finally won the damn thing.
Things that I remember in this series...
- Never underestimate the underdog.. The pressure is not on them.. they will play to win. While the favored tends to play not to lose.
- Sure the Pistons took advantage of the Laker's problems. Well its the Laker's problem, not theirs.
- Its still Shaq when it comes to delivering the points.
- Its bullshit to compare Kobe to Mike. Jordan would never sabotage his team by taking more shots than his points.
- Experience without the ability is useless.
- At the end of the day, Basketball is a team sport. The Lakers may have the best 1 on 1 player and the dominant force, but those 2 are not enough against 5. The Pistons never had a superstar. That motivated them to play as a team. The players knew their roles and played it well. While the Lakers ignored the triangle (that won Jackson 9 titles), and went to their isolations and 1 on 1s.
Which is the best team of the past 25 years? ESPN will answer that question Tuesday night at 7 p.m. during the first edition of "Who's #1?" -- a 13-episode series highlighting a different top 25 list each week throughout the ESPN25 anniversary.
Of course, Page 2 couldn't wait until Tuesday to get an answer to this debate. So I took the list of top 25 teams from the "Who's #1?" show and decided to rank them myself. You can do the same by clicking here.
Just read this before you vote, however; sometimes we remember the great teams to be a little greater than they actually were.
24-25. 1992 Dream Team and 1980 U.S. hockey
There is no denying the greatness of the Dream Team or the legacy of the Miracle on Ice squad, but comparing all-star teams to other teams is sort of like comparing apples and pomegranates. I'll leave them at the end of my list and quickly move on.
23. 1983 Iowa wrestling
Captured NCAA title with four individual champions, but an idiosyncratic choice for the list; nothing wrong with that, but a better wild-card candidate would have been the 1992 North Carolina women's soccer team that went 25-0, outscored its opponents 132-11 and won the title game 9-1 as Mia Hamm scored a hat trick.
Did Leon Lett's showboating cost the '92 Cowboys a few places in the rankings?
22. 1992 Dallas Cowboys Record: 13-3 Playoffs: 34-10 vs. Eagles, 20-10 vs. 49ers, 52-17 vs. Bills
Winning 13 games is nothing special in the NFL, the Cowboys didn't lead league in either most points or fewest points allowed and they also played a soft schedule with only five games vs. teams with winning records. While they were impressive in the playoffs, lots of NFL teams have been impressive in the playoffs (as you'll see).
21. 1990 UNLV Runnin' Rebels Record: 35-5 Tournament: 102-72, 76-65, 69-67, 131-101, 90-81 vs. Georgia Tech in semifinals, 103-73 vs. Duke in championship
My issue with including the Runnin' Rebels is the '91 squad, which was undefeated until getting upset by Duke in the Final Four, was clearly the better team. Plus, losing five games in a college basketball season is nothing special.
20. 1991 Miami Hurricanes Record: 12-0
Umm ... are you one of the top 25 teams if you're not even the best team in your sport that season? Chalk this one up to East Coast bias: the Hurricanes outscored their opponents 386-100, but Washington, which shared the national title with Miami, outscored its opponents 495-115.
19. 1979 Pittsburgh Steelers Record: 12-4 Playoffs: 34-14 vs. Dolphins, 27-13 vs. Oilers, 31-19 vs. Rams
The Steelers have a lot of positives: No. 1 in the NFL in points scored despite leading the league in turnovers; 10 Pro Bowlers; the best per-game yardage differential of any Steelers team (+124.3); a tough schedule (10 games vs. winning teams).
Eddie Epstein, in his book "Dominance: The Best Seasons of Pro Football's Greatest Teams," ranks the '79 Steelers as the third-best NFL team of all time, behind two teams from the ESPN era (the '85 Bears and '91 Redskins). Nonetheless, I downgrade the Steelers due to their 12-4 record, including just 4-4 on the road, and a Super Bowl win over a mediocre Rams team.
18. 1982 North Carolina Tar Heels Record: 32-2 Tournament: 52-50, 74-69, 70-60, 68-63 over Houston in semifinals, 63-62 over Georgetown in championship
Yes, I know: the Tar Heels had Jordan, Worthy and Perkins. They beat Olajuwon and Ewing in the Final Four. Ahh, but here's the rub: Jordan was still a freshman, their Tournament run was anything but dominant (two points over James Madison?), Olajuwon and Ewing were young (sophomore and freshman, respectively) and this team had no depth whatsoever past the starting five.
17. 1984 San Francisco 49ers Record: 15-1 Playoffs: 21-10 vs. Giants, 23-0 vs. Bears, 38-16 vs. Dolphins
Wait: only one loss by three points, a great playoff run including a convincing victory over a 14-2 Dolphins team, 10 Pro Bowlers and Joe Montana at the helm? Yes, but & as Epstein points out, there are a few holes after you dig: the 49ers played a weak schedule (only five games vs. winning teams) and ranked just fourth in the NFL in yards and ninth in yards allowed. I defer to Eddie on this one and he doesn't rank this 49ers among his 12 best of all time.
Moses Malone's prediction of Fo', Fo', Fo' was just one game off.
16. 1983 Philadelphia 76ers Record: 65-17 Playoffs: 4-0 vs. Knicks, 4-1 vs. Bucks, 4-0 vs. Lakers
Differentiating between the four NBA teams on the list is difficult; you could call any of the four the best NBA team ever and not sound stupid. This team featured MVP Moses Malone (24.5 points per game) and aging but still effective Julius Erving (21.4). They went 12-1 in the playoffs, coming very close to fulfilling Malone's famous "Fo', Fo' and Fo'" prediction. However, Norm Nixon and Bob McAdoo were both injured for the Lakers, making that sweep a little less impressive; but mostly my gut says this team falls a little short of those other NBA dynasties.
15. 1986 New York Mets Record: 108-54 Playoffs: 4-2 over Astros, 4-3 over Red Sox
No National League team since 1909 has won more games (the '75 Reds also won 108), but I have two nagging complaints about this team. First, as we all know, they should have lost the World Series. If that's not a fair knock, this one is: how come they never won again? The answer is pretty simple: only Gary Carter, who was a little past his prime in 1986, is a Hall of Famer. Even in '86, Doc Gooden and Darryl Strawberry were very good players but not MVP or Cy Young candidates. I think this team just lacks the superstar power to be considered a truly all-time great team.
14. 1982 New York Islanders Record: 54-16-10, 118 points Playoffs: 3-2 over Penguins, 4-2 over Rangers, 4-0 over Nordiques, 4-0 over Canucks
This was the Islanders' third of four straight Stanley Cups and also their season-high point total of the run. The biggest knock against the greatness of this '82 team is the lack of competition in the playoffs: due to upsets, their toughest matchup was against the 92-point Rangers; Vancouver, their opponent in the Finals, actually had a losing record during the season.
13. 1998 Tennessee Lady Vols Record: 39-0
The Lady Vols, led by Chamique Holdsclaw, won their third straight national title, outscored their opponents by an average of 30 points per game, and beat Louisiana Tech 93-75 in the title game. The question which will remain forever unanswered: who would win the mother of all battles between the '98 Vols and '02 UConn Huskies?
Steve Young deserved to hug the Super Bowl trophy after his 6-TD performance.
12. 1994 San Francisco 49ers Record: 13-3 Playoffs: 44-15 vs. Bears, 38-28 vs. Cowboys, 49-26 vs. Chargers
Steve Young led one of the most high-powered offenses in NFL history. The 49ers led the NFL in points and yards during the season and then really kicked it into gear in the postseason. Highlighted by Young's six TD passes in the Super Bowl, the Niners marched through their three playoff opponents 131-69.
11. 1986 Boston Celtics Record: 67-15 Playoffs: 3-0 vs. Bulls, 4-1 vs. Hawks, 4-0 vs. Bucks, 4-2 vs. Rockets
Yes, Bird at his absolute peak; McHale, Parish, D.J. and Ainge; a great 15-3 playoff run (although the Rockets had upset the Lakers in the Western Conference finals). Here's why I didn't rate the '86 Celtics higher: they had a unique homecourt advantage during this era that made them nearly unbeatable at home. In '86, they went 40-1 at the Garden, just 27-14 on the road. I can't get it out of mind that if you played the '86 Celtics vs. the '87 Lakers or the '96 Bulls in a seven-game series on neutral courts, the Celtics would come up short.
10. 1992 Duke Blue Devils Record: 34-2 Tournament: 82-56, 75-62, 81-69, 104-103 over Kentucky, 81-78 over Indiana in semifinals, 71-51 over Michigan
You have one of the most clutch players in NCAA history in Christian Laettner; you have a dynamic sophomore in Grant Hill; you have an All-America point guard in Bobby Hurley to run the show; and you have Coach K on the bench. I'll take this team against all other college hoops teams of the past quarter-century.
Miami beat Nebraska 37-14 in the Rose Bowl to win the national title.
9. 2001 Miami Hurricanes Record: 12-0
They outscored opponents 512-117, led the nation in scoring defense and had five first-round picks in the 2002 NFL Draft. The big negatives: a mediocre schedule (only game against a top 10 team was vs. No. 8 Nebraska in the Rose Bowl) and a close 26-24 win over No. 18 Virginia Tech.
8. 1989 San Francisco 49ers Record: 14-2 Playoffs: 41-13 vs. Vikings, 30-3 vs. Rams, 55-10 vs. Broncos
Check that playoff line again: that's a 126-26 total. Yes, that Montana-to-Rice combo was lethal. They were No. 1 in the NFL in points scored and No. 3 in points allowed. They were 8-0 on the road and 6-2 vs. winning teams, and they lost twice by a combined total of five points.
7. 1987 Los Angeles Lakers Record: 65-17 Playoffs: 3-0 vs. Nuggets, 4-1 vs. Warriors, 4-0 vs. Sonics, 4-2 vs. Celtics
Showtime at its best: six players averaged in double figures, led by Magic Johnson's 23.5, as the Lakers scored nearly 118 points per game. They beat their heated rivals in the NBA Finals, but the Lakers do lose a few points for lack of serious playoff competition: Denver and Seattle had losing records and Golden State was just 42-40. Even the Celtics had slipped a notch, with 59 wins.
Gretzky holds up the Cup after the Oilers dethroned the Islanders.
6. 1984 Edmonton Oilers Record: 57-18-5, 119 points Playoffs: 3-0 vs. Jets, 4-3 vs. Flames, 4-0 vs. North Stars, 4-1 vs. Islanders
Just roll the names off your tongue: Gretzky, Messier, Coffey, Kurri, Fuhr, Anderson. Wayne Gretzky scored 205 points to lead an onslaught of offensive firepower that featured the first-, third- and fifth-leading goal scorers in the NHL. Gretzky and Paul Coffey were 1-2 in points. The Oilers unseated the four-time champion Islanders in the Cup Finals and then won three more titles in the next four years.
5. 1998 New York Yankees Record: 114-48 Playoffs: 3-0 vs. Rangers, 4-2 vs. Indians, 4-0 vs. Padres
The Yankees set an AL record with 114 wins (although that was ecliped by the 2001 Mariners, making it a little less impressive in retrospect) and led the league in runs scored and runs allowed. And then they did what they had to do in the postseason, going an impressive 11-2. In the NFL and the NBA, the team with the best regular-season record usually wins it all. It's not that easy in baseball; since 1990, only the '98 Yankees had the best record and won the World Series.
4. 2002 Connecticut Huskies Record: 39-0
How good were the Huskies? They led the nation in scoring offense andscoring defense. Their average margin of victory was 35.4 points; their closest games was nine points. They beat Oklahoma 82-70 for the national title. In the 2002 WNBA Draft, just a few weeks after they beat Oklahoma 82-70 for the national title, the first two players (Sue Bird and Swin Cash) and four of the first six were from UConn.
3. 1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers Record: 12-0
Many call it the greatest college football team of all time. It's hard to argue against that. The Huskers averaged over 52 points per game and their closest game was a 14-point win over Washington State. In the regular season, they beat final No. 5 Colorado 44-21 and No. 7 Kansas State 49-25. In the Fiesta Bowl, they destroyed unbeaten and No. 2 Florida 62-24, rushing for 524 yards behind quarterback Tommie Frazier. Even the computer says the '95 Huskers are the best: Jeff Sagarin's computer rankings have this squad as college football's best ever.
2. 1985 Chicago Bears Record: 15-1 Playoffs: 21-0 vs. Giants, 24-0 vs. Rams, 46-10 vs. Patriots.
We all know about the Bears' famed 46 defense, which allowed the fewest points and yards in the regular season and then crushed opponents in the playoffs -- none of the three postseason opponents gained even 200 yards of offense. But underrated is Chicago's offense, led by Walter Payton and an efficient Jim McMahon. The Bears ranked No. 2 in the NFL in points scored (thanks in part to a defense which forced 54 turnovers) and No. 6 in totals yards. Eddie Epstein ranks them as the best NFL team of all time ... but they rank No. 2 on this list to another Chicago team.
"What do you mean you almost didn't put us No. 1?"
1. 1996 Chicago Bulls Record: 72-10 Playoffs: 3-0 vs. Heat, 4-1 vs. Knicks, 4-0 vs. Magic, 4-2 vs. Sonics
The Celtics and Lakers of the '80s have developed a certain mythology about them, but I'll take the Bulls. Consider:
They nearly led the NBA in both offense and defense, finishing No. 1 in points (105.2) and No. 3 in points allowed (92.9). The Celtics or Lakers never came close to doing that.
Chicago's average margin of victory was 12.2 points -- in a lower-scoring environment than the '80s. And the Celtics or Lakers never had margin even as great as 10 points per game.
The Bulls beat the 60-win Magic in the East finals and then the 64-win Sonics in the Finals. None of the three other NBA teams on this list beat even one 60-win team in the playoffs.
They went 72-10, best record in the NBA history.
They had Jordan.
David Schoenfield is still wondering why the 116-win 2001 Mariners didn't make this
I just wanted to say a few things regarded some misconceptions and petty differences that I think hinder some really good discussions on this site. Basically everything has to do with Schumacher, and I think that the arguments are needlessly conflicting.
Schumacher is an unbelievably talented racing driver: when talking about "best ever", there is no way he couldn't be named. At the same time, there is no way to say who is the "best" driver when comparing drivers from different eras and circumstances. However, due to the unique circumstances of his career, Schumacher has excelled beyond all others in terms of achievements. This is largely due to his own talent, especially in his revitalization of Ferrari, which he has certainly played the central role in. Schumacher is absolutely intent on being the best, and quite simply, in total application, he has been the best at least since Senna died, and again one of only a handful of the best ever.
However, it can't be denied that Schumacher and the teams he has driven for have done some very underhanded things. Some of which have been completely reprehensible, others which are much more undrestandable given the environment. Some of these actions preclude him by definition from being a truly classy champion, in the mold of someone like Jim Clark, or Juan Manuel Fangio. However, that does not mean he has no class at all, and is in fact a very dedicated member of the team; someone you want on YOUR side. But sometimes he has just gone too far. There is really no way to deny this, Jerez '97 alone demonstrates it. But, Schumacher has never injured another driver and for the most part, is quite professional and worthy of learning from. And he is without a doubt an absolute delite to watch when he is on it; controlled fury, precision and aggression personified; a true MASTER of his craft.
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of his career is that he has refused to accept a top-quality teamate. Rather he prefers and ultra-competent teamate who can support him and occasionally push him but still remains loyal. Rubens is of course perfect for this, and that is why Michael personally campaigned for Rubens to be re-signed. This hurts Michael's reputation when compared to Senna and Prost in particular, but should not be held against him too much, because, if absolute success is THE goal, that is the best way to do it. The team that has evolved around him seem to see the situation in the same light, as should be expected. And their success is quite near absolute. While this can be fascinating in itself, ultimately, racing is required for the satisfaction of racing fans. And racing is something Michael rarely has had to do with his teamates. Again, I don't blame him for this, how could you given the results? But still it takes away from the intensity of F1.
Overall, my personally biggest issue is with his "aggressive" driving tactics, which would have been absolutely unacceptable 20 years ago. Yes things have changed, but a gentlemen on the track he is not. That said, again, the results bear out that this works, but again it somewhat violates the spirit of racing.
What I am trying to say, is that I don't see a reason for there to be such petty bickering on this site, largely as a result of Schumacher. He is both devil and angel. Yet neither exclusively one or the other. And perhaps that is what makes him truly great, and truly flawed at the same time.
Email Us
Chat Forum
Mail article
Print article
