Random Thoughts

by John Furgele

-Baseball’s All-Star Game was quite compelling, but I still don’t think it should determine home field advantage for the World Series.  Is it fair that the Natonal League, and more importantly, the fans of the National League clubs only get three possible home games in the Fall Classic?  More importantly, are the silly rules of baseball.  What about the different rules for the different leagues.  Once again, the DH will be used for four of the seven World Series games.  Is that fair?

-Enough of the “play to win,” ASG theory.  I would rather see all the players play then see the Jeters, Rodriguezes, et al, play the entire game.  It’s an ALL STAR game, and in an all-star game, all the stars should play.  Joe Morgan said the ASG is treated too much like an exhibition game.  That’s because is is an exhibition game.

-No player has seen his skills diminish more than former Seattle Mariner Richie Sexson.  Last year, he batted .205, and this year, he was batting .218 with 11 homers and 30 RBI before being released.  Now, it looks like the Yankees are going to give him a try.  The move reminds me a bit like 2000, when the Yankees acquired Jose Canseco.  Canseco did nothing for the Yanks and I wouldn’t expect anything from Sexson either.

-The second half should be an interesting one.  Are the Tampa Bay Rays going to hang in there and break up the Yankee-Red Sox “natural order” in the AL East?  Are the suddenly right Mets going to keep up the momentum and pull away in the NL East?  Are the Twins and White Sox for real in the AL Central, and in the NL Central, which one of the three (Brewers, Cubs, Cardinals) will fall out of the race for both the NL Central title and the NL Wild Card?

-Another day, another positive drug test at the Tour de France.  If tour organizers had any big ones, they would pull the plug on the 2008 race right now.  Send the Renaults up the mountains, pack away the bikes and be done with the tour for this year.  No prize money, no awards, no prestige.  The only way you can be serious about drug cheats is to take away the cyclists right to make a living.  Yes, this will punish the clean riders—if there are any—but the message will be clear.

-In the 1978 NBA Finals, the Washington Bullets beat the Seattle Sonics 105-99 in Seattle to secure the NBA Championship, and the Bullets remain the last road team win Game 7 of the NBA Finals.  Thirty years later, the Bullets are now the Wizards and the Sonics have pulled up and moved to Oklahoma City.  Sadly, this move went relatively unnoticed.  The media allowed a great run of 41 years in the Emeral City to end without much protest, and David Stern was not called on the carpet at all. 

Let’s see, under Stern, the Charlotte Hornets were allowed to move to New Orleans, and if not for Katrina and the subsequent guilt, Stern would have moved the Hornets from New Orleans to Oklahoma City; the Vancouver Grizzlies went to Memphis and now the end of the Sonics.  Under Stern, if the city does not fork over the monies for a new arena, then Stern allows the threat of relocation to be held over the head of a city like Seattle.  But, when Stern needs money, he will bring Seatltle back and force the “new” Sonics owners to fork over hundreds of millions in exapansion fees. 

What a great and shrewd businessman.

Nadal-Federer Epic Sets A Delicious Future

by John Furgele

In my last column, I mentioned that today’s Wimbledon final was going to be the most important match since McEnroe beat Borg in 1981.  Roger Federer played the role of Borg.  A win, he would have been the 1980 Borg, a loss, the 1981 Borg.  Well, Federer lost, so in the end he was the 1981 Borg, but unlike the 1981 Borg, who never played at Wimbledon again, it is fairly safe to assume that Federer will be back for some more Wimbledons. 

Today’s match was simply brilliant, one for the ages, an epic and every other superlative one can think of.  Though the first two sets were relatively close they went Nadal’s way, and it appeared that the 22 year old Spainard was going to find a way to wrest the title from King Roger in straight sets. 

But, the King would not fold, would not go easily.  After looking a bit passive in the first two sets, he began to play more with more agression, and though he could only manage one break of Nadal’s serve all day, he won the third set tiebreak, then won an epic 10-8 fourth set tiebreak.  Down 7-8, Nadal hit a great approach shot, only to see Federer flick a backhand winner to stay alive.  Two points later, the set was Federer’s and the set that all in attendance at Centre Court wanted to see—set five—was upon us. 

In that set, the man who won the first two sets would prevail winning 9 games to 7.  Perhaps if they played a fifth set tiebreak Federer may have won, but at the Big W, they play until somebody wins the fifth set by two games.  When Borg beat McEnroe in 1980, the fifth set score was 8-6.

It was a match, that despite the two battling for almost five hours and two rain delays, that actually saw the level of play improve as it wore on.  Incredible as that was, it appeared that darkness was going to push the match back to Monday.  Fortunately, that didn’t happen as it would have deprived us a conclusion to one of the better Sports Sundays in history. 

The match was eerily similar to Borg-McEnroe, 1980.  In that match, McEnroe took the fourth set tiebreak, 18-16, and Mac admitted on NBC television this morning that he figured that the match would be his, that Borg, after winning four straight Wimbledon titles, would not feel the urge to dig down deep to win another. 

“He (Borg) taught me a lesson about heart that day,” said McEnroe. 

Nadal had to be down after leaving several championship points on the table, yet, he did a fine Borg imitation, holding his serve before breaking through in the 15th game of the final set.  On match point, Federer dumped a relatively easy forehand approach shot into the net, giving Nadal the historic win.  But, after five years and five hours of dominant tennis in the London suburb, he is allowed to finally be less than perfect. 

Nadal and Federer have met in six Grand Slam finals, the most between two players in tennis history, and after watching these two at the Wimbledon fortnight, there is one thing that remains clear.  These two men are far and away the best two grass court players in the world, and it’s not even close.  To see them on Centre Court on the first Sunday in July, 2009 would be a surprise to no one.

Where the rivalry goes from here remains unclear.  Has the mantle been passed from Roger to Rafa, or does Roger have a Boris Becker in him?  In 1988, Becker, after winning Wimbledon titles in 1985 and 1986 lost the final to Stefan Edberg.  The next year, Becker and Edberg met again in the final with Becker winning the last of his three championships.  Can Roger get the title back from the young Nadal?  Usually, once the King is dethroned, they never get back.  We have seen this so many times, too many times to count.  Borg.  McEnroe.  Connors.  Even Sampras left Wimbledon in the 2001 fourth round—to Federer nonetheless. 

Federer will have to do some serious thinking over the next year.  He still has to be the favorite for the U.S. Open title for two reasons.  One, he really hasn’t slipped that much in his play, unless you call reaching the Aussie Open semis, the French Open final and the Wimbledon final, slipping, then yes, he has slipped.  Two, Nadal seems to really struggle there.  In the past after Wimbledon Nadal goes back to clay and by the time he gets to New York in late August, he is worn down and usually battling some type of injury.  Here’s hoping that he plans his schedule accordingly and comes to New York healthy and poised at the opportunity to capture his third Grand Slam of the calendar year.

Federer will want to make his own history by coming back to Wimbledon and reclaiming his crown after losing there for the first time in the final.  Becker did it, but if Federer could do it after winning five, losing one, then winning another, that would be an historic feat of its own. 

He has one major question/challenge to answer, and it can be broken into three parts.  He has to figure out what he wants more:  1)  Sampras’ record of 14 Grand Slam titles—he has 12.  2)  A French Open title on the red clay that just may solidify him as the greatest tennis player of all time, even if he doesn’t break the mark of  Sampras, who never won in Paris.  3)  To reclaim the Wimbledon title. 

Right now, there is a good bet that Federer can win another Aussie, another Wimbledon and another U.S. Open, so there is a reasonable chance that he can at least tie Sampras mark of 14.  But, after being routed by Nadal at the French Open final, most think Federer’s window of opportunity for winning at Roland Garros is closed.  If Federer skipped the French Open in 2009, it would be a surprise, but not a shock.  Same if he entered and went out early (before the quarterfinals).  He may want to gear up and save himself for reclaiming Wimbledon. 

I’m not sure which would be more impressive.  Winning a career Grand Slam is special and it hasn’t been done too often, but Andre Agassi did it and as good as “AA” was, nobody has ever called him the greatest tennis player of all time.  Pete Sampras won seven Wimbledons and 14 slams, but never won the French Open.  He did, however have a reclaim.  After winning three straight Wimbledon championships, he bowed out to the eventual champion Richard Kraijeck in 1996, but then roared back to win the next four.  But, back then, there was no Nadal lurking, ready to pounce and take over the number one ranking.  What Federer does down the road is just as intruiging as what Nadal does. 

What we saw Sunday was a match for history, but what we might see in the future might be even better.

Wimbledon Final Will Set Bar For The Future

by John Furgele

There is no mistaking that tomorrow’s Wimbledon final between top ranked Roger Federer and number two Rafael Nadal is easily the most important tennis match since John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg met in the 1981 final.  This match will dictate where men’s tennis is headed for the rest of this year and beyond.

Federer has won five straight Wimbledons, just like Borg did from 1976-1980.  Nadal has broken Federer, beating him in two finals at the French Open and last year, at All-England pushed Federer to the brink, with Federer winning in five tough sets.  In 1980, Borg was on the brink.  Like Nadal, Johnny Mac had broken through, having won the 1979 and 1980 United States Opens, beating Borg in 1980.

Borg beat McEnroe in the epic 1980 final.  After losing two of three sets, Mac prevailed in the 18-16 fourth set tiebreak and appeared to be ready to wrest the crown away from Borg.  But, the Swede, knowing that this may be his last stand, took set number five, 8-6.  Borg walked away the champion, but deep down he knew that the young lion, McEnroe was ready to take the throne. 

The next year, they met again, and even though Borg was the five time defending champion, my gut tells me it was McEnroe who went to bed the night before knowing that it was time, his time to rise and replace Borg as Wimbledon champion.  Borg likely slept that night knowing that this was his final shot to keep a title that he eventually knew McEnroe would take.  In the end, Johnny Mac, the bratty kid from Queens won Borg’s title in four sets and Borg would be done.  Later that summer,  he would make the U.S. Open final (and lose to McEnroe) and that would be that.  By the end of 1982, the icy Swede was gone from the game.

Roger Federer has reached the brink.  There is a time when you know a player can’t lose.  In 1978, nobody was going to beat Bjorn Borg.  In 2005, nobody was going to beat Roger Federer.  It is called the peak of the athlete.  Jimmy Connors had it in 1974.  Pete Sampras had it for years and was 14-4 in Grand Slam finals.  John McEnroe had it.  Borg had it, and Federer has and still has it.  Last year, Nadal pushed Federer, just like Mac pushed Borg in 1980.  You knew it was going to be a tough match, but deep down, you weren’t going to go against the defending champion.

Sunday is the day.  Will the Wimbledon final be the 1980 version, where the proud multi-time defending champion holds off the rising young lion, or will this be 1981 final, the year the lion rises and takes over the top perch?  Regardless of the outcome, this is a monumental moment in tennis, and frankly should be covered as such.  Federer cannot dominate forever, but can he hold on and dominate for one more year?  Nadal is clearly the second best player on the grass surface and even if he loses, figures to eventually hold the Wimbledon trophy.  But, if Nadal wants to be remembered as a truly great player, he needs to take the crown from the King, just like McEnroe took it from Borg.

A major tournament.  A monumental moment.

A Great Run Ending in Oneonta

by John Furgele

Over the past 20 years, there has been a boom in minor league baseball.  New stadiums, better marketing, and in game entertainment has made minor league baseball a fun place to be over the summer in America.  Because of this explosion, independent leagues have popped up as well.  Because the demand for minor league baseball is so great and so many cities want a part of it, independent leagues like the Atlantic, Can-Am, Frontier, Northern, and American Association have formed.  As a result, we have affiliated minor league baseball (Class AAA, AA, A, Rookie) and the various independent leagues.

But, it wasn’t always this way.  Back in 1966, minor league baseball was very minor league.  Teams were located in very small towns and there wasn’t much emphasis on attendance and marketing the focus was to develop players for the next level of play.  There wasn’t much marketing done to entice fans to come to the ballpark; fans found the games because they were….fans. 

One of those small towns is Oneonta, located in southeastern New York State with a population of a bit more than 13,000.  Oneonta has played in the short season Class A New York-Penn League since 1966.  Back then, the NY-P League had teams in places like Little Falls, NY, Geneva, NY and Newark, NY.  Today, those small cities are gone, replaced by the likes of Albany, Brooklyn and Staten Island.

The reason Oneonta has remained is owner Sam Nader, an Oneonta businessman still going strong at age 89.  The Oneonta Tigers are a throwback to the simpler days of minor league baseball, in fact, when I called the Tigers office, the voice on the other end was Mr. Nader himself.  Unlike many of their NY-P brothers, the Tigers do not play in a state-of-the-art stadium.  They play at Damaschke Field, which first opened in 1940.  No luxury boxes, no fancy seats, just baseball.  The Tigers sell baseball, which unfortunately, in this day and age may be not be enough to attract big crowds.

The Tigers are averaging about 700 fans per game this season, and included in that was a game against the Tri City Valley Cats that drew 341.  Sometimes, selling baseball doesn’t bring the casual fan to the ballpark. Today’s game requires stunts, fireworks, giveaways, contests, relay races and much more.  In some parks, there are 5,000 fans there, but very few are watching the game with all the distractions going on.   Oneonta is a small city, so expecting the Tigers to draw 4,000 per night is probably not realistic, but Nader expects attendance to increase with the better weather.

“I expect by season’s end, we’ll be averaging around 1,500 per game,” Nader said.  “Attendance so far has not been very good, but we’ve had a lot of rain.” 

With demand for minor league baseball at such a high, there is no doubt that Nader has been asked to sell the Oneonta franchise in the past.  But, he has always declined, viewing the Tigers as a community asset to the “City of the Hills,” that is Oneonta, which by the way is about 20 miles from Cooperstown and the Baseball Hall of Fame.  The region may not be heavily populated, but obviously it is rich in baseball tradition. 

Nader announced this week that the time has finally come to sell the Oneonta Tigers.  The team will be purchased by Miles Prentice, a lawyer who also owns the AA Huntsville Stars of the Southern League and the AA Midland RockHounds of the Texas League.  Prentice tried to buy the Kansas City Royals and the Boston Red Sox, so we trust he has deep pockets and is looking to create his own minor league empire.

The pending purchase is leading to speculation that Oneonta will eventually lose its baseball team, but Nader is hopeful that this is not the case.  One condition of the sale is that the team has to remain in Oneonta through the 2010 season, so we know that Damaschke Field will have at least two more seasons of NY-P League baseball.  After that, who knows, but Nader thinks there is a chance for Oneonta after 2010.

“We are encouraging them (the new owners) to stay,” Nader said, “and they have been impressed by the area, but they will absolutely be here through 2010.” 

Nader, of course, can’t guarantee more than that, and with an old stadium in a small town, the chances of Oneonta staying are remote.  The once chance may be the link to Cooperstown.  Who wants to be the person that takes professional baseball away from where the game’s roots are?  But, these are different times.  Minor league baseball teams are in business to make money and they do that by opening new stadiums, selling luxury boxes and advertising.  Cities like Oneonta no longer provide those big dollar opportunities.  It happened in Little Falls, Geneva and even happened in Utica and Niagara Falls, cities with five times the population of Oneonta. 

Oneonta has hung on—for 43 seasons.  That’s a pretty good run and the man to thank for that run is Sam Nader who still answers the phones and whose voice can be heard on voice mail.  Though we don’t know what will happen after 2010, one thing we call can do, regardless of where your loyalties lie is root for Oneonta.

They deserve it, thanks to Sam Nader.

 

 

To be Gay, We Need a Clean Gay

by John Furgele

Yes, there was a small blizzard behind him (4.1 MPH), but Tyson Gay’s 9.68 100 meter victory in the United States Olympic Trials was awfully impressive. Even more impressive might have been his semifinal win, where he ran 9.77 seconds and “shut it down” with about seven meters left.

Sprinters have a relatively short life span. You can see them knocking on the door for a year or two, then for two to three years, they dominate, then they fade away as another sprinter rises and takes over the perch. The pattern is there. In 1984 and 1988 Carl Lewis (Ben Johnson, too, but there were drugs)reigned, but by 1992-1993, Linford Christie took over. By 1995, it was clear that it was Donovan Bailey’s turn, but by 1998, Maurice Greene became the premier sprinter.

Most of these three year reigns include an Olympics. Christie, Bailey and Greene won Olympic Golds in 1992, 1996 and 2000. Justin Gatlin appeared poised to take the mantle in 2004 and perhaps beyond, but a failed drug test appears to have done him in.

Now, it appears to be Tyson Gay’s turn. But, we have to be honest here as well. Where did Gay come from? How was he able to drop his times so quickly? Unfortunately, this is a sport where fast times are often followed with raised eyebrows.

Gay appears to be the real deal, but the same was said of Gatlin, Greene, Christie and Lewis and all four either failed a drug test or was accused of taking dugs (Maurice Greene, in this case). And, of course, Marion Jones, the Queen of American Sprinting never failed a drug test, but is currently in prison for lying to federal prosecutors, admitting that she did indeed take performance enhancing drugs.

No sport, except for perhaps the Tour de France, needs a clean Olympics more than track and field. Of all the sports in the world, there is nothing more pure than seeing who can run the fastest, and throw the farthest. The events are pure, but we need the athletes to be pure as well.

End of the Road for Roddick?

by John Furgele

Is Andy Roddick past his peak?  The 25 year old American (turns 26 in August) bowed out of Wimbledon in the second round, a shocking result for a player who reached back-to-back Wimbledon finals in 2004 and 2005, losing to King Roger Federer both times. 

Tennis is a sport of diminishing returns and for every player there comes a point where the progress stops and the regression begins.  Since making the final at the All-England Club in 2005, Roddick’s regression seems to be in full force.  After making the U.S. Open final in 2006 (and losing to Federer), Roddick has fallen off dramatically at the Grand Slams, the only four events that really matter to sports fans.  In 2007, he was bludgeoned by Federer in the Australian Open semis, and for the rest of the year never made it past a Grand Slam quarterfinal.

After going through several coaches, his 2008 results have further showed his decline.  He was knocked out in the third round in Australia; missed the French Open—on a surface he struggles on—with an injury; and now is out after winning only one round in the London suburb.  And, at age 25, odds are that his best days may be behind him.

This happens to all fomer champions.  Roddick has always been a one-and-a-half trick pony.  He has the devastating serve, but he has never been a good net player and because of it, appears to be afraid to serve-and-volley, particularly at Wimbledon, a surface made for serve and volley players.  His half-skill is his forehand, but his backhand is so weak that players just pound that side waiting to take advantage of his short returns.  Roddick doesn’t make a ton of errors with his backhand, he just doesn’t hit many winners from it.  His backhand is a “get it over the net,” type, and players like Federer eat those up.

Roddick reminds me of Michael Chang, the 1989 French Open champion and three time Grand Slam runner-up.  When he was young, Chang chased down every ball, making his opponent hit two to three extra shots per rally.  Eventually, Chang could wear one down, outlast him.  In 1996, at the age of 24, Chang was ranked number one in the world, but after turning 25, he lost a step, and now, he wasn’t tracking down every ball.  As a result, his opponents didn’t have to hit the two to three extra shots and Chang  began losing with much more regularity.  In fact, Chang’s best Grand Slam result after 1996 was making the semifinals at the 1997 Australian and U.S. Opens.  From 1998 through his retirement in 2003, he never made it past the third round in any Grand Slam.

Roddick is on the verge of being passed by the younger and more talented players.  Of course, Roddick has had the misfortune of being in the same era as Federer, who dominates tennis much like Tiger Woods dominates golf.  But, that happens in most sports.  Since winning the United States Open in 2003, Roddick just hasn’t improved.  His serve is still a weapon, but his groundies, especially that backhand, haven’t improved.  Simply put, Roddick just might not be a threat to win Grand Slam titles any longer.

Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Connors, McEnroe, Borg.  All of these players had that moment when they knew that their career, or better yet, their chances to win slams was over.  Connors made a valiant run at the 1991 U.S. Open at the age of 38/39, but he played unranked opponents through the quarterfinals, and when he played the young Jim Courier in the semis, he was routed.  That was a reprieve for the game’s gutsiest player.  As good as the memories were, Connors last Grand Slam win was the 1983 United States Open.

Borg felt that after 1981, when he lost both the Wimbledon and the U.S. Open finals to McEnroe, that his chances to win future Grand Slams was over, and thus, he called it quits.  Even though he won the French Open for the fourth straight time in 1981, those final two results did him in.

McEnroe played through 1992, but his last Grand Slam title came in 1984.  Becker won the Aussie Open in 1996 at the ripe old age of 28 while Edberg won his last Grand Slam title at age 26.  And, there is also the remarkable run that Pete Sampras had, when he won the United States Open in 2002 at the age of 31, but Sampras, right now, is the greatest tennis player of all-time.  There are always exceptions.

After losing today, Roddick conducted his press conference and then headed to the showers.  It is my guess that today’s shower was a long one, a one of contemplation and thought.  As the water poured over his head, he must have been asking himself this one question:  is my career as a top five player, a threat to win at Wimbledon, the United States and Australian Opens over?  I’m sure the water turned cold before he answered that question, even though he probably knew the answer before he undressed.

Roddick may have another important question to ask and answer.  Does he keep playing, ala Chang, knowing that his chances of making a deep run at the Grand Slams is unlikely; or does he set a date in his mind to bow out gracefully?  Chang decided to keep playing and though he never made it to the second week of a Grand Slam, his pride and professionalism earned him respect from all involved in tennis.  Roddick may choose not to do that.  He may choose to pick that date, leave the game, marry fiancee Brooklyn Decker and start a family. 

One thing is for sure.  That shower he took at the All-England Club today was an extraordinary one.

 

 

Changing of the Guard?

by John Furgele

Wimbledon begins tomorrow and this year there is tremendous intruigue.  Roger Federer has won the last five Wimbledon titles and has dominated the lawn at the All-England Club in the 2000s.  But, this year he has looked vulnerable at the ripe old age of 26.  He was beaten by Novak Djokovic in the semifinals at the Australian Open, then routed by Rafael Nadal in the French Open final.  Last year, he beat Nadal for the second straight year in five tough sets.  At this point, Nadal looks like he is closer to winning Wimbledon than Federer is to winning in Paris.  After watching Federer wilt in Paris, and more importantly, lack the fight that has been his trademark, it may be safe to say that his window to win the French Open has closed.

But, Wimbledon has been all his.  If Federer wins again this year, he will remain the king of the tennis world.  If Nadal or even Djokovic win, then it may be safe to say that a changing of the guard in tennis will have begun.  Federer is 26, and in tennis that’s old.  Bjorn Borg retired in 1981 at the age of 25, while John McEnroe won the last of his seven Grand Slam titles at the “advanced” age of 25.  Suddenly, the three majors he needs to pass Pete Sampras’ mark of fourteen does not seem a sure thing anymore.  A win in England will restore his confidence, his belief, and will set up a delicious scenario at the United States Open come last August. 

It’s way too soon to write Federer off, but other players are emerging.  Djokovic is 21, Nadal just turned 22.  And, unlike Andy Roddick, they are not afraid of the Swiss star.  Nadal reminds many of Borg; he is patient and powerful on clay and quick enough to play well on grass.  Many think this will be the year that Nadal takes the Wimbledon title. 

Njokovic could meet Federer in the semifinals, and after battling him at the U.S. Open final in 2007, then beating him in straight sets in Australia, he will not lack in confidence should they meet at Centre Court in a touch less than two weeks.

Is Federer ready to re-take the reigns, or is time for him to passed by Nadal, Njokovic or perhaps another up-and-comer?  It will happen.  It always does.  Borg dominated the grass from 1976-1980, beating Nastase, Connors (twice), and Roscoe Tanner.  After warding off McEnroe in the epic final in 1980, he was pushed aside by the kid from Queens the following year.  Sampras dominated Wimbledon for most of the 1990s, winning seven titles.  Who would have thought that when he lost a 4th round match to Federer in 2001, that his reign was over.  Even though Federer did not win it all in 2001, it was out with the old, in with the new.

For the past five years, there was little suspense at the All-England Club.  You knew that Federer was going to be there at the end, and even though Nadal scared you a bit, much like Agassi scared Sampras here, you knew that in the end, Federer would hoist the champions’ trophy. 

This year, it feels different.  It feels exciting, and because of that, it should be a very interesting fortnight.

Where is Kevin Garnett?

by John Furgele

The NBA got what it wanted:  another game in the NBA Finals as the Lakers and Celtics head back to the new Boston Garden for Game 6 and possibly/hopefully Game 7.  Through the first five games, two things have become clear.  One, the Boston Celtics are the better team, and two, Kevin Garnett has been a disappointment.

Even though the Celtics are better, the Lakers could still win this series.  Granted, they would have to become the first team to win Games 6 and 7 on the road to do so, but these games have been relatively close that this could happen, improbable as it may be.  Should Los Angeles lose, they will kick themselves for losing Game 4 in the fashion that they did.  No, that doesn’t mean that they would be up 3-2, but playing Game 5 at 2-2 as opposed to down 3-1 is a monumental difference.

Now, to Kevin Garnett.  I don’t think there is a person in the league, or a person who is an NBA fan that doesn’t like Kevin Garnett.  He plays hards, plays tremendous defense and has always been a good ambassador for the league, but his offensive play in the finals has been atrocious.  Yes, that may seem a bit rough because Garnett has never been a go-to-no-matter-what offensive guy ala Shaqullie O’Neal, Tim Duncan or even Patrick Ewing, but Garnett seems scared to make moves when he gets the ball in the low post.

Too often, the Celts get the ball to Garnett and he gives it right back to Pierce, Allen, or any person nearby wearing a green or white Boston jersey.  Watching this is frustrating.  I see him get the ball, and I say to myself “take him, take him,” then watch as KG kicks the ball out.  With a 3-2 series lead heading back to Boston, coach Doc Riivers and the Boston faithful are likely to overlook or let Garnett’s disappointing offensive play go, but should they lose, KG will feel some heat.

The other frustrating part of the Garnett enigma is the person that is guarding him.  Pau Gasol has never been known as a stellar defensive player, making Garnett’s hesitancy all the more bewildering.  Of course, everybody calls Gasol soft, and that may not be fair either, but once a player gets a reputation in the NBA, it is very hard to overcome or change it.  But, the facts are the facts.  Garnett is the same height as Gasol, he’s quicker than Gasol and he has a much bigger wingspan than Gasol.  Why he isn’t taking advantage of those strenghts is more than puzzling.

Garnett had a chance to tie the game, but missed two free throws, one badly, and made only 1 of 4 in the fourth quarter’s final moments.  Champions are going to make those shots and champions want the ball late in the game.  Paul Pierce has no fears, nor does Ray Allen, but for some reason, Garnett is taking himself out of the game on the offensive end. 

In Minnesota, Garnett was accused of the same thing, of not being aggressive enough, of not getting the Timberwolves out of the first round.  While there, he did get to the Wolves to one Western Conference Final, but they were dispatched by the Lakers.  Some even stated that the playoff losses didn’t bother him that much. 

Perhaps heading back to the new Garden will be the tonic for him.  Maybe he comes out, gets 25 and the Celtics celebrate their 17th NBA title.  But, if some reason that the Lakers pull out two wins, Garnett will once again will have to face the fire.

 

Three Big Losses

by John Furgele

We lost three giants this past week in the world of broadcasting.  First, was former ABC Wide World of Sports host Jim McKay.  McKay was the voice of ABC for nearly 30 years, covering Wide World, and anchoring ABC’s Olympic coverage through the 1988 Calgary Winter Games.   His anchoring of the 1972 Munich Massacre will be his signature moment, and his three words, “they’re all gone,” his signature line.

My favorite memory of McKay came at the 1980 Lake Placid Winter Games and it came on February 22, 1980, the day the United States hockey team beat the Soviet Union 4-3.  As most of you know, that game was played at 5 PM, but ABC decided to tape it and show it in prime time at 8 PM.  At 8 PM McKay came on live, but he had this grin on his face, well, because he had already seen the game.  And, in the background (there was glass behind McKay), there were “pumped up fans “getting ready to watch the game.”  Of course, those fans were pumped up for another reason:  the United States had already won the game.  Even with that grin, McKay was able to pull it off and keep most (unless you could get Canadian television) in suspense.

Second, was the devastating loss of NBCs Tim Russert, the host of the Sunday political show, “Meet the Press.”  This loss was a tough one for me, because like Russert, I am from Buffalo, NY.  People from Buffalo are very proud of their hometown, critics be damned, and Russert was a guy who never left Buffalo even though he had moved to Washignton, DC.  I have watched many sporting events, but the most dramatic non-sporting event I ever watched was Election Night, 2000.  As we know, most of the networks, including NBC had given Florida to Gore, and Russert had said that Florida would be the key to deciding who would succeed Bill Clinton.  An hour later, Florida was taken away from Gore and Russert and his dry erase board kept viewers in touch throughout the night with scoreboard updates.  That “game” didn’t end until 4:00 AM, when George W. Bush became the president-elect.  What a night for the nation and for Russert.

He usually ended his fall shows by saying, “Go Bills,” in reference to the Buffalo Bills, the four time AFC Champions who then went 0-4 in Super Bowls.  In 2004, the Triple A Buffalo Bisons won the International League championship and on the Today Show, Russert found a way to give the Bisons a plug.  In 2005, the Bisons had Tim Russert Bobblehead Day and yesterday, Buffalo mayor Bryon Brown ordered the flags at city properties to fly at half-staff.  If that doesn’t indicate the respect of a man, I don’t know what else does?

Third, and relaitvely unnoticed was the passing of former NBC sportscaster Charlie Jones.  Jones had golden pipes and called many games for NBC.  When the AFL was formed in 1960, Jones was one of the pioneer broadcasters.  He went on to call NFL games for 38 seasons and worked with analysts such as George Ratterman, John Brodie, Paul McGuire, Len Dawson and Bob Griese.  He won the Pete Rozelle Award in 1997 for outstanding broadcasting.

In addition to football, Jones called the 1986 World Cup Soccer Final as Argentina, led by Diego Maradona beat West Germany, and also called Ben Johnson’s famous 9.79 100 meters at the Seoul Olympic Games.  Of course, two days later, Johnson was stripped of the gold after testing positive for steroids. 

Jones was never the number one announcer at NBC or ABC, but that didn’t mean he wasn’t one of the best, because he certainly was. 

McKay, Jones, Russert.  All broadcasters, different genres, but each great at what they did.  Hopefully, St. Peter is sitting back and listening to the great stories.

 

College Baseball Worth Checking Out

by John Furgele

The College World Series begins tonight at Rosenblatt Stadium in Omaha, Nebraska.  College baseball certainly doesn’t get the exposure that college football and college basketball get, but the CWS is worth a look.  And, the NCAA and the city of Omaha have just reached an agreement to keep the CWS in Omaha for 25 more years through 2035.  Of course, the historic Rosenblatt Stadium will be torn down and replaced by a new 24,000 seat downtown stadium.

I like the fact that the current stadium is called Rosenblatt Stadium, not Rosenblatt Field or Rosenblatt Park.  Nothing against calling your playpen a park, or field, but what’s wrong with calling it a stadium?  There was concerns that the CWS was going to leave Omaha, but thankfully, the NCAA and the city of Omaha did the right thing by keeping “The Road to Omaha,” intact. 

The biggest problem with college baseball is the use of the ping sounding aluminum bats.  These bats should be taken out of both college baseball and high school baseball, but we know that there are economic and legal issues to deal with, so it’s not worth a protracted fight. 

I love the double elimination format that college baseball uses.  There are four first round games, and the four losers of the those games have to play a win-or-you’re-out format.  There is a sense of urgency right away, but if you lose your first game, you can still come back and win the title. 

The eight teams are Georgia, Miami, Fla, Florida State, Stanford, Rice, Fresno State, North Carolina, and Louisiana State.  Georgia, Miami, Stanford, LSU and Rice have won championships; North Carolina was the runner up in 2006 and 2007, and Fresno State is making its first CWS appearance. 

After six of the eight teams are eliminated, the remaining two play a best-of-3 championship series.  Good stuff.  Take a look.