It was all worth it-but it still didn't make him as good as Jordan.Both Jordan and Kobe have motivated their teams to triumph at the highest level. "The look of pride and joy in Kobe's eyes made all the pain we'd endured in our journey together worth it." What they had accomplished, they had done together. That title was, as Jackson describes it, their "moment of triumph" and a "total reconciliation." No longer was his perception of Bryant tainted by his callous demeanor and off-court troubles. Bryant opened the dynamic of the team to a relatively passive Pau Gasol.Īfterward, Jackson divulges that he had developed new-found appreciation for the player and man that was Kobe Bryant. That same season, the Lakers won an NBA championship. "It was as if the other players were now his partners, not his personal spear-carriers," Jackson said. He would play with them, not be detached from them. He would invite teammates out to dinner while on the road. It was then that the Mamba's dialogue with his supporting cast went from "Give me the damn ball" to something more. Jackson points to the 2008-09 season as the culmination of his evolution. Over time, Bryant has improved as a leader. He talked a good game, but he'd yet to experience the cold truth of leadership in his bones, as Michael had." "Kobe had a long way to go before he could make that claim. "Though at times he could be hard on his teammates, Michael was masterful at controlling the emotional climate of the team with the power of his presence," Jackson confesses. His mindset has never been the same as Jordan's, and he's therefore been unable to have as profound an impact on his teammates. Kobe, meanwhile, has found himself at the center of many internal controversies. But he had an inherent knack for elevating the play of his teammates, no matter how tough he was on them. Again, he benefited from three years at North Carolina that helped expand his value, both tactically and emotionally. Jordan's congenial persona made for a better leader. The biggest difference between the two, though? Leadership. Michael, on the other hand, would shift his attention to defense or passing or setting screens to help the team win the game." "When his shot is off, Kobe will pound away relentlessly until his luck turns. "Jordan was also more naturally inclined to let the game come to him and not overplay his hand, whereas Kobe tends to force the action, especially when the game isn't going his way," he explains. Mostly, though, he praised Jordan for his patience, for allowing the game to come to him-something Kobe rarely does. Jackson painted a similar picture on the offensive end. He cited Jordan's superior efficiency and discussed at length how MJ's "sturdier frame" and broader shoulders allowed him to do more on the offensive end. "In general, Kobe tends to rely more heavily on his flexibility and craftiness, but he takes a lot of gambles on defense and sometimes pays the price." "Kobe has learned a lot from studying Michael's tricks, and we often used him as our secret weapon on defense when we needed to turn the direction of a game," Jackson said. Jackson acknowledges the contrary, but also concedes that Kobe took unnecessary risks and relied too heavily on his athleticism. Which isn't to say Kobe was a poor defender. "He could break through virtually any screen and shut down almost any player with his intense, laser-focused style of defense." "No question, Michael was a tougher, more intimidating defender," he said. While Bryant was often considered an emotional recluse, Jordan was a social butterfly. Jackson believed he was better on defense, too. Jordan was more convivial and alluring as a person. "Increasingly, Kobe put more energy into getting to know the other players, especially when the team was on the road." "But his inclination to keep to himself shifted as he grew older," Jackson explains. As time went on, and Kobe began to better grasp the concept of being a teammate, he became a more affable influence. He got better at it, though, Jackson admits. Seclusion was a coping mechanism he employed upon entering an environment and culture he wasn't familiar with and didn't fully understand. At only 18, he wasn't as socially developed as his peers. According to Jackson, he kept to himself-a self-imposed isolation that he attributed to the absence of the collegiate experience.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |