What Bill Russell admired most about Michael Jordanit was his ability to be Michael Jordan every night, never taking time off. Thus, the former Bulls player was not one of the players who needed to be motivated to perform at their best. However, as a sickly competitor, he sometimes invented challenges to further fuel his inner fire.
Therefore, once this observation is stated, a clear instruction seems to emerge: never give bones to gnaw on in the back. Not even a little piece. This is the mistake Jeff Van Gundy made in January 1997.
“He kicks their butt and they’ll kiss him at the end, like it’s good to have taken 45 points. I don’t understand “
The Knicks coach at the time accused the superstar of getting closer to certain players – he was thinking of Charles Oakley and Patrick Ewing, friends of Michael Jordan – to soften them and thus better devour them on the floor. Clearly, they were blinded and were no longer able to perform at their best level when it came to meeting “MJ”…
“One of the reasons he’s been so strong and for so long is the mystique around him. Everybody wants to be like him, be that good, make that much money, do all those things off the court,” explained at the time the man who is now an assistant with the Clippers. “We see him, match after match, with the guys, smiling, giving little pats on the buttocks. Then he kicks their butts and they’ll kiss him at the end, like it’s good to have taken 45 points. I don’t understand. »
To conclude, facing “this way of making friends with them, of coaxing them, of trying to make them feel that he cares about them”Jeff Van Gundy estimated that “the first thing to do was to realize it and not let it happen”.
If it was a criticism for others, who let themselves be fooled, Michael Jordan logically took it personally. Later, he would even say that it was an offense against his qualities as a basketball player. To win, wouldn’t his talent and work be enough? Would he also have to deceive his opponents?
51 points and “well-chosen words” for revenge
Obviously, the words of the Knicks coach were reproduced in the press, in the Chicago Tribune notably, before the duel between the Knicks and the Bulls, January 21, 1997. “It was undoubtedly a tactical error by the New York coach to attack Michael”had slipped Phil Jackson. “He played like he had a score to settle, like a vendetta. »
-And since the documentary “The Last Dance”, we know how things end: Michael Jordan “takes things personally” – “Took It Personal” in the original version, which became a meme on the Internet. This will become the “Con Game”, since “con” in English has the meaning of deceiving, scamming, defrauding someone.
Result ? 51 points at 18/30 on the shoot, 5/8 at 3-pts from Michael Jordan in the short victory of the Bulls (88-87), with a last basket to push New York thirty seconds from the end and a little word to Jeff Van Gundy in the process. “Well chosen words”will specify the Chicago player. “I didn’t make any friends tonight. »
“I think the comments were more made to motivate his players. But I don’t believe that, on the ground, they gave me any gifts.” The league’s top scorer will then react to the release of “JVG”. “I don’t go on the floor to make friends. However, when I leave the field, I leave what happened on it. It’s just sport, not war. If he judges that I’m taking advantage of my friends, it doesn’t matter. »
| Michael Jordan | Percentage | Rebounds | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saison | Team | MJ | Min | Shots | 3pts | LF | Off | Def | To | Pd | Fte | Int | Bp | Ct | Pts |
| 1984-85 | CHI | 82 | 38 | 51.5 | 17.3 | 84.5 | 2.0 | 4.5 | 6.5 | 5.9 | 3.5 | 2.4 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 28.2 |
| 1985-86 | CHI | 18 | 25 | 45.7 | 16.7 | 84.0 | 1.3 | 2.3 | 3.6 | 2.9 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 22.7 |
| 1986-87 | CHI | 82 | 40 | 48.2 | 18.2 | 85.7 | 2.0 | 3.2 | 5.2 | 4.6 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 37.1 |
| 1987-88 ★ | CHI | 82 | 40 | 53.5 | 13.2 | 84.1 | 1.7 | 3.8 | 5.5 | 5.9 | 3.3 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 1.6 | 35.0 |
| 1988-89 | CHI | 81 | 40 | 53.8 | 27.6 | 85.0 | 1.8 | 6.2 | 8.1 | 8.0 | 3.1 | 2.9 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 32.5 |
| 1989-90 | CHI | 82 | 39 | 52.6 | 37.6 | 84.8 | 1.7 | 5.2 | 6.9 | 6.3 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 0.7 | 33.6 |
| 1990-91 ★ | CHI | 82 | 37 | 53.9 | 31.2 | 85.1 | 1.4 | 4.6 | 6.0 | 5.5 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 31.5 |
| 1991-92 ★ | CHI | 80 | 39 | 51.9 | 27.0 | 83.2 | 1.1 | 5.3 | 6.4 | 6.1 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 30.1 |
| 1992-93 | CHI | 78 | 39 | 49.5 | 35.2 | 83.7 | 1.7 | 5.0 | 6.7 | 5.5 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 32.6 |
| 1994-95 | CHI | 17 | 39 | 41.1 | 50.0 | 80.1 | 1.5 | 5.4 | 6.9 | 5.3 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 26.9 |
| 1995-96 ★ | CHI | 82 | 38 | 49.5 | 42.7 | 83.4 | 1.8 | 4.8 | 6.6 | 4.3 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 30.4 |
| 1996-97 | CHI | 82 | 38 | 48.6 | 37.4 | 83.3 | 1.4 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 29.7 |
| 1997-98 ★ | CHI | 82 | 39 | 46.5 | 23.8 | 78.4 | 1.6 | 4.2 | 5.8 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 0.6 | 28.7 |
| 2001-02 | WAS | 60 | 35 | 41.6 | 18.9 | 79.0 | 0.8 | 4.8 | 5.7 | 5.2 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 22.9 |
| 2002-03 | WAS | 82 | 37 | 44.5 | 29.1 | 82.1 | 0.9 | 5.2 | 6.1 | 3.8 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 20.0 |
| Total | 1072 | 38 | 49.7 | 32.7 | 83.5 | 1.6 | 4.7 | 6.2 | 5.3 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 30.1 | |
How to read the stats? MJ = matches played; Min = Minutes; Shots = Successful shots / Attempted shots; 3pts = 3-points / 3-points attempted; LF = free throws made / free throws attempted; Off = offensive rebound; Def=defensive rebound; Tot = Total rebounds; Pd = assists; Fte: Personal fouls; Int = Intercepts; Bp = Lost balls; Ct: Against; Pts = Points.
