Ilyasova’s hustle, Delfino’s three, and Jennings composure give Bucks Game 5 win over Hawks
As all teams coached by Scott Skiles have done, the Milwaukee Bucks excel at defense and thrive to make all of the hustle plays. This, as his immensely successful teams have illustrated, is how late deficits are turned into leads and how presumed losses are turned into victories. With Brandon Jennings, a 20-year old starting point guard, and without their immensely talented and multi-faceted center, Andrew Bogut, the young Bucks relied heavily on these two objectives during the regular season in clinching the sixth seed in the Eastern Conference, and now have continued to do so during these playoffs. Especially in Game 5 against the favored Atlanta Hawks.
Ersan Ilyasova, their 22-year old extremely valuable and versatile backup forward, saved an errant pass from going out-of-bounds late in the fourth quarter and tippy-toed along the baseline to keep possession in Milwaukee’s favor. He was then rewarded for the hustle Skiles ever so appreciates, carving through the lane and connecting on a smooth hook shot. The Bucks, which were down 82-73 when he replaced Luke Ridnour two minutes earlier, were now leading 83-82, storming back and silencing an uneasy Hawks crowd. The tide had officially turned into The Deer’s favor.
Atlanta’s star guard Joe Johnson had just previously picked up his sixth foul at the 2:15 mark, sending him to the bench, and on their possession following his permanent seat on the pine, the Hawks scrambled frantically for points that wouldn’t come. Josh Smith, who cut back considerably on his outside shots this season by finally understanding that his 6’9″, 240 build could do damage in the paint, launched a rare three-pointer that looked understandably rusty. Al Horford, their center who was by far their best player in this pivotal Game 5, snatched the miss but missed a shot of his own. The rebound fell into the hands of Jennings. The Bucks could further drive the stake into the Hawks heart.
Ilyasova made sure that would happen. He lunged for a Jennings miss and, in danger of falling out bounds once more, alertly fired a pass to Carlos Delfino, who was perched beyond the three-point line in the left corner. Milwaukee had a new shot-clock, as Jennings shot had touched rim, but instead of running some ticks holding a one-point lead, Delfino wasted little time making use of Ilyasova’s effort. He hesitated at first, but then fired from deep and watched the dagger rattle through. Four-point lead, a 13-0 run capped, and a Hawks timeout.
Atlanta wanted to go to the streaky yet very lethal Jamal Crawford to try to stop the bleeding, which, strategy-wise was a smart decision. But it didn’t amount to anything positive. Crawford missed three shots on a possession that lasted more than half a minute thanks to two offensive rebounds and a favorable tip on a jump-ball.
The Hawks made a valiant effort in the final half-minute behind a jumper and a banked prayer from just beyond the three-point stripe by Horford. The problem was that, though the margin was only two, 89-87, they would need an implosion by the Bucks at the free-throw line to even attempt to steal a win. Atlanta would get no such luck as Jennings hit two composed free-throws with nine seconds left to increase the lead to four and end the hopes of their stunned opponent.
In winning to take a 3-2 series lead heading home, Milwaukee thought nothing of the double-digit deficit they faced, remained composed, played Skiles’ aggressive defense, hit clutch shots, and made their free-throws when it mattered most. In essence, this extremely young team with a few veterans mixed in did what they have done all season, what every coach hopes for and what Skiles has endlessly preached. They played like a team that believes the Hawks are just one of many obstacles in their way of accomplishing a goal few believe they can do. If their style of play, their defensive focus and offensive execution, their mixture of young and old, and their composure is any indication, the Hawks will just be the first of many teams that will fear the deer.
http://fanhuddle.com/portlandtrailblazers/2010/04/30/it-was-fun-while-it-lasted-blazers-season-ends-with-game-6-loss-to-suns/
Nick, that is the strongest thing you have written.
Powerful lead, which you reinforced and further defined in paragraph 2, then the body of story is filled with lengthy and accurate critical analysis without negativity, you handle the whole Gentry/Crawford angle by remaining above the fray and not coming off as having sour grapes while at the same time documenting and articulating the facts and the truth, and then in the next to last paragraph you put a nice pretty little bow around the whole game, and then in the final paragraph you do the same with the entire season.
What’s most significant, and perhaps I am wrong about this, only you really know, but just reading it gives me the impression that it wasn’t a struggle at all to write, and it all just all flowed for you, from beginning to end, all because when you started you knew where you were going, and most importantly you instinctively knew how to get there.
You did not have those instincts a year ago, and now you do, and those instincts can never be taken away, and with them not only can you write about sports, but also economic policy, environmental issues, politics, or even fiction if you so choose to apply yourself in that area.
The entire world is now just a blank canvass for you, and it is all waiting for you.
Make sure you go and get what is rightfully yours. Do not wait for anything to come to you.
There are two kinds of people, those who make things happen, and those who things happen to.
Make things happen.
This piece needs to be first, front and center, for all samples that you submit for editors to review.
It was a VERY GOOD season, and an EXCELLENT piece.
Thank you very much, Eric! I feel I have really been able to develop a style and tweak it.
Yeah, it did flow out of my head pretty effortlessly. It being such a emotional loss, I had all of these feelings coming out of me. I have had the feeling for a while that articles are not very difficult for me to write. I have a plan in my head, and I go by that plan rather simply. It’s been a lot of fun and relieves some of the stress from writing late at night, especially when I start my articles during the games (which I have done for a couple of months).
I was thinking about starting my article with a bit about Crawford and Gentry, but then it would immediately look like I was trying to make excuses. I thought somewhat of a somber tone would fit better, and I’m really happy with the way it turned out.
Thank you again, Eric! I really appreciate such positive feedback!
Yes, what a fantastic season it was!
It is okay to let your emotions effect your writing, in fact it is preferable, as opposed to just being ambivalent about what you are wring about. However, NEVER let your emotions govern you and what you write.
That is an important distinction. If you can harness your emotions, then your emotions will enhance your writing, but if your emotions control you, then it will have a huge adverse impact on your writing.
It is a very fine line, but if straddle that line without ever crossing it, you will be better than most if not all who are covering the same story, who have the garbage in garbage out, it’s just a job mentality about what they are covering.
For example, leading with Crawford and Gentry would have been crossing that line, and you would have just come off as a disgruntled fan, and not a professional writer. Whenever you make any kind of corruption allegation, and that is what it is, granted, Gentry didn’t give Crawford a check, but to have different rules for different people is by definition corruption, and you handled it precisely how it should be handled, bury it in the story and address it through innuendo, leaving it for the educated and informed reader to figure it out. Making a direct accusation is not only editorializing, but it also comes off as shrill and partisan, and you handled it exactly how professional sports reporters and news reporters would have addressed it.
You are much better than even you realize, and you have gone as far as you are going to go on Fanhuddle and Bleacher Report, and what you need to do now is cut back on your writing to no more than 50% of what you are doing now. Continue to write just to keep yourself sharp, but now the main objective is to find a job, and when you don’t have a job, your job is to get a job, and you have to approach searching for a job as if the search in of itself is a full time job, which is what it is.
Persistence overcomes resistance.
If you haven’t found a job writing yet, it isn’t because you aren’t good enough, it is because you haven’t tried hard enough.
Good luck.
You are right; I haven’t tried hard enough. I have to really be aggressive about really turning this into a profession. And I feel, like you, that I should cut back my article load. I really want to write a lot on here; more so I think than on Fan Huddle. I am really enjoying writing on both sites, but I would love to write for Lane’s paper and especially the Daily Emerald when I go to UO this next fall. But, as you say, I have to be persistent.
Thanks!