Orville Higgins | Give LeBron James his due!

On Thursday night, I was heartbroken. I was watching Game One in the NBA finals between Golden State Warriors and Cleveland Cavaliers. Not even the most ardent Cavs supporter (and I count myself among them) is giving LeBron James and his "motley crew" a chance against the defending champions, who, despite showing a chink in their armoury against the Houston Rockets, are still the prohibitive favourites.

Before the game started, I was only hoping that the Cavaliers would not be embarrassed. Not only were the Cavs not embarrassed, they almost won the game in regular time. A combination of strange officiating, George Hill missing a crucial free throw, and JR Smith losing his mind, forced the game into overtime. Cleveland were unable to muster the same quality in overtime and surrendered rather meekly.

While watching the game, I felt sorry for James. How do you score 51 points in an NBA final and still end up on the losing side? I have mentioned before that those who are not accepting that he is arguably the best who has ever played the game are not talking basketball. Those who are claiming that he cannot be compared with Michael Jordan are speaking sentimentally. If it is about skills and quality on the basketball court, then Michael Jordan had absolutely nothing on James.

The biggest arguments in Jordan's favour are six rings, six MVP titles, and never allowing a Game 7 in a final. (The Jordan backers will forget to mention that there are several players with more rings than Jordan.) Conversely, the biggest argument against James is his finals record. He is now in his ninth trip to the NBA final (this year is his eighth straight), and the fact that he has won only three rings is a huge albatross around his neck.

DUMB AND ILLOGICAL

Using titles to settle an argument about the quality of an individual in team sports is one of the dumbest, most illogical arguments ever postulated in sports. No matter how good an individual is, if you don't have a quality team around you, then challenging for titles is a mere pipe dream. James must be commended for being able to bring his group of also-rans to final after final. Of the nine finals he has been to, only twice was he the favourite. On all other occasions, including this year, he has come up against a vastly superior team.

What is remarkable about this "titles" argument that I keep hearing from some Jamaicans is that they do not even apply this logic in every situation. Ask the average Jamaican who the best Jamaican footballer ever is, and you are likely to get several different names. Whoever they choose, be it Lindy Delapenha, Allan 'Skill' Cole, or Walter Boyd, the reason very rarely has anything to do with titles - they won for Jamaica - it is always how good they are on the field of play.

A lot of Jamaicans feel Brian Lara is the best Test match batsman ever. While Test cricket does not have a title to play for, the truth is that Brian Lara is one of the losingest batsmen ever in Test cricket. The same people who argue about the importance of winning and titles in other sports, will conveniently forget their principles regarding cricket. One of my media colleagues who displays an alarming lack of understanding for the nuances of cricket says that cricket is different. He accepts that a batsman or bowler can be the greatest of all time even if he is not winning anything. He is a big Brian Lara fan, and his position apparently is conveniently changed when discussing cricket to facilitate Lara.

His position is that Lara can score a triple century, but then, it is up to the bowlers to do their part, and, therefore, Lara's greatness should not be compromised if he piles up big runs but the bowlers do not do their part and West Indies end up losing and losing. It is completely lost on my friend that the very same principle can be applied in football. A forward can score two goals every game, but he cannot be expected to play the role of the centre half and the goalkeeper in keeping out goals. This is the classic case of convenient reasoning, which should be embarrassing for anyone, never mind a man who says he has a high sports IQ.

James must be judged for what he does on the court. If his team is not good enough to win multiple titles, why should that be used against him. This brings up the ongoing debate between Lionel Messi and Diego Maradona. I go with Maradona simply because I think on the biggest stages, he stamps his class in a more mesmerising way than Messi. At the World Cup, which is the ultimate stage in football, Maradona was a much more marauding force, while Messi is known to look more human in key World Cup encounters. The fact that Maradona has won a World Cup, while Messi has not, should matter little in determining who is better. Paula Rossi of Italy was instrumental in Italy disposing of the high-riding Brazil in 1982 en route to winning the World Cup. He was the most influential player on the top team in 1982. He has a World Cup medal while Messi does not, but to suggest that Rossi is as good as Messi is simply asinine.

James should be given his due. Even if he did not win one single title, he should still be in the conversation for best of all time. If we accept the "fool-fool" argument that titles should be a strong deciding factor, it means that we are putting the onus on the great players to find great teams in club sports or to go and be reborn in some other country where talent level is greater in international sports! Foolishness is foolishness! We need to stop this stupid "titles" argument now!