Caitlin Clark Rules | New Yorker

There was a time when there was a way to beat Michael Jordan: beat him. The Detroit Pistons have made a defensive plan year after year, involving trapping him over and over, pushing him onto the screen, bullying him, passing the draft pick, sending him two or three bodies and throwing him out of balance, breaking away from his shots, shooting, cool. They call their strategy Jordan Rules.

This is very smart. Jordan is undoubtedly the best player in the league, unstoppable with his own will, but the Pistons eliminated the Chicago Bulls from the playoffs for three consecutive years. This strategy also has personal advantages. Jordan is the talent of historic proportions and the most popular player in the game. But he is also a human being, his sharing (and more) vulnerability and appetite, and he gets angry with a lot of people – partly because of his behavior, partly because of his Michael Jordan. According to reports, Pistons leader Isiah Thomas organized a plan to be a rookie in the 1985 All-Star game, Jordan was a rookie because veterans were jealous of Jordan having received all the attention and wanted to send a message that he had to wait for his turn. As we all know, the frozen game may be more like media chaos than the whole truth–Thomas has always denied it–but there is no doubt that Jordan used such a slight small amount, or his opinion of them was fuel.

The NBA was a niche entertainment at the time, sometimes suffering from certain but economically fragile pains. Some players and competition have entered the popularity consciousness (especially Magic Johnson and Larry Bird), but until 1986, the playoffs showed the playoffs on tape delays, rather than live. Jordan changed everything. When sports writer Sam Smith published a book about the Bulls’ 1990-91 season, Jordan and the Bulls eventually broke the shackles of the Pistons at the Eastern Conference, one of the most famous men on earth. Smith calls his book “Jordan Rules. The title not only hints at the way the Pistons are, but also the accommodation the Bulls do for their stars because of his special identity in the league.

On Tuesday night, Caitlin Clark was poked by Connecticut Sun Guard Jacy Sheldon, and Clark was crowded when Clark rolled up. She pushed Sheldon and was hit to the ground by Sheldon’s teammate Marina Mabrey. Clark was pushed away and grabbed all night and made a little push. Most of them escaped the referee’s condemnation, which sets the scene for the subsequent chaos. By the night, five technical fouls and two blatant fouls had been issued, and three players were popped up. (One of the five technicians was later upgraded to a blatant foul.) Everyone agreed that the referee should maintain tighter control over the game. Low quality of hosts has been a persistent problem for the WNBA, but that is not what triggers subsequent news alerts. Seeing Clark being pushed again.

Clark buried the absurd three-pointer in dribbling and running images – like she did in that game against the Suns, and she did three days ago three days ago to defeat defending champion New York Liberty, which was previously unbeaten, is one of the most inspiring things of all sports. The media and online chat around Clark are one of the most frustrating. Many discussions (words for which politeness) focus on whether Clark is an opponent and why. Social media is flooded with compilation of her being beaten and hitting the deck.

For long-time fans of the league, it seems that the background of all the connections is important for a few people in it and around it. The league is “very physical,” these lasting fans explain to new fans (or “casual”). Players, especially rookies, have been receiving this treatment all the time. Clark is a very good player – a great player – but she isn’t at the level of A’ja Wilson, Breanna Stewart or Napheesa Collier, at least not yet. These fans believe that failing to recognize this situation is an erasure: It reduces the history of a long history of a league full of great players, most of whom are black, many of whom are queer.

Even some of Clark’s biggest supporters should be cautious about seeing her as a key figure in the long-term development of the sport rather than as the Sui-Generis phenomenon. Howard Megdal, sports reporter Nextan online media focused on women’s basketball, recently written Book About Clark, this is her in-depth experience from Iowa basketball history. In the giant narrative, Clark Help enhance one The surge in interest in women’s basketball This is already very good. And there is a lot of evidence to support this view. The WNBA rating has been rising for years. Despite insufficient investment, the sport is still successful and attracting new audiences. Even though Clark was clearly the league’s biggest draw, even if she didn’t play the rating, it broke the record. The Golden State Warriors owner paid $5 million in expansion fees to join the league in 2023 before Clark joined the pro. Just a few years ago, the team sold for about one-fifth of that. Now, the Golden State Warrior’s valuation is expected to be nearly ten times, which is what Clark has attracted the attention of the sport, but it’s not because she fills the stands at the Chase Center in San Francisco every night. This year alone, Valkyries is expected to earn $515 million from sponsorship and ticket sales, far exceeding Clark’s team, Indiana Fever, which accumulated last year. They succeed because they have resources and sales like actual professional sports teams.

For others, any effort to downplay Clark’s personal appeal is ridiculous. “With the most promising day in WNBA history, the cultural spotlight in the United States is brighter than female athletes in team sports, and she brings the possibility of bringing basketball and all women’s sports to places they have never been to,” she said. USA Today Columnist Christine Brennan Writebefore Clark’s league début. “But, the glare of that bright, sometimes harsh light isn’t fixed on the magical Caitlin Clark. Over the past few weeks, it has focused on the players in front of her, some of whom strangely seem hard to accept and deal with her reputation, even if they will benefit greatly from it.” Brennan’s book on Clark,”In her game“,” to be published in early July, believes the WNBA is hitting the ball by promoting Clark less aggressively. After Tuesday’s fever and the trap between the Suns, Brennan suggested that the WNBA recommends that protecting its most popular players need to protect their most popular players. Market,” she Write On X, a video about the dispute was quoted, which read “This alliance treats her as a punching bag.”

Brennan has been writing about women’s sports for decades, and like Megdal, she tried to put the rise of Clark in context. But her history highlights the success of the IX and American Women’s Football Team and Iowa, and her argument is that Clark is a bizarre figure. From this perspective, Clark is a dynamic revolution, a rupture in women’s basketball history and all women’s sports. And there is evidence to support this view. For example, when Clark was selected last year, he watched the WNBA draft twice as much as this year. When Clark competed significantly higher than her rating and attendance. (Last season her game averaged over one million spectators; the average of other games in the league is less than half.) No other player in women’s basketball history is far from reaching her celebrity. It is hard to think of an analog that has attracted a keen interest in attention in any other team sport. “When will these ladies realize that accepting and appreciating @caitlinclark22 is the best thing women’s basketball has ever seen,” Tennis Legend Write On X, a tweet from Brennan was quoted.

“Yes, she became the target,” Paul Pierce, a former Celtics player and Hall of Fame member, was on Kevin Garnett’s podcastAfter the showdown between the fever and the sun. “It’s like Jordan is the target,” he continued. “‘Jordan rule.’ They have the “Jordan Rules”. When you’re so good, yes, you’re going to be the target.”