LeBron James - most talented, but never Jordan

"It’s obvious we agree on the first point" And which point is that? I don't recall agreeing with you on too many things! "which leads me to think you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing." Of course. If I dare argue with you because I DISAGREE with you, it must be because I'm 'just arguing for the sake of arguing.' You really are incredible. Here's a tip; in a discussion, it is perfectly normal for other people to have different opinions. If your only response to disagreement is to delusionary think that the other person is 'just arguing for the sake of arguing', you should cease writing articles and not be involved in discussion. " But keep flying the flag champ." Oh, please. Forgive me if I don't like self-righteous and offensive generalisations. "Offensive or not, I stick by my fanboy comment." And I'm sticking by my view that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you resort to such comments because you are insecure about people disagreeing with your precious opinions. I'm also sticking by my view that you are the last person to judge the fandom of any NBA fans, and that by bringing up something offensive and irrelevant, you are simply trolling!

"I’m not trying to argue that Jordan didn’t have any support, the teams he played in were great teams. However you remove Jordan and they don’t win six championships." You can say that about most teams. Remove Bird from the 80's Celtics, and they probably wouldn't have won three titles. Remove Magic and/or Kareem from the 80's Lakers, and they probably wouldn't have won five titles. Jordan was IMO among the five greatest sportsmen of all time, however as good as he was, he did not do it alone. "Haha I’d be interested to know how many people in Australia now follow Cleveland after Lebron’s left," I would be interested to know how many people followed Cleveland before LeBron left. I would also be interested to know the relevance of this; none of the posters indicated that they were Cleveland fans. "I think that would be all the evidence I need." What evidence? Evidence for what? You made a generalisation which was not only absurd and offensive, but also irrelevant. You obviously believe that if someone dares believe that LeBron was better than Jordan (and very few people believe that anyway, so I don't know where you get it from), they must be 'fanboys'. They aren't, they simply have a different opinion to you. God forbid. Oh, and that you describe the Australian NBA fan culture as 'sickening' is even more absurd and offensive.

I would also argue that if you include Jordan's three seasons in college, you must also include the NCAA Championship he won in his first season.

Except, you're not comparing apples with apples. Jordan played in an era in which everybody went to college; Lebron is playing in an era in which less people are going to college for three years. If LeBron had played during the 80's, he probably would have gone to college. If Jordan had played today, he would unlikely have gone for three years. The only way to determine whether or not LeBron is ahead of Jordan is to go by number of NBA seasons. You can't go by age since Jordan went to college and LeBron did not, and as for going by high school graduation, it ignores that they had entirely different careers. One went to college, and one did not. As such, it took Jordan seven seasons to win his first title, and it could take LeBron eight seasons to win his first. That in itself does not suggest BTW that Jordan was superior (although I absolutely believe he was) since there is not much of a difference between winning a title in one's seventh or eighth seasons. "But what is clear is that LeBron’s trajectory of achievement is ahead of Jordan’s." Not to me. I don't agree with the criteria you are using.

The relevance lies - in an article asserting Jordan's supposed relative superiority - in the data itself, and is suggestive that LeBron may well be ahead of Jordan's schedule of achievement. Only time will tell whether LeBron eclipses Jordan's achievements in the end, but LeBron is achieving more at a younger age than Jordan, particularly if the Heat win this year. Since they both have different starting points, the only common denominator from which to benchmark development is their common jumping off point of high school graduation, at the identical age of 18. Keeping that as our point of reference, we then can compare their careers in a consistent manner, keeping "apples with apples." LeBron, if the Heat win this year, will have won his first NBA championship in his 8th season after high school; Michael won his 1st in his 10th year after high school. It certainly is not clear whether LeBron will ever get to 6 titles. But what is clear is that LeBron's trajectory of achievement is ahead of Jordan's.

The fact that LeBron will be younger than Jordan, should LeBron win this season, is irrelevant. As you said, Jordan played three years of college. LeBron 'may have as many as three rings by the time and age by which Jordan had only won his first', but considerig that Jordan played at a time when everyone went to college, and LeBron skipped college, I don't see the relevance.

"While a great defensive player, averaging roughly 15 rebounds per game, Rodman at 198cm was undersized for his position and was only able to muster 5 points a game for the Bulls. It also must be remembered that Rodman was only around for 3 of Jordan’s 6 championships and joined in the twilight of his career." It wasn't Rodman's role to score points. His role was to get rebounds and provide great defense. He was brilliant as a Bull, and more than did his job in spite of his being undersized (which was irrelevant). Plus, it shouldn't be forgotten that he had replaced Horace Grant, an all-star and one heck of a power forward. In 1991, Grant averaged 12.8 ppg and 8.4 rpg (with 54.7% efficiency), 14.2/10.0 in 1992 (with 57.8 % efficiency), and 13.2/9.5 in 1993 (shooting 50.8%). "The fanboy culture of Australian NBA followers is sickening to watch – Lebron is a brilliant player, but I still maintain he’s no MJ." No, what's sickening is that you make absurd statements attacking other NBA fans (who are no more fanboys than you are) with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. BTW, I also doubt that if Lebron wins several titles, he will be remembered as a 'unfulfilled potential' whp 'shied away from greatness.' If anything, winning titles will only add to his greatness. As far as I'm concerned, he made the right decision to leave Cleveland.

"The move to Miami was an admission by James that he wasn’t good enough to win a championship on his own" Nobody is. No-one has ever won a championship on their own. Bird had McHale, Parish & Dennis Johnson; Magic had Worthy & Kareem; Jordan had Pippen, Horace Grant & Rodman etc... Also, it should be noted that while Jordan did say he wouldn't have done what Lebron did, he did acknowledge that times have changed.

Actually, it's well documented that Mike spent a heckuva lot of time on the golf course and at the casino. Not that he didn't work on his game, but that he worked harder than LeBron - or most NBA elites - is a convenient myth for the lazy. Just not true that he uniquely worked on his game. And laughably ignorant to suggest LeBron does not.

It was Jordan's 10th season after high school, since he played 3 years of college. If LeBron wins this year, he will actually be two years ahead of Jordan's pace, and he may have as many as three rings by the time and age by which Jordan had only won his first. In other words, LeBron is 26; Jordan was 28 when he won his first championship.

Undoubtedly the Cavs were built around LeBron, but can you honestly say that any team that had LeBron would've done it differently? You have the greatest physical talent in the game, of course you are going to build your team around him.

James had guys who could play well around him in the regular season when things are less demanding, but c'mon the team went 19-63 without him this year. The Cavs were Lebron putting up big numbers.

Easy to say in hindsight, if you go back and look at it, the Cavs were overwhelming favourites to beat the Celtics in the Conference Semi-Finals last year. Again, I'm not saying at all that they were a better team than any of Jordan's Bulls - they weren't - but the easy comment to sit back now and say he had no support just is not true.

The Cavs weren't anywhere near as good as Jordan's championship teams. They were more comparable to the '89 and '90 Bulls that lost in the Eastern Conference Finals both years. Lebron clearly quit on his team in the end, but they were never as good as the Celtics or Lakers. Beating up easy teams and the East and racking up the best record in the NBA is regular season stuff and doesn't count for much in the playoffs.

I know that basketball is about the way a team plays together, but considering the Cavs had the league's best record that season, they clearly had some idea how to play well together. No one is doubting that the Bulls had some great production of their bench, but saying that the Cavs didn't is an incredibly simplistic view.

Basketball is about how well you play as a team not how many points per game your role players score. The guys who played on multiple championship teams for the Bulls fit into the triangle offence and gave the Bulls good production. Steve Kerr scoring 8 points a game on .500 shooting from both parts of the floor is valuable production.

Cleveland's supporting cast was nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be. Just look at their 2009-10 team. Antwan Jamison -who has been an All-Star in his career - averaged 16 points and 8 boards Mo Williams - 16 points and 5 assists Plus Shaq, Variejo,Hickson, Delonte, and Gibson and its a decent core group of players, providing James led the way. Starters not named LeBron averaged basically 60 points and 20 rebounds per game. Compare that to the Bulls this year, with starters averaging 49 points and 26 rebounds per game. It's easier to blame the rest of the Cavs rather than LeBron, but truth is they weren't that bad.