Personally, I rooted against Jordan in every single series, especially against the Lakers and Jazz.
I was a huge Magic Johnson supporter and at the time there definitely was an active debate: Magic or Jordan?
I’m old enough to have been influenced by Magic and Bird, so pass-first, no-look dishes were what I grew up on. Who was the better player? The one who made his team better, or the one who was individually better?
After game 1 of the Lakers series, the answer seemed clear: Magic’s ability to include his teammates made him better. This was exemplified at the end of the game with Magic hitting Sam Perkins for the game winner.
What I didn’t see, however, was that Jordan no longer was a 1-man team. He included his teammates enough that his individual prowess shined even brighter. By game 4, it was clear that Jordan was far superior to Johnson.
From then on, and to answer your question, there was a feeling of inevitability to Jordan. The Blazers were not in the ballpark; the Suns were, but I do not believe the Bulls lose a game 7 (even in Phoenix).
The Jazz were right there with them. To me, those were the closest sets of series. However, when it got to crunch time, the Bulls had Jordan (whereas the Jazz relied on an extremely clutch John Stockton) and that was the difference.
Again, there was a sense of inevitability at the end of every game.
Personally, I rooted against Jordan in every single series, especially against the Lakers and Jazz.
I was a huge Magic Johnson supporter and at the time there definitely was an active debate: Magic or Jordan?
I’m old enough to have been influenced by Magic and Bird, so pass-first, no-look dishes were what I grew up on. Who was the better player? The one who made his team better, or the one who was individually better?
After game 1 of the Lakers series, the answer seemed clear: Magic’s ability to include his teammates made him better. This was exemplified at the end of the game with Magic hitting Sam Perkins for the game winner.
What I didn’t see, however, was that Jordan no longer was a 1-man team. He included his teammates enough that his individual prowess shined even brighter. By game 4, it was clear that Jordan was far superior to Johnson.
From then on, and to answer your question, there was a feeling of inevitability to Jordan. The Blazers were not in the ballpark; the Suns were, but I do not believe the Bulls lose a game 7 (even in Phoenix).
The Jazz were right there with them. To me, those were the closest sets of series. However, when it got to crunch time, the Bulls had Jordan (whereas the Jazz relied on an extremely clutch John Stockton) and that was the difference. Again, there was a sense of inevitability at the end of every game.