Tony Parker vs Manu Ginobilli

[Saskibaloia2]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20.../13/choosing.sides.parker.ginobili/index.html

Quarter-ending one-on-one situation -- who you got?

Parker is annually among the NBA leaders in points scored in the paint, and it's not because he's posting up and taking turnaround jumpers. He is a master at getting into the paint and releasing his high teardrop shot with uncanny accuracy. He doesn't get many blocked, either. And though the defensive book on Eva Longoria's mate continues to be slough off him and make him shoot from the outside, he can be deadly accurate when he's on.

There's a little more drama when Ginobili gets it outside and prepares to break down the defense. He gathers himself like a tailback ready to hit the hole, and, chances are, he's not going to stop unless there is some kind of contact. He spins, he crosses over or he goes behind his back. He gets knocked down or he knocks somebody down. And, generally, Ginobili somehow makes it to the basket to release some kind of bizarre half-hook or layup.

For me, it's definitely Manu Ginobilli. Reason being is that I'm in favour of his size, athleticism, defenisive abilities and above average ball handling for a shooting guard.

 

[DanMajerle2]

Ginobili by far. Parker is one of the most overhyped PG's to me. His playmaking skills, creativity and courtvision are mediocre and he has no shot. He has a very good drive though, but that's not enough to beat guys like Papaloukas, or Jasikevicius.

 

[CG2]

different potision different players but even with that i choose of course Gino

 

[rikhardur2]

Ginobili beats Parker almost in every aspect of the game. I like Parker, he's a good scorer, but apart from that he still has a lot to learn (or maybe not).

 

[Czarkazem132]

I like both, but it's Manu hands down. IMHO, Parker still hasn't developed into a top-notch playmaker that it seemed he was on his way to be, though with that said, he still is a solid PG.

 

[damelo2]

Ginobili by far. Parker is one of the most overhyped PG's to me. His playmaking skills, creativity and courtvision are mediocre and he has no shot.

Man, you're tough on Parker... Papa doesn't have a very good shoot anymore... Parker is now better than him. And, his work on his midrange shoot have made him a quite good shooter. Still, he is not the same king of PG as Papaloukas or steve Nash, able to give the ball to anyone at anytime. but I think he is an intelligent point guard, and efficient. His team wins.
I used to think he is overrated because in France when you speak about basketball, people only know him now. But he is a good basketball player, and a very good point guard.

Anyway, to come back to the subject, I think for a last shot, Im going with Ginobili, because you can't say what he'll do before he has done. Even him doesn't know... ANd he is very efficient in that kind of situation.

 

[Calvin2]

Tony Parker, great point guards are more rare than great shooting guards.

 

[Czarkazem132]

Tony Parker, great point guards are more rare than great shooting guards.

Agreed, but do you really think TP is a great pg?

 

[stuart2]

Parker can get to the hole, but he lacks the consistent outside shot and the awareness that makes Manu so much more dangerous. Manu is so awkward in his movements and savvy with his shots around the basket that he seems to be able to get a shot up whenever he feels. For me, it's Manu in the clutch.

Stuart

 

[Levenspiel2]

... For me, it's Manu in the clutch.

Exactly.

I've been impressed by Parker since the day I watched him playing the reserve pg behind Sciarra in eurobasket 2001; but Manu is truly a special player.

 

[Mightytoo2]

I would go for Manu as well in a clutch situation.
He's just a better shotmaker than Tony Parker.
When you are in a tight game, it's unlikely that you will be able to drive all the way to the hoop.