- The Packers are the 10th different team to win the NFC title in the last 10 years. Of the six that haven't, three of them (Dallas, San Francisco and Washington) have won a combined 13 Super Bowl titles.
- In that same 10-year span, only four different teams have represented the AFC in the Super Bowl (Patriots 4, Steelers 3, Colts 2, Raiders 1).
- The Steelers and Packers have combined for more championships (9) than any other opponents in Super Bowl history. The previous record for total championships was eight, when the Steelers (4) played the Cowboys (4) in Super Bowl XXX. Super Bowl XXX was Dallas's eighth appearance and Pittsburgh's fifth, and that record will be tied this year (it's the Steelers' eighth appearance and the Packers' fifth).
- Pittsburgh and Green Bay have a combined Super Bowl winning percentage of .833, easily the best combined record (10-2) for Super Bowl opponents in history.
- If the Steelers win, Ben Roethlisberger will become just the fifth quarterback to win three Super Bowls as a starter. Three of the other four (Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman) are in the Hall of Fame, and the fourth (Tom Brady) will be. The five have a combined record of 16-1 in the Super Bowl.
- If the Packers win, they'll become the third wild card team in six years to win the Super Bowl. Just like the 2005 Steelers and 2007 Giants, they had to win three road playoff games to reach the Super Bowl. In the 36 years before the eight-division format, only four wild card teams (1969 Chiefs, 1980 Raiders, 1997 Broncos, 2000 Ravens) won the Super Bowl. Of those four, only the 1969 Chiefs (an AFL wild card team) didn't host a playoff game.
- Packers linebacker Clay Mattews, and his hair, reached the Super Bowl for the first time in his second season as a pro. That gives him the same number of Super Bowl appearances as his father, Clay, and uncle, Hall of Famer Bruce, combined--and they both played 19 seasons in the NFL!
- This is the sixth Super Bowl on FOX, and only one (Broncos-Falcons in Super Bowl XXXIII) hasn't involved the Patriots and/or Packers. Green Bay beat New England in FOX's first Super Bowl, Super Bowl XXXI.
- When the Packers won Super Bowl XXXI in January 1997, the MVP was Desmond Howard, who won the 1991 Heisman Trophy at Michigan. The 1997 Heisman Trophy winner was Michigan's Charles Woodson, who'll be starting at cornerback for the Packers on Sunday.
- Speaking of FOX, the Steelers are the second team to play in a Super Bowl on all four networks, joining the Broncos, and can become the first team to win one on all four. (I can't take credit for that one. I saw it on Wikipedia and liked it.)
- The Super Bowl and World Series are being played in the same city in the same season (Super Bowl the following January/February) for the fifth time (1966-Los Angeles, 1991-Minneapolis, 1999-Atlanta, 2008-Tampa Bay). The Super Bowl and World Series were both played in San Diego in 1998 and Detroit in 2006, but in both of those cases, it was the Super Bowl for the prior year's football season. Both Super Bowl XXVI and the 1991 World Series were in the Metrodome, and Super Bowl XXXII and the 1998 World Series were both in Qualcomm Stadium, but this is the first time that the games are being played in separate stadiums that share a parking lot.
- This final stat bodes very well for the Steelers. As the "visiting" team, Pittsburgh will be wearing white. The team wearing white has won the last six Super Bowls, including the Steelers twice (Super Bowl XLIII against the Cardinals and Super Bowl XL against the Seahawks, when they were the "home" team but decided to wear white). The 2007 Giants also wore white four times including the Super Bowl, meaning the Packers will be the only one of the three to wear their dark jersey in a playoff game during their Super Bowl season. (Green Bay's last home playoff game was their 2007 NFC Championship Game loss to that Giants team.)
Monday, January 31, 2011
Random Super Bowl Facts
Sorry I haven't been around for a while. I've been busy. But today I'm back, and I've decided to do a Super Bowl version of random facts like the one I did for the World Series way back in my early blogging days (you know, October).
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Is This Guy Serious?
By now, I'm sure many of you have already heard about this story, but there's this guy Robert Burton who's demanding that UConn give back the $3 million donation he made to the football program. Why? Because he wasn't consulted in the decision-making process to hire the replacement for Head Coach Randy Edsall, who left for Maryland. Burton's even retained lawyers to make sure UConn returns the money. He has to be kidding.
If I was UConn AD Jeff Hathaway, I'd tell this guy, "Screw You! Here you go." I understand that donors are alums or other program supporters with a lot of money, and sometimes they make donations that are clearly earmarked for a specific purpose. Sometimes larger donations do come with certain conditions, but it's usually something like the name that goes on the building or that a scholarship be academic or the criteria to determine an award. Granted, there are extreme cases like Ralph Engelstad, who told the University of North Dakota that he'd donate all of the necessary funds to build a new hockey arena as long as the team kept the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. But that situation is entirely different. If North Dakota didn't want to give in to Engelstad, they didn't have to. They most likely would've been able to still build the new arena, and probably gotten a naming rights deal to cover most of the remaining costs.
But Burton's really got some nerve. Just because you donate money, that doesn't mean you get a say in the day-to-day operations of the organization that you donated it to. It especially doesn't mean that you get a say in personnel decisions. Jeff Hathaway was hired to run the UConn athletic department. Not Robert Burton. Burton also said that the main reason Edsall was left was because he couldn't work with Hathaway. Yes Rob, I'm sure that was why. The multi-million dollar multi-year contract at the bigger-name program had nothing to do with it. Even if Edsall and Hathaway didn't get along, how would Burton even know, and how is that any of his business? He's not there everyday, so he doesn't know what really goes on in those offices on a daily basis. He also tried to make it look like Hathaway doesn't get along with either Geno Auriemma or Jim Calhoun, which Geno says isn't true.
Boosters are a necessary evil in college sports. Anybody who doesn't understand this is either ignorant or a fool. But boosters are also the main reason why there are problems in college sports. They often end up hurting a program far worse than they think they're "helping" one. Why is USC currently on probation in both basketball and football? (And why did Reggie Bush have to give back his Heisman?) Boosters. Why did Cam Newton get in trouble at Auburn? Boosters. Why did the SMU football team receive the NCAA "death penalty" in 1987? Boosters.
Now, boosters and donors aren't the same thing. The main difference is that boosters do what they can to try to bring players to a school, while donors use their money to improve conditions for the student-athletes already at that school. But neither group has any direct involvement with the running of the specific program (or athletic department in general) at that school. Nor should they. I don't expect to have a say in the way the Obama Administration runs the country simply because I donated to the President's campaign.
So where does Robert Burton come off? He has a lot of money. Big deal. If you don't want to donate it to UConn, go spend it somewhere else. It was Jeff Hathaway's job to hire a football coach. He did that. He didn't consult you because he didn't care what your opinion on the subject was. He was responsible for finding the right football coach for the University of Connecticut. Hathaway is a grown man. Believe it or not, he's able to make decisions all by himself. If he made the wrong one, he's the one responsible for it. So, why does Burton think that makes his opinion on the subject so important?
In that same letter where he demanded his money back, Burton told Hathaway that he'd have fired the AD long ago if he had the authority. But he has no authority. All he has is money. Apparently he thinks that gives him the right to run the University of Connecticut's football program. It doesn't. Would somebody do me a favor and explain that to him?
If I was UConn AD Jeff Hathaway, I'd tell this guy, "Screw You! Here you go." I understand that donors are alums or other program supporters with a lot of money, and sometimes they make donations that are clearly earmarked for a specific purpose. Sometimes larger donations do come with certain conditions, but it's usually something like the name that goes on the building or that a scholarship be academic or the criteria to determine an award. Granted, there are extreme cases like Ralph Engelstad, who told the University of North Dakota that he'd donate all of the necessary funds to build a new hockey arena as long as the team kept the "Fighting Sioux" nickname. But that situation is entirely different. If North Dakota didn't want to give in to Engelstad, they didn't have to. They most likely would've been able to still build the new arena, and probably gotten a naming rights deal to cover most of the remaining costs.
But Burton's really got some nerve. Just because you donate money, that doesn't mean you get a say in the day-to-day operations of the organization that you donated it to. It especially doesn't mean that you get a say in personnel decisions. Jeff Hathaway was hired to run the UConn athletic department. Not Robert Burton. Burton also said that the main reason Edsall was left was because he couldn't work with Hathaway. Yes Rob, I'm sure that was why. The multi-million dollar multi-year contract at the bigger-name program had nothing to do with it. Even if Edsall and Hathaway didn't get along, how would Burton even know, and how is that any of his business? He's not there everyday, so he doesn't know what really goes on in those offices on a daily basis. He also tried to make it look like Hathaway doesn't get along with either Geno Auriemma or Jim Calhoun, which Geno says isn't true.
Boosters are a necessary evil in college sports. Anybody who doesn't understand this is either ignorant or a fool. But boosters are also the main reason why there are problems in college sports. They often end up hurting a program far worse than they think they're "helping" one. Why is USC currently on probation in both basketball and football? (And why did Reggie Bush have to give back his Heisman?) Boosters. Why did Cam Newton get in trouble at Auburn? Boosters. Why did the SMU football team receive the NCAA "death penalty" in 1987? Boosters.
Now, boosters and donors aren't the same thing. The main difference is that boosters do what they can to try to bring players to a school, while donors use their money to improve conditions for the student-athletes already at that school. But neither group has any direct involvement with the running of the specific program (or athletic department in general) at that school. Nor should they. I don't expect to have a say in the way the Obama Administration runs the country simply because I donated to the President's campaign.
So where does Robert Burton come off? He has a lot of money. Big deal. If you don't want to donate it to UConn, go spend it somewhere else. It was Jeff Hathaway's job to hire a football coach. He did that. He didn't consult you because he didn't care what your opinion on the subject was. He was responsible for finding the right football coach for the University of Connecticut. Hathaway is a grown man. Believe it or not, he's able to make decisions all by himself. If he made the wrong one, he's the one responsible for it. So, why does Burton think that makes his opinion on the subject so important?
In that same letter where he demanded his money back, Burton told Hathaway that he'd have fired the AD long ago if he had the authority. But he has no authority. All he has is money. Apparently he thinks that gives him the right to run the University of Connecticut's football program. It doesn't. Would somebody do me a favor and explain that to him?
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Not Quite All-Star Sunday
The Super Bowl aside, the first of many football-less Sundays is fast approaching. To fill the void, there will be an abundance of college basketball games on Sunday afternoons for our viewing pleasure. However, this Sunday is "All-Star Sunday" (sort of), as the NHL All-Star Game and Pro Bowl take center stage. I used to be among the 11 people that watches each of these events, but this year I'm not going to be watching either one (and the fact that I'll be on a road trip in Buffalo is only part of the reason why).
"All-Star Sunday" actually gets underway at 3 a.m. with the Australian Open men's final. This event is only included here because it will likely feature the two biggest stars in men's tennis, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. The Australian Open men's final used to be on Saturday night U.S. time, but the tournament organizers decided to move the men's final to Sunday night a few years ago, moving the start time from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m. in New York. ESPN2 is smart enough to realize that only about six people will watch a tennis match (even Federer-Nadal) at 3 in the morning, so they're probably going to replay it during the afternoon. The afternoon replay might actually generate higher ratings than the two all-star games put together.
Now, on the surface, I'd normally be excited about the NHL All-Star Game. The NHL's broadcast TV partner is NBC, but both the league and network know that nobody's going to watch the game, so it's on Versus. Seeing as the game is in Raleigh, North Carolina, I'm not sure anyone is going to attend either. When the NHL returned from the lockout in 2005, it was put into the new CBA that the players would participate in the Olympics (which they want to do), but there would also be no All-Star Game in Olympic years. Since 2006 was an Olympic year, that meant the 2007 NHL All-Star Game was the first in three years. While the no All-Star Game in Olympic years thing was a good idea, it completely killed any possible buzz there might've been for the event when it returned in 2007. In fact, I think they had it on like a Tuesday or Wednesday night. The 2009 All-Star Game was in Montreal to celebrate the Canadiens' 100th anniversary, and that one successfully revived the enthusiasm that any all-star game should have.
However, last year was another Olympic year, which meant that there was no All-Star Game again. Again, that was the right call. But it meant the NHL was going to have a hard time generating buzz for this year's All-Star Game. The fact that the game's in Raleigh made it an even tougher sell. So, they came up with the "brilliant" idea to make it one giant fantasy game. This is why I'm not going to watch. The fantasy game idea is incredibly dumb. I've already voiced my opinion on this subject in my blog, and it hasn't changed. Apparently it's going to be "Team Staal," captained by Hurricanes captain Eric Staal, against "Team Lidstrom," captained by Red Wings captain Niklas Lidstrom. I give them credit for trying, but this doesn't improve the NHL All-Star Game at all. It's confusing. The North America vs. the World format didn't work, so they went back to East vs. West. Expect that to happen again.
Sunday's other "all-star game" is the Pro Bowl. If you want to call the Pro Bowl an all-star game. I'm still on record as being one of the eight remaining people who watched the Pro Bowl, but that all changed last year when Roger Baddell changed the date of the game. The site's at least been moved back to Honolulu, where it belongs, but it's still on the bye week between the conference championship games and Super Bowl. That means no Packers and no Steelers. But why would you want players from the two best teams in the league to participate in the all-star game anyway? You already know my feelings on this subject, too. The only way I'll go back to watching the Pro Bowl (which is usually pretty entertaining) is if they switch the date back to the week after the Super Bowl. When it should be.
So, even though "All-Star Sunday" is great on the surface, the two games are so ridiculously unappealing that nobody is going to watch either one. I know that the NHL All-Star Game is on a network that only very few people get (and even fewer realize they get), which doesn't help matters, and that no matter the date of the game, nobody's going to watch the Pro Bowl anyway, but that's not the point. People are supposed to get excited about all-star games. This Sunday, there's not just one, there's two. But nobody cares about either one. That's just sad.
For the record, your college basketball alternative programming options include Manhattan-Marist (12:00 on MSG), Duke-St. John's (1:00 on CBS), Miami-Virginia Tech (5:30 on Fox Sports Net), Maryland-Georgia Tech (7:45 on Fox Sports Net), Indiana-Michigan State (6:00 on, I'm assuming, the Big Ten Network) and Washington-Washington State (10:00 on Fox Sports Net).
"All-Star Sunday" actually gets underway at 3 a.m. with the Australian Open men's final. This event is only included here because it will likely feature the two biggest stars in men's tennis, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. The Australian Open men's final used to be on Saturday night U.S. time, but the tournament organizers decided to move the men's final to Sunday night a few years ago, moving the start time from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m. in New York. ESPN2 is smart enough to realize that only about six people will watch a tennis match (even Federer-Nadal) at 3 in the morning, so they're probably going to replay it during the afternoon. The afternoon replay might actually generate higher ratings than the two all-star games put together.
Now, on the surface, I'd normally be excited about the NHL All-Star Game. The NHL's broadcast TV partner is NBC, but both the league and network know that nobody's going to watch the game, so it's on Versus. Seeing as the game is in Raleigh, North Carolina, I'm not sure anyone is going to attend either. When the NHL returned from the lockout in 2005, it was put into the new CBA that the players would participate in the Olympics (which they want to do), but there would also be no All-Star Game in Olympic years. Since 2006 was an Olympic year, that meant the 2007 NHL All-Star Game was the first in three years. While the no All-Star Game in Olympic years thing was a good idea, it completely killed any possible buzz there might've been for the event when it returned in 2007. In fact, I think they had it on like a Tuesday or Wednesday night. The 2009 All-Star Game was in Montreal to celebrate the Canadiens' 100th anniversary, and that one successfully revived the enthusiasm that any all-star game should have.
However, last year was another Olympic year, which meant that there was no All-Star Game again. Again, that was the right call. But it meant the NHL was going to have a hard time generating buzz for this year's All-Star Game. The fact that the game's in Raleigh made it an even tougher sell. So, they came up with the "brilliant" idea to make it one giant fantasy game. This is why I'm not going to watch. The fantasy game idea is incredibly dumb. I've already voiced my opinion on this subject in my blog, and it hasn't changed. Apparently it's going to be "Team Staal," captained by Hurricanes captain Eric Staal, against "Team Lidstrom," captained by Red Wings captain Niklas Lidstrom. I give them credit for trying, but this doesn't improve the NHL All-Star Game at all. It's confusing. The North America vs. the World format didn't work, so they went back to East vs. West. Expect that to happen again.
Sunday's other "all-star game" is the Pro Bowl. If you want to call the Pro Bowl an all-star game. I'm still on record as being one of the eight remaining people who watched the Pro Bowl, but that all changed last year when Roger Baddell changed the date of the game. The site's at least been moved back to Honolulu, where it belongs, but it's still on the bye week between the conference championship games and Super Bowl. That means no Packers and no Steelers. But why would you want players from the two best teams in the league to participate in the all-star game anyway? You already know my feelings on this subject, too. The only way I'll go back to watching the Pro Bowl (which is usually pretty entertaining) is if they switch the date back to the week after the Super Bowl. When it should be.
So, even though "All-Star Sunday" is great on the surface, the two games are so ridiculously unappealing that nobody is going to watch either one. I know that the NHL All-Star Game is on a network that only very few people get (and even fewer realize they get), which doesn't help matters, and that no matter the date of the game, nobody's going to watch the Pro Bowl anyway, but that's not the point. People are supposed to get excited about all-star games. This Sunday, there's not just one, there's two. But nobody cares about either one. That's just sad.
For the record, your college basketball alternative programming options include Manhattan-Marist (12:00 on MSG), Duke-St. John's (1:00 on CBS), Miami-Virginia Tech (5:30 on Fox Sports Net), Maryland-Georgia Tech (7:45 on Fox Sports Net), Indiana-Michigan State (6:00 on, I'm assuming, the Big Ten Network) and Washington-Washington State (10:00 on Fox Sports Net).
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Championship Sunday
Thanks to everyone who wrote comments saying how much they enjoyed the baseball uniform blog. Since it got such a positive response, there may be a football version in the future, but not today. Today we've got some serious business to worry about: the NFL conference championship games.
I've had Jets-fan friends (even though some of them aren't followers, Sam) asking me to pick the Steelers all week. I guess since I picked against the Jets in each of the first two games and they won them both, Rex Ryan is using Joe Brackets to motivate his team. Who knew that I've had that much of an impact on people (NFL head coaches no less) in just a few short months of blogging?! But, I'm going to give you my picks in order, and since the NFC Championship Game is first, I'm doing Packers-Bears first.
NFC: The longest and perhaps most historic rivalry in the NFL takes on a new twist as the Packers and Bears play in the NFC Championship Game for the first time. The Bears and Packers have played 181 times since the series started in 1921, with Chicago holding a 92-83-6 lead. However, this marks just the second time they're meeting in the playoffs. In 1941, they finished tied for the Western Division title, so they had to play a one-game playoff to determine who would meet the Giants for the championship. The Bears won that game 33-14, then beat the Giants 37-9 to win the championship a week later.
So, that 1941 game aside, this is the most important game in the history of the Bears-Packers rivalry. One of them is going to the Super Bowl and doing so at the expense of the other. When Lovie Smith was hired as Bears coach, he said that his priorities on the job were (in this order): 1. beat the Packers, 2. win the Super Bowl. That says everything right there. These two teams met at Lambeau in Week 17. The Packers needed a win to clinch a playoff spot, while the Bears had already clinched the No. 2 seed. Yet the Bears kept their starters in for the entire game and played to win. Why? Because not only did they want to beat the Packers and ruin Green Bay's season, but they also didn't want to see the Packers again in the playoffs.
But here we are less than a month later for the third meeting of the year between the bitter rivals (who are also the two most successful franchises in NFL history). Each team won at home during the regular season, so you might say that gives the edge to Chicago, but one team that's certainly not going to be effected by January Chicago weather is the Green Bay Packers. In fact, the Packers are a road favorite in this one! Talent-wise, the Packers might be the best team left, and Green Bay peaked at just the right time. Teams that are playing their best football at the end of the season are always dangerous come playoff time, just ask the 2005 Steelers or 2007 Giants.
Anyway, the game should come down to a battle between the two awesome defenses. Whoever's able to run will probably have the advantage, so it might come down to Matt Forte. If Forte can run, the Bears can kill the clock and won't have to worry about Jay Cutler making a crucial mistake while trying to force something. The Packers probably won't have that luxury. They might need Aaron Rodgers to make plays to win them the game and take the necessary chances in order to do that. Winning the turnover battle is going to be clutch. Whichever QB is able to throw the ball to his own receivers instead of the opposing corners could be the difference in this game. Aaron Rodgers needs to win this game to prove that he belongs up there with Manning, Brady, Brees and Roethlisberger as an elite quarterback in this league. I think he does. Plus, Green Bay's playing too well (remember the Atlanta game?). 23-17 Packers.
AFC: Jets Fever (or should I say the Jets Bandwagon) has overtaken New York. It's not that I hate the Jets, I just don't care one way or the other whether they win or lose. If they do win the Super Bowl, I won't be going down to the Canyon of Heroes chanting "Brady Sucks" like I did when a certain other New York football team won the Super Bowl three years ago. I'm a Giants fan. Quit trying to get me to jump aboard the bandwagon for a team people only care about during the playoffs!
Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I can actually break down the game now. The Jets face another difficult challenge against a Steelers team that won it all just two years ago. Their Week 15 victory at Heinz Field (after losing their previous seven games in Pittsburgh) should give them a ton of confidence, but it should also serve as all the motivation the Steelers need. Just like in the NFC, this game will probably come down to which defense is able to stop the run more effectively, as well as which team makes the big plays.
A healthy Troy Polamalu makes the Steelers a much better team than when he's not in the lineup. He didn't play in the Week 15 meeting. But we all know the names of all the great defensive guys these two teams have. The offensive guys are the ones who need to make the difference. On the ground, it looks like the Jets might have a bit of an advantage with Shonn Green and LaDainian Tomlinson (he's not LT, that's Lawrence Taylor), while the Steelers only have Rashad Mendenhall. However, I'm going to be watching the wide receiver-cornerback matchups. Each team has one shutdown corner (the Jets' Darrelle Revis and the Steelers' Ike Taylor). You have to assume that Revis will cover Hines Ward and Taylor will cover Braylon Edwards, which means Antwaan Randle El and Santonio Holmes could be the difference-makers. And you know how much Holmes wants to beat the Steelers. Big Ben has been here before. He's won two Super Bowls, one on the last play. Mark Sanchez has been great so far in the playoffs, outplaying future Hall of Famers Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, but he has to be great again this week if the Jets are going to win. If Sanchez looks like the guy who played against the Colts in last season's AFC Championship Game, forget about it.
Jets fans really need to shut up about "how much they've accomplished this season." You haven't accomplished a damn thing yet! You're at the same point you got to last season, when the Colts kicked your asses all over the field in the second half. If you get to the Super Bowl, then you can start talking. Until then, shut up. I'm almost compelled to pick the Jets just to piss off the Jets "fans," but I can't do it. The Steelers are the better team, and they're angry about that Week 15 loss. Add the revenge factor to all those Terrible Towel-waving fans, and it adds up J-E-T-S! Lose! Lose! Lose! 24-14.
So Jets fans, there you have it. Go ahead and start putting money down on that Jets-Bears Super Bowl. But just think about how cool it would be if I actually picked both games right and we get a Packers-Steelers Super Bowl? It would be awesome, wouldn't it?
I've had Jets-fan friends (even though some of them aren't followers, Sam) asking me to pick the Steelers all week. I guess since I picked against the Jets in each of the first two games and they won them both, Rex Ryan is using Joe Brackets to motivate his team. Who knew that I've had that much of an impact on people (NFL head coaches no less) in just a few short months of blogging?! But, I'm going to give you my picks in order, and since the NFC Championship Game is first, I'm doing Packers-Bears first.
NFC: The longest and perhaps most historic rivalry in the NFL takes on a new twist as the Packers and Bears play in the NFC Championship Game for the first time. The Bears and Packers have played 181 times since the series started in 1921, with Chicago holding a 92-83-6 lead. However, this marks just the second time they're meeting in the playoffs. In 1941, they finished tied for the Western Division title, so they had to play a one-game playoff to determine who would meet the Giants for the championship. The Bears won that game 33-14, then beat the Giants 37-9 to win the championship a week later.
So, that 1941 game aside, this is the most important game in the history of the Bears-Packers rivalry. One of them is going to the Super Bowl and doing so at the expense of the other. When Lovie Smith was hired as Bears coach, he said that his priorities on the job were (in this order): 1. beat the Packers, 2. win the Super Bowl. That says everything right there. These two teams met at Lambeau in Week 17. The Packers needed a win to clinch a playoff spot, while the Bears had already clinched the No. 2 seed. Yet the Bears kept their starters in for the entire game and played to win. Why? Because not only did they want to beat the Packers and ruin Green Bay's season, but they also didn't want to see the Packers again in the playoffs.
But here we are less than a month later for the third meeting of the year between the bitter rivals (who are also the two most successful franchises in NFL history). Each team won at home during the regular season, so you might say that gives the edge to Chicago, but one team that's certainly not going to be effected by January Chicago weather is the Green Bay Packers. In fact, the Packers are a road favorite in this one! Talent-wise, the Packers might be the best team left, and Green Bay peaked at just the right time. Teams that are playing their best football at the end of the season are always dangerous come playoff time, just ask the 2005 Steelers or 2007 Giants.
Anyway, the game should come down to a battle between the two awesome defenses. Whoever's able to run will probably have the advantage, so it might come down to Matt Forte. If Forte can run, the Bears can kill the clock and won't have to worry about Jay Cutler making a crucial mistake while trying to force something. The Packers probably won't have that luxury. They might need Aaron Rodgers to make plays to win them the game and take the necessary chances in order to do that. Winning the turnover battle is going to be clutch. Whichever QB is able to throw the ball to his own receivers instead of the opposing corners could be the difference in this game. Aaron Rodgers needs to win this game to prove that he belongs up there with Manning, Brady, Brees and Roethlisberger as an elite quarterback in this league. I think he does. Plus, Green Bay's playing too well (remember the Atlanta game?). 23-17 Packers.
AFC: Jets Fever (or should I say the Jets Bandwagon) has overtaken New York. It's not that I hate the Jets, I just don't care one way or the other whether they win or lose. If they do win the Super Bowl, I won't be going down to the Canyon of Heroes chanting "Brady Sucks" like I did when a certain other New York football team won the Super Bowl three years ago. I'm a Giants fan. Quit trying to get me to jump aboard the bandwagon for a team people only care about during the playoffs!
Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I can actually break down the game now. The Jets face another difficult challenge against a Steelers team that won it all just two years ago. Their Week 15 victory at Heinz Field (after losing their previous seven games in Pittsburgh) should give them a ton of confidence, but it should also serve as all the motivation the Steelers need. Just like in the NFC, this game will probably come down to which defense is able to stop the run more effectively, as well as which team makes the big plays.
A healthy Troy Polamalu makes the Steelers a much better team than when he's not in the lineup. He didn't play in the Week 15 meeting. But we all know the names of all the great defensive guys these two teams have. The offensive guys are the ones who need to make the difference. On the ground, it looks like the Jets might have a bit of an advantage with Shonn Green and LaDainian Tomlinson (he's not LT, that's Lawrence Taylor), while the Steelers only have Rashad Mendenhall. However, I'm going to be watching the wide receiver-cornerback matchups. Each team has one shutdown corner (the Jets' Darrelle Revis and the Steelers' Ike Taylor). You have to assume that Revis will cover Hines Ward and Taylor will cover Braylon Edwards, which means Antwaan Randle El and Santonio Holmes could be the difference-makers. And you know how much Holmes wants to beat the Steelers. Big Ben has been here before. He's won two Super Bowls, one on the last play. Mark Sanchez has been great so far in the playoffs, outplaying future Hall of Famers Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, but he has to be great again this week if the Jets are going to win. If Sanchez looks like the guy who played against the Colts in last season's AFC Championship Game, forget about it.
Jets fans really need to shut up about "how much they've accomplished this season." You haven't accomplished a damn thing yet! You're at the same point you got to last season, when the Colts kicked your asses all over the field in the second half. If you get to the Super Bowl, then you can start talking. Until then, shut up. I'm almost compelled to pick the Jets just to piss off the Jets "fans," but I can't do it. The Steelers are the better team, and they're angry about that Week 15 loss. Add the revenge factor to all those Terrible Towel-waving fans, and it adds up J-E-T-S! Lose! Lose! Lose! 24-14.
So Jets fans, there you have it. Go ahead and start putting money down on that Jets-Bears Super Bowl. But just think about how cool it would be if I actually picked both games right and we get a Packers-Steelers Super Bowl? It would be awesome, wouldn't it?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Best Baseball Uniforms
I was reading ESPN.com today, and in his great weekly baseball column "Off Base," Jim Caple ranked the current Major League Baseball logos 1-30 based on his favorites. I've decided to piggyback on this idea and rank the Major League teams 1-30 based on best uniforms.
30. Diamondbacks-They went from that unique purple/teal/gold/black color scheme they had going to uniforms that are basically exactly the same as Houston's. Except uglier.
29. Blue Jays-Their name is the "Blue" Jays, but their primary color is black. And what's with that grayish color? And the logo's ugly. This would easily rank last if not for the monstrosity that is Arizona's uniform.
28. Nationals-Pick a primary color! If you want it to be red, that's fine. But what's with the road uniform? Everything's red, but the hat's blue. It doesn't make any sense. And the fonts are completely different on the two uniforms. (At least the script W on the hats makes a little more sense now that they've redesigned the logo.)
27. Rays-All it took was dropping "Devil" for this team to get good. But unfortunately, it also led to really boring uniforms. Some bonus points for the powder blue alternates, but those points are deducted because the home and road uniforms are exactly the same.
26. Padres-What was wrong with the orange and blue uniforms that they made the World Series in again? The current uniforms are ugly and completely unappealing. The only redeeming quality is the camaflogue tops that they wear on Sundays to honor the military. At least they dropped the tan road unis.
25. Astros-The black pinstriped one is OK and the primary road one isn't terrible, but all those alternate combinations have to go. But this is the franchise that gave us the orange rainbow of the 70s and 80s, so it's definitely an improvement.
24. Rangers-The home jerseys say "Texas" rather than "Rangers," the Texas flag on the sleeves is really big, and what's with those red monstrosities? Your primary color is BLUE!
23. Angels-It's a lot of red. And points are deducted because of their stupid name, which resulted in the home and road uniforms being exactly the same.
22. Indians-From here until about No. 13 the order is really interchangeable. Not horrible, but I'm getting bored of them. Might've been lower if Major League wasn't such an awesome movie.
21. Pirates-See, the Pirates aren't last in something. Could've been in the top 15 if not for that white pinstriped alternate.
20. Phillies-Lots of red and very boring. Points were also deducted for the home and roads being exactly the same. Plus I'm still mad about the Cliff Lee thing.
19. Mariners-They can't decide what they want the number font to be, which bothers me. Otherwise, these are nice and traditional.
18. Orioles-Again, I don't really have a problem with these. They're just not as nice as some others. I don't like the script "Orioles" on the sleeve of the road jerseys, but kudos for resisting the urge to have orange alternates.
17. Athletics-Basically the same uniforms as Seattle and Baltimore, except green and gold. The A's get the highest spot because of the color combo, and because they had the best combinations during the 70s mix-and-match days.
16. Rockies-I like the colors and the traditional elements, but there are too many combinations. And the road unis have pinstripes. And those purple jerseys are ugly.
15. Royals-Dropping the black and going back to the traditional was the right call. It was also the right call to revive the powder blue tops.
14. Braves-Would probably be higher if not for those ridiculous red alternate home tops. However, those are cancelled out by the navy alternate road tops.
13. Twins-I'm still not really a fan of the road jerseys, but I love the traditional elements and they'll probably grow on me. Three alternates is too many, though.
12. Marlins-At least they've got something going for them. They play in a freakin' football stadium with orange seats and teal walls! After they dropped the teal hats, Florida's uniforms took a turn for the better. I'm not sure how things are going to change when they change their name to the "Miami Marlins" next season, but the current incarnation of the team's uniforms is pretty solid.
11. Mets-Maybe a little too high, but I'm showing some hometown bias. Would be a lot lower had they not finally decided to limit the number of alternate uniforms. Would be in the top five if the only home uniform was the classic pinstriped one with the blue hat.
10. Brewers-I don't know why, but I really like this uniform. Nice and simple with a classic touch. The road jerseys should say "Milwaukee" instead of "Brewers," but they somewhat took care of that problem with the road alternates. And they brought back the very 80s ball-in-glove as their Sunday home uniform!
9. Reds-Cincinnati was the only team to figure out how to add black to your uniform without having it take over. (The team is called the "Reds" after all!)
8. White Sox-Would probably be higher if not for the about 20 different ugly uniforms they've had throughout their history while trying to find one that works. But they've found one. And the President likes the White Sox.
7. Red Sox-One of the five best home uniforms in baseball, but points deducted for the constant changing of road uniforms (and settling on something ugly as the current model). Points also deducted for the red jerseys, the ugliest alternates of them all, and for being the Red Sux.
6. Giants-The world champs would be in the top five if not for the orange alternate tops (which rank as the fourth ugliest behind the red monstrosities of Boston, Atlanta and Texas). Bonus points for pulling off home jerseys without names.
5. Tigers-Detroit's home uniform with the Old English D is one of baseball's classic uniforms, changed only very slightly since the days of Ty Cobb. They've finally settled on a road uniform that matches it in simplicity and elegance.
4. Cubs-Ditto for the Cubs. They've had some issues with the road uniforms in the past, but what they've settled on is a winner. Which, unfortunately, is a lot more than I can say about the franchise.
3. Dodgers-Would probably rank second if not for the gigantic "LA" on the right sleeve and the ridiculously stupid experiment of taking the names off the home uniforms for a couple years.
2. Cardinals-I absolutely love the St. Louis Cardinals uniforms. So much so that I can overlook the fact that the road jerseys say "Cardinals" instead of "St. Louis." I don't like the "Sunday" hats, but the road version is very nice. They also jump ahead of the Dodgers because they were able to pull off powder blue uniforms while basically keeping everything the same during the 80s.
1. Yankees-Even people who aren't Yankees fans have to agree that they have the classic uniforms in all of sports, not just baseball. The home pinstripes have been exactly the same since 1936, and the road jerseys have had only minor changes since 1931. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be. Yankee pinstripes are history and tradition. Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez wear the exact same uniform as Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle. What other team can link different generations of Hall of Famers in such a way?
30. Diamondbacks-They went from that unique purple/teal/gold/black color scheme they had going to uniforms that are basically exactly the same as Houston's. Except uglier.
29. Blue Jays-Their name is the "Blue" Jays, but their primary color is black. And what's with that grayish color? And the logo's ugly. This would easily rank last if not for the monstrosity that is Arizona's uniform.
28. Nationals-Pick a primary color! If you want it to be red, that's fine. But what's with the road uniform? Everything's red, but the hat's blue. It doesn't make any sense. And the fonts are completely different on the two uniforms. (At least the script W on the hats makes a little more sense now that they've redesigned the logo.)
27. Rays-All it took was dropping "Devil" for this team to get good. But unfortunately, it also led to really boring uniforms. Some bonus points for the powder blue alternates, but those points are deducted because the home and road uniforms are exactly the same.
26. Padres-What was wrong with the orange and blue uniforms that they made the World Series in again? The current uniforms are ugly and completely unappealing. The only redeeming quality is the camaflogue tops that they wear on Sundays to honor the military. At least they dropped the tan road unis.
25. Astros-The black pinstriped one is OK and the primary road one isn't terrible, but all those alternate combinations have to go. But this is the franchise that gave us the orange rainbow of the 70s and 80s, so it's definitely an improvement.
24. Rangers-The home jerseys say "Texas" rather than "Rangers," the Texas flag on the sleeves is really big, and what's with those red monstrosities? Your primary color is BLUE!
23. Angels-It's a lot of red. And points are deducted because of their stupid name, which resulted in the home and road uniforms being exactly the same.
22. Indians-From here until about No. 13 the order is really interchangeable. Not horrible, but I'm getting bored of them. Might've been lower if Major League wasn't such an awesome movie.
21. Pirates-See, the Pirates aren't last in something. Could've been in the top 15 if not for that white pinstriped alternate.
20. Phillies-Lots of red and very boring. Points were also deducted for the home and roads being exactly the same. Plus I'm still mad about the Cliff Lee thing.
19. Mariners-They can't decide what they want the number font to be, which bothers me. Otherwise, these are nice and traditional.
18. Orioles-Again, I don't really have a problem with these. They're just not as nice as some others. I don't like the script "Orioles" on the sleeve of the road jerseys, but kudos for resisting the urge to have orange alternates.
17. Athletics-Basically the same uniforms as Seattle and Baltimore, except green and gold. The A's get the highest spot because of the color combo, and because they had the best combinations during the 70s mix-and-match days.
16. Rockies-I like the colors and the traditional elements, but there are too many combinations. And the road unis have pinstripes. And those purple jerseys are ugly.
15. Royals-Dropping the black and going back to the traditional was the right call. It was also the right call to revive the powder blue tops.
14. Braves-Would probably be higher if not for those ridiculous red alternate home tops. However, those are cancelled out by the navy alternate road tops.
13. Twins-I'm still not really a fan of the road jerseys, but I love the traditional elements and they'll probably grow on me. Three alternates is too many, though.
12. Marlins-At least they've got something going for them. They play in a freakin' football stadium with orange seats and teal walls! After they dropped the teal hats, Florida's uniforms took a turn for the better. I'm not sure how things are going to change when they change their name to the "Miami Marlins" next season, but the current incarnation of the team's uniforms is pretty solid.
11. Mets-Maybe a little too high, but I'm showing some hometown bias. Would be a lot lower had they not finally decided to limit the number of alternate uniforms. Would be in the top five if the only home uniform was the classic pinstriped one with the blue hat.
10. Brewers-I don't know why, but I really like this uniform. Nice and simple with a classic touch. The road jerseys should say "Milwaukee" instead of "Brewers," but they somewhat took care of that problem with the road alternates. And they brought back the very 80s ball-in-glove as their Sunday home uniform!
9. Reds-Cincinnati was the only team to figure out how to add black to your uniform without having it take over. (The team is called the "Reds" after all!)
8. White Sox-Would probably be higher if not for the about 20 different ugly uniforms they've had throughout their history while trying to find one that works. But they've found one. And the President likes the White Sox.
7. Red Sox-One of the five best home uniforms in baseball, but points deducted for the constant changing of road uniforms (and settling on something ugly as the current model). Points also deducted for the red jerseys, the ugliest alternates of them all, and for being the Red Sux.
6. Giants-The world champs would be in the top five if not for the orange alternate tops (which rank as the fourth ugliest behind the red monstrosities of Boston, Atlanta and Texas). Bonus points for pulling off home jerseys without names.
5. Tigers-Detroit's home uniform with the Old English D is one of baseball's classic uniforms, changed only very slightly since the days of Ty Cobb. They've finally settled on a road uniform that matches it in simplicity and elegance.
4. Cubs-Ditto for the Cubs. They've had some issues with the road uniforms in the past, but what they've settled on is a winner. Which, unfortunately, is a lot more than I can say about the franchise.
3. Dodgers-Would probably rank second if not for the gigantic "LA" on the right sleeve and the ridiculously stupid experiment of taking the names off the home uniforms for a couple years.
2. Cardinals-I absolutely love the St. Louis Cardinals uniforms. So much so that I can overlook the fact that the road jerseys say "Cardinals" instead of "St. Louis." I don't like the "Sunday" hats, but the road version is very nice. They also jump ahead of the Dodgers because they were able to pull off powder blue uniforms while basically keeping everything the same during the 80s.
1. Yankees-Even people who aren't Yankees fans have to agree that they have the classic uniforms in all of sports, not just baseball. The home pinstripes have been exactly the same since 1936, and the road jerseys have had only minor changes since 1931. That's the way it's always been, and that's the way it will always be. Yankee pinstripes are history and tradition. Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez wear the exact same uniform as Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle. What other team can link different generations of Hall of Famers in such a way?
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Mr. Brilliant Commissioner
As we were watching Colin Cowherd's radio show on ESPNU at work this afternoon (I still don't get the radio shows on TV thing, but whatever!), some guy called in and asked if Aaron Rodgers was selected to the Pro Bowl. Colin correctly pointed out that only Packers fans care about whether or not their quarterback is selected to the Pro Bowl. I then pointed out that whether or not he's on the NFC Pro Bowl roster (for the record, he's not; the three NFC quarterbacks are Michael Vick, Matt Ryan and Drew Brees), it doesn't matter, since Mr. Brilliant Commissioner made the decision to hold the Pro Bowl before the Super Bowl and replace any players from the two conference champions on Pro Bowl rosters. That then led to a discussion where I declared that Roger Baddell (notice what I've done with his name) is the worst of the for major league commissioners.
I'll finish my point about the Pro Bowl before moving on as to why Baddell sucks so badly at his job. Last year, in his infinite wisdom, he decided that the Super Bowl should be the NFL's climactic game, so he moved the Pro Bowl from the week after the Super Bowl to the week before it. With that change, he also made it so that any Pro Bowlers from the two remaining teams would be replaced on the roster, but they would still have to show up at the game in order to get their appearance bonuses. He also moved it from Hawaii to Miami (last year's Super Bowl site), but that wrong decision has since been rectified and the game is back where it belongs. The whole concept behind the date change is flawed. Why have an all-star game if you're not going to have any players from the two best teams? Likewise, if these guys aren't required to play, why are they still required to show up? You let guys out of the Pro Bowl for stupider reasons than being in the Super Bowl! I understand that people aren't going to care about the Pro Bowl no matter what the date is, but the only way for it to be a true all-star game is to move the date back to what it used to be and actually include the guys who make it from the two best teams in football.
Anyway, that's just one of the many bad decisions Baddell has made since taking over as NFL commissioner. The personal conduct policy is a decent idea, but the enforcement of it is incredibly arbitrary and he's the sole decision-maker on that front. Likewise, the crackdown on player safety is a step in the right direction, but some players are being repeatedly fined for perfectly legal hits, while others get nothing for blantat cheap shots. Sometimes helmet-to-helmet hits are unaviodale, and that needs to be considered. If a defender goes into the air to make a tackle, then the receiver ducks his head after the fact, how is it the defender's fault that the legal tackle he was about to make is now helmet-to-helmet because the receiver ducked his head and there wasn't anything he could do about it?
But the inevitable lockout is what really pushed me over the top in my conclusion that Mr. Brilliant Commissioner is the worst of the four. He and his owner cronies are 100 percent responsible for the lockout, and it will be their fault that it's going to drag on much longer than it needs to. On the surface, both sides look willing to come to a fairly reasonable compromise on most of the major issues. But there's one sticking point that's going to make this thing drag on: the schedule. Baddell and the owners claim to be all about player safety, but they want to add two unnecessary regular season games to the schedule. The players vehemently don't want two extra games. The owners don't seem to be willing to budge on this point. Because Baddell wants the 18-game schedule. How many work stoppages were there in the NFL during Paul Tagliabue's entire commissionership? That's right, a whopping zero. The NFL's last work stoppage was a player strike in 1987. Each of the other three leagues has had one since then. But 24 years of labor peace in the NFL will come to an end in March, mainly because of the commissioner.
So which of the other three is the best, you ask? I'm going with Bud Selig. He's no genius by any means. And he's made plenty of stupid decisions. But he's also made some great ones and, more importantly, presided over the most prosperous era in the game's history without even the threat of a work stoppage. Meanwhile, the NHL lost an entire season to a lockout. The NBA lost half of a season to one and is about to have another. And we know the mess that Baddell has made out of the NFL. But Major League Baseball has thrived since Selig took over as commissioner. Yes there was the Steroid Era, the All-Star Game tie, changing the playoff schedule for no reason and, when realizing that was a mistake, instead of fixing it, making another one and deciding to start the 2011 season go Thursday-Wednesday instead of Monday-Sunday like it should be. (And the potentially stupid and unnecessary decision he's about to make if they do add a second wild card team in each league.) But Bud Selig is also the guy who brought us the wild card (and, by extension, the Divison Series) and interleague play, as well as labor peace and an era where, whether or not you want to believe it, more teams are competitive than ever. (Facts to back me up: 14 different teams reached the World Series between 2001-10, and there were nine different champions in those 10 years.)
The fact that baseball's my favorite sport might play into my decision a little bit, but I think the fact that there hasn't been a work stoppage carries a lot of weight. Granted, Major League Baseball will probaly never have a strike/lockout again after 1994, but Selig still deserves some credit for all the good he's done for the game. I think Gary Bettman is doing a tremendous job in the NHL, as well (as evidence by regular season shooutouts and the Winter Classic). And fans are starting to come back to hockey after the lockout that wiped out the entire 2004-05 season. But Baddell is content to mess with a good thing. Roger, as the old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That's especially true here. Since all he's doing is breaking something that isn't broken.
I'll finish my point about the Pro Bowl before moving on as to why Baddell sucks so badly at his job. Last year, in his infinite wisdom, he decided that the Super Bowl should be the NFL's climactic game, so he moved the Pro Bowl from the week after the Super Bowl to the week before it. With that change, he also made it so that any Pro Bowlers from the two remaining teams would be replaced on the roster, but they would still have to show up at the game in order to get their appearance bonuses. He also moved it from Hawaii to Miami (last year's Super Bowl site), but that wrong decision has since been rectified and the game is back where it belongs. The whole concept behind the date change is flawed. Why have an all-star game if you're not going to have any players from the two best teams? Likewise, if these guys aren't required to play, why are they still required to show up? You let guys out of the Pro Bowl for stupider reasons than being in the Super Bowl! I understand that people aren't going to care about the Pro Bowl no matter what the date is, but the only way for it to be a true all-star game is to move the date back to what it used to be and actually include the guys who make it from the two best teams in football.
Anyway, that's just one of the many bad decisions Baddell has made since taking over as NFL commissioner. The personal conduct policy is a decent idea, but the enforcement of it is incredibly arbitrary and he's the sole decision-maker on that front. Likewise, the crackdown on player safety is a step in the right direction, but some players are being repeatedly fined for perfectly legal hits, while others get nothing for blantat cheap shots. Sometimes helmet-to-helmet hits are unaviodale, and that needs to be considered. If a defender goes into the air to make a tackle, then the receiver ducks his head after the fact, how is it the defender's fault that the legal tackle he was about to make is now helmet-to-helmet because the receiver ducked his head and there wasn't anything he could do about it?
But the inevitable lockout is what really pushed me over the top in my conclusion that Mr. Brilliant Commissioner is the worst of the four. He and his owner cronies are 100 percent responsible for the lockout, and it will be their fault that it's going to drag on much longer than it needs to. On the surface, both sides look willing to come to a fairly reasonable compromise on most of the major issues. But there's one sticking point that's going to make this thing drag on: the schedule. Baddell and the owners claim to be all about player safety, but they want to add two unnecessary regular season games to the schedule. The players vehemently don't want two extra games. The owners don't seem to be willing to budge on this point. Because Baddell wants the 18-game schedule. How many work stoppages were there in the NFL during Paul Tagliabue's entire commissionership? That's right, a whopping zero. The NFL's last work stoppage was a player strike in 1987. Each of the other three leagues has had one since then. But 24 years of labor peace in the NFL will come to an end in March, mainly because of the commissioner.
So which of the other three is the best, you ask? I'm going with Bud Selig. He's no genius by any means. And he's made plenty of stupid decisions. But he's also made some great ones and, more importantly, presided over the most prosperous era in the game's history without even the threat of a work stoppage. Meanwhile, the NHL lost an entire season to a lockout. The NBA lost half of a season to one and is about to have another. And we know the mess that Baddell has made out of the NFL. But Major League Baseball has thrived since Selig took over as commissioner. Yes there was the Steroid Era, the All-Star Game tie, changing the playoff schedule for no reason and, when realizing that was a mistake, instead of fixing it, making another one and deciding to start the 2011 season go Thursday-Wednesday instead of Monday-Sunday like it should be. (And the potentially stupid and unnecessary decision he's about to make if they do add a second wild card team in each league.) But Bud Selig is also the guy who brought us the wild card (and, by extension, the Divison Series) and interleague play, as well as labor peace and an era where, whether or not you want to believe it, more teams are competitive than ever. (Facts to back me up: 14 different teams reached the World Series between 2001-10, and there were nine different champions in those 10 years.)
The fact that baseball's my favorite sport might play into my decision a little bit, but I think the fact that there hasn't been a work stoppage carries a lot of weight. Granted, Major League Baseball will probaly never have a strike/lockout again after 1994, but Selig still deserves some credit for all the good he's done for the game. I think Gary Bettman is doing a tremendous job in the NHL, as well (as evidence by regular season shooutouts and the Winter Classic). And fans are starting to come back to hockey after the lockout that wiped out the entire 2004-05 season. But Baddell is content to mess with a good thing. Roger, as the old saying goes: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." That's especially true here. Since all he's doing is breaking something that isn't broken.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Tennis Down Under, Mate
I realize that today's blog is going to interest maybe about three people, but it's my blog and I want to talk about tennis, so I'm going to and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me. As I write, the first major on the tennis calendar is getting underway: the Australian Open. (Maria Sharapova is the opening match, so I'm currently switching back and forth between the football game and the tennis.) Now, mid-January always seems to early to be tennis season, but it's the middle of summer in Australia, so the timing of this tournament isn't changing anytime soon. And there's more buzz heading into the Aussie Open this year than there normally is. The women's draw is wide open without two-time defending champion Serena Williams, and on the men's side, Rafael Nadal is looking to complete the "Rafa Slam."
Winning the career grand slam in tennis is challenging enough. Only seven men, including both Nadal and Roger Federer, and nine women have accomplished the feat in history. Winning all four of them in a row is virtually impossible. The last person to do it was Serena Williams, who completed the "Serena Slam" at the 2003 Australian Open). (The last true grand slam, all four in one year, was last pulled off by Steffi Graf in 1988.) But Nadal enters the Australian Open looking to join that exclusive group, becoming the first man ever to pull off a non-calendar year grand slam and become just the third man to win all four consecutively (Rod Laver did it twice, in 1962 and 1969). As a Roger fan, I dislike Rafael Nadal so much he might as well be from Boston. I root against him every time he plays, and this tournament is no different. In fact, I'll probably be rooting against him harder than ever.
My heart tells me that Nadal won't win the Australian Open, and my head agrees. This is usually the most unpredictable grand slam tournament (Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Marcos Baghdatis and Fernando Gonzalez have been finalists here in recent years), and I wouldn't be surprised if that trend continues this year. However, I do think Nadal is among a handful of favorites for the title. Andy Murray beat Nadal in the quarters last year before losing to Roger in the final. Murray has never won a grand slam title (when two guys win them all, it's hard for anybody else to break through), but this might be his best chance. He ended 2010 on a roll and looked good in the warmup tournaments. Murray and Nadal would meet in the semis and Rafa's been having an issue with his foot. Besides, Murray isn't scared of him, having beaten him here last year and in the 2008 U.S. Open semifinals.
On the bottom half of the draw, Roger's the defending champion, and he's Roger, so you can't count him out. You also have Novak Djokovic in the bottom half. Djokovic has been number 3 in the world seemingly forever, but he did manage to break the Federer-Nadal stranglehold on grand slam titles by winning this tournament in 2008. He beat Roger in the semis of the U.S. Open last year, then almost single-handedly won the Davis Cup for Serbia in December (he won both of his singles matches in the best-of-five final). Then there's Andy Roddick, who's ranking has dropped to No. 8. Roddick had a bad year in 2010, so he really needs to bounce back. We're getting close to the point where Roddick won't be considered a contender at grand slams anymore, but I'm not writing him off just yet. Problem is he's in Roger's quarter.
Federer and Nadal haven't met in a grand slam final since Rafa beat Roger in a classic five-setter in the final of this tournament two years ago. But I'm not going to take the easy way out and say that they're on a collision course. They'll both get to the semis, but Nadal will lose to Murray, while Roger will beat Djokovic. Then in a rematch of last year's final, Roger defends his Australian Open title.
Without two-time defending champion Serena, the women's draw is more wide open than you could imagine. Last year, Justine Henin made her return to tennis at the Australian Open and reached the final as a wild card. She's seeded 11th this year and won this thing in 2004, so I'm tabbing her as the "favorite." But the contenders are plenty. Kim Clijsters is coming off her second straight U.S. Open title and has a pretty good-looking draw. Her only Australian Open final appearance was a loss to Henin in 2004, but she's made it to at least the semis five times.
There's also Venus Williams, who amazingly has never won a grand slam tournament other than Wimbledon or the U.S. Open. She usually ends up losing to her sister, so Venus might have a better chance to win without Serena in the field. My lovely Maria Sharapova, the 2008 Australian Open champion, is usually a contender as long as she's healthy. However, Maria's one of the most frustratingly inconsistent players in tennis. At grand slams, she either makes a deep run or loses early to someone you've never heard of. I can keep busting out the names of women's players who have a chance to win the Australian Open (Vera Zvonareva, Victoria Azarena, Maria Kirilenko), but No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki and former No. 1 Jelena Jankovic are two of the more interesting. The women's game lacks the two-headed monster the men's players have to deal with, so I'm supremely confident the ubertalented Wozniacki will eventually win a grand slam title. But I've also been saying that about Jankovic for years, and she's still waiting for her breakthrough.
I think both Wozniacki and Jankovic will fall to the Belgians in the quarterfinals. In the semis, I'm taking Henin over Azarenka and Clijsters over Kirilenko, with Henin beating Clijsters in the all-Belgian final. (For those of you who don't enjoy tennis, thank you for indulging me with today's post.)
Winning the career grand slam in tennis is challenging enough. Only seven men, including both Nadal and Roger Federer, and nine women have accomplished the feat in history. Winning all four of them in a row is virtually impossible. The last person to do it was Serena Williams, who completed the "Serena Slam" at the 2003 Australian Open). (The last true grand slam, all four in one year, was last pulled off by Steffi Graf in 1988.) But Nadal enters the Australian Open looking to join that exclusive group, becoming the first man ever to pull off a non-calendar year grand slam and become just the third man to win all four consecutively (Rod Laver did it twice, in 1962 and 1969). As a Roger fan, I dislike Rafael Nadal so much he might as well be from Boston. I root against him every time he plays, and this tournament is no different. In fact, I'll probably be rooting against him harder than ever.
My heart tells me that Nadal won't win the Australian Open, and my head agrees. This is usually the most unpredictable grand slam tournament (Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Marcos Baghdatis and Fernando Gonzalez have been finalists here in recent years), and I wouldn't be surprised if that trend continues this year. However, I do think Nadal is among a handful of favorites for the title. Andy Murray beat Nadal in the quarters last year before losing to Roger in the final. Murray has never won a grand slam title (when two guys win them all, it's hard for anybody else to break through), but this might be his best chance. He ended 2010 on a roll and looked good in the warmup tournaments. Murray and Nadal would meet in the semis and Rafa's been having an issue with his foot. Besides, Murray isn't scared of him, having beaten him here last year and in the 2008 U.S. Open semifinals.
On the bottom half of the draw, Roger's the defending champion, and he's Roger, so you can't count him out. You also have Novak Djokovic in the bottom half. Djokovic has been number 3 in the world seemingly forever, but he did manage to break the Federer-Nadal stranglehold on grand slam titles by winning this tournament in 2008. He beat Roger in the semis of the U.S. Open last year, then almost single-handedly won the Davis Cup for Serbia in December (he won both of his singles matches in the best-of-five final). Then there's Andy Roddick, who's ranking has dropped to No. 8. Roddick had a bad year in 2010, so he really needs to bounce back. We're getting close to the point where Roddick won't be considered a contender at grand slams anymore, but I'm not writing him off just yet. Problem is he's in Roger's quarter.
Federer and Nadal haven't met in a grand slam final since Rafa beat Roger in a classic five-setter in the final of this tournament two years ago. But I'm not going to take the easy way out and say that they're on a collision course. They'll both get to the semis, but Nadal will lose to Murray, while Roger will beat Djokovic. Then in a rematch of last year's final, Roger defends his Australian Open title.
Without two-time defending champion Serena, the women's draw is more wide open than you could imagine. Last year, Justine Henin made her return to tennis at the Australian Open and reached the final as a wild card. She's seeded 11th this year and won this thing in 2004, so I'm tabbing her as the "favorite." But the contenders are plenty. Kim Clijsters is coming off her second straight U.S. Open title and has a pretty good-looking draw. Her only Australian Open final appearance was a loss to Henin in 2004, but she's made it to at least the semis five times.
There's also Venus Williams, who amazingly has never won a grand slam tournament other than Wimbledon or the U.S. Open. She usually ends up losing to her sister, so Venus might have a better chance to win without Serena in the field. My lovely Maria Sharapova, the 2008 Australian Open champion, is usually a contender as long as she's healthy. However, Maria's one of the most frustratingly inconsistent players in tennis. At grand slams, she either makes a deep run or loses early to someone you've never heard of. I can keep busting out the names of women's players who have a chance to win the Australian Open (Vera Zvonareva, Victoria Azarena, Maria Kirilenko), but No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki and former No. 1 Jelena Jankovic are two of the more interesting. The women's game lacks the two-headed monster the men's players have to deal with, so I'm supremely confident the ubertalented Wozniacki will eventually win a grand slam title. But I've also been saying that about Jankovic for years, and she's still waiting for her breakthrough.
I think both Wozniacki and Jankovic will fall to the Belgians in the quarterfinals. In the semis, I'm taking Henin over Azarenka and Clijsters over Kirilenko, with Henin beating Clijsters in the all-Belgian final. (For those of you who don't enjoy tennis, thank you for indulging me with today's post.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)