Showing posts with label Stephen Brunt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Brunt. Show all posts
Friday, December 12, 2008
Arena football and DeRo coverage
Apologies for the shortage of posts here; I've been busy writing for Out of Left Field for the last couple of days. There hasn't been a shortage of interesting stuff, though. Here's my post on the Arena Football League's potentially impending demise and what that could mean for the CFL; I've also written a follow-up post on the Prime Time Sports segment discussing it and one today on the newest member of Toronto FC, Dwayne De Rosario. Should be back to regular posting here shortly.
Friday, December 05, 2008
The shades of grey
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." - Obi-Wan Kenobi, Star Wars: Episode III
My biggest problem with the state of sports analysis today is that we seem to be moving away from the middle of the spectrum. Nothing exemplifies this more in my mind than Around the Horn, the ESPN talk show which basically features prominent journalists arguing with each other about sports. Moderator Tony Reali hands out points for different arguments, but the scoring seems to be based more on how vigorously you make your case rather than anything you actually say. The amount of people involved and the short time given to each segment also encourages participants to move away from subtlety in favour of absolutes. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad; there's obviously a market for this kind of thing, and there are often interesting points raised. The problem is that the format encourages sensationalism and bold stands over critical analysis; why else would Jay Mariotti be a recurring participant?
This isn't all Around the Horn's fault, though. Much of the media is going along the same lines, particularly talk radio. There are some great programs out there, but they're often drowned out by those who make their living from just being controversial. It's not limited to sports, either: consider the popularity of types like Howard Stern and Don Imus. Newspapers and the blogosphere are following right along. It's become less about analysis and more about how loudly you can yell or how dramatically you can make your arguement.
The Sean Avery incident is an excellent case in point; everyone's trying to take the strongest stance out there either for or against him. That's why you get some like Bruce Garrioch calling for lifetime bans, while others like Colby Cosh are trying to make Avery into a free-speech martyr. He's not the worst villain in hockey history by far, but he's also not some innocent victim who should be allowed to skate off into the sunset with a slap on the wrist; check out Eric McErlain's FanHouse post on an alleged horrifying verbal attack Avery carried out on a Nashville fan, Richard Lawson's Gawker post on what Avery told a fashion writer and Greg Wyshynski's post about the actual act suggested by Avery's comments for just a few examples of what he's done over the years. That's not to say everyone's going to extremes; for an excellent example of a well-reasoned, considered position that examines both sides, check out James Mirtle's writing on the subject at From the Rink. He's in the minority, though, as this issue has further polarized an already-polarized sports media.
The broader point is that there are, surprisingly, a lot of similarities between sports and quantum physics. Not only does your perception of an event depend on where you're coming from (or your frame of reference, in classical physics terms), but your observing an event can also alter the event itself. Think Avery's suspended for six games if this incident doesn't spread as far? If the media in that locker room didn't broadcast this, there likely would be no suspension whatsoever. That's not to blame them; Avery basically called his own press conference and made his statement unprompted, so he needs to take responsibility, and I'd consider it worth reporting. The point is that the media's observance of and decision to report that event altered the event itself. The event was then further altered by the spread of the news. If it's shown on TSN once and maybe mentioned in one or two game-day stories, we might have a suspension on our hands, but I doubt it would be six games. This turned into one of the biggest hockey stories in recent memory, though, and was picked up by everyone from entertainment TV shows and websites to American newspapers that never cover the NHL. You have to think that that expansion of the coverage affected the league's response.
There are plenty of other examples of this failure to see the shades of grey. One of the classics is Buzz Bissinger's rant against Will Leitch and blogs in general. Bissinger had some good points, including some of the same ones that I've made above about the sensationalist tendencies of some blogs. However, he shot his own argument in the leg Plaxico Burress-style by sensationalizing it. If he keeps that as a rational discussion, differentiates between posts and comments and talks about a few particular blogs or posts he has issues with, he might be taken somewhat seriously. Ironically, he used the same sensationalism he was complaining about, and that destroyed his credibility.
Like everything else, though, Bissinger-Leitch (or traditional media vs. blogs) doesn't have to be an absolute argument. Our current media world wants it to be, though. Are you a blogger? Well, you'd better move back to your mother's basement and pound out uninformed diatribes against the prejudices of the media. Are you in the media? Get to work on those anti-blog columns. Fortunately, there are many of those on both sides who do see the shades of grey; the problem is that they don't draw the attention. Our tendency is to pay attention to the one-sided rants, like this piece from Christie Blatchford; never mind that at the very same paper they have reporters like Michael Grange and James Mirtle who can navigate both worlds with aplomb. There's the same problem with the bloggers who rant about traditional media outlets being useless and biased; yes, parts of their coverage may be, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's folly to respond to overgeneralized arguments against blogs with overgeneralized arguments against mainstream media.
It extends to everything in sport. Steroids and the Mitchell Report? It seems that either you hate what drugs have done to the game and think every user should be banned for life, or you have no problem with them at all. Spygate? Either Bill Belichick and the Patriots are the worst criminals in the game's history or cunning figures who should be rewarded for outsmarting everyone else. Statistics? Either they tell us everything and we shouldn't bother playing the games any more, or we should erase them all and go back to analyzing sports without numbers. Take any sports issue of recent memory and look for points of view on it; my guess is that most of them will cluster towards the two extremes. This polarization just leads to more yelling than constructive debate. We need people who can see both sides, and there are some; they should be praised for this, not ignored because they haven't taken the strongest stand of anyone on the issue.
It's not just sports, either. As a history student, I've seen this more and more in my research on a wide variety of topics. Many historians have realized that the way to get cited and become prominent is to take a strong, provocative stand on an issue. That gets people talking about you and gets your name out there. No one wants to hear the "on the one hand, but on the other hand", even if it may be closer to the truth. The subtlety is lost in favour of notoriety.
The problem isn't opinions. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and the more opinions, the better, in my view at least. The problem is that the opinions are moving to the extremes, and the natural conclusion to this is that the opinion-holders become less and less willing to consider alternative points of view. The problem is the people who think that their opinion is the only one worthy of note. It's very rare that these individuals take the middle ground on anything, as it's tough to be an absolutist about a moderate position. If they represent the ultimate goal, though, as many in the media and the blogosphere seem to think, why do we even bother discussing sports any more? There's no point in an argument between two unflinching individuals (or, to return to physics, an unstoppable force and an immovable object).
Enough negativity for now. There are plenty of writers, bloggers, radio hosts and the like who do see the shades of grey. Some of them are listed in my links, but there are many others. I thought I'd point out three of the best shades-of-grey pieces I've read recently to try and give you an idea of what I'm talking about.
First, there's Joe Posnanski's great essay on George Steinbrenner. Posnanski epitomizes what I'm talking about here; he's a columnist and a blogger, and he sees subtlety in situations where others would fly to the extremes. The Steinbrenner piece is a fantastic case in point. Most people in sports have very strong feelings about Steinbrenner; either they love the way he's changed the game and the success he's brought to the Yankees, or they hate his meddling, his arrogance and his purchase of dominance. Posnanski shows us all sides of the man and lets his readers draw their own conclusion, which is a laudable tactic and goal. Here's the key paragraph of his work:
"The story of King George is fascinating to me because, at the end of the day, the story goes wherever the narrator wants it to go. Do you want a hero? Do you want a scoundrel? Do you want a tyrant? Do you want a heart of gold? Steinbrenner is what you make him. He is the convicted felon who quietly gave millions to charity, the ruthless boss who made sure his childhood heroes and friends stayed on the payroll, the twice-suspended owner who drove the game into a new era, the sore loser who won a lot, the sore winner who lost plenty, the haunted son who longed for the respect of his father, the attention hound who could not tolerate losing the spotlight, the money-throwing blowhard who saved the New York Yankees and sent them into despair and saved them again (in part by staying out the way), the bully who demanded that his employees answer his every demand and the soft touch who would quietly pick up the phone and help some stranger he read about in the morning paper."
Second, we have the great Gary Smith of Sports Illustrated, who's one of my favourite writers. Smith has an unbelievable talent for portraying athletes in all their dimensions. He writes about tragedy and perseverance without ever trivializing or deifying the struggles of those involved, and his palette has an unbelievable amount of different shades of grey. Fortunately, those unfamiliar with his work can now read his many great pieces for free at the SI Vault. If you haven't yet read "Remember His Name", his tribute to former NFL player Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan, you owe it to yourself to check it out.
Thirdly, we have Stephen Brunt of The Globe and Mail, who needs little introduction to Canadian readers. His most recent column on the Buffalo Bills-to-Toronto situation is a perfect example of what I'm trying to argue. Yes, he'd get much more attention if he started yelling about how this would doom the CFL irrevocably, or how Toronto desperately needs an NFL team, or how Buffalo doesn't deserve one, or any absolutist side you prefer. Instead, he considers all the sides and all of the potential effects, and even puts himself in the shoes of the fans in Buffalo, which is surely a rare perspective north of the border these days. This column provides the solid, reasoned analysis he's known for, and I'd love to see more in the Canadian media emulate him.
Anyway, the point of all this is to establish a central manifesto for my work and my blog. With apologies to Rod Serling, my goal is to offer a "middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition". Everything I write here is what I actually believe; it has not been altered or inflated into a more provocative case to draw attention. I vow to look at both sides of an argument and weigh all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion, and my goal is to be fair and open to discussion. I'm willing to look at my own views critically, and alter them if someone makes a persuasive arguement. This is a rallying call to the shades of grey excluded from the conversation from the shift to the black and white extremes; you'll always have a home here.
Update: 3:45 P.M.: Bloody hell: Jason Whitlock just made pretty much the same arguement as me on the Avery case. Here's his comment: My real problem is with my peers in the media. I think we're too quick to go for the death penalty when it comes to verbal screw-ups. We can never see the gray areas and just want hard and fast rules. Hadn't seen this one before; thanks to Neate for the link.
My biggest problem with the state of sports analysis today is that we seem to be moving away from the middle of the spectrum. Nothing exemplifies this more in my mind than Around the Horn, the ESPN talk show which basically features prominent journalists arguing with each other about sports. Moderator Tony Reali hands out points for different arguments, but the scoring seems to be based more on how vigorously you make your case rather than anything you actually say. The amount of people involved and the short time given to each segment also encourages participants to move away from subtlety in favour of absolutes. That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad; there's obviously a market for this kind of thing, and there are often interesting points raised. The problem is that the format encourages sensationalism and bold stands over critical analysis; why else would Jay Mariotti be a recurring participant?
This isn't all Around the Horn's fault, though. Much of the media is going along the same lines, particularly talk radio. There are some great programs out there, but they're often drowned out by those who make their living from just being controversial. It's not limited to sports, either: consider the popularity of types like Howard Stern and Don Imus. Newspapers and the blogosphere are following right along. It's become less about analysis and more about how loudly you can yell or how dramatically you can make your arguement.
The Sean Avery incident is an excellent case in point; everyone's trying to take the strongest stance out there either for or against him. That's why you get some like Bruce Garrioch calling for lifetime bans, while others like Colby Cosh are trying to make Avery into a free-speech martyr. He's not the worst villain in hockey history by far, but he's also not some innocent victim who should be allowed to skate off into the sunset with a slap on the wrist; check out Eric McErlain's FanHouse post on an alleged horrifying verbal attack Avery carried out on a Nashville fan, Richard Lawson's Gawker post on what Avery told a fashion writer and Greg Wyshynski's post about the actual act suggested by Avery's comments for just a few examples of what he's done over the years. That's not to say everyone's going to extremes; for an excellent example of a well-reasoned, considered position that examines both sides, check out James Mirtle's writing on the subject at From the Rink. He's in the minority, though, as this issue has further polarized an already-polarized sports media.
The broader point is that there are, surprisingly, a lot of similarities between sports and quantum physics. Not only does your perception of an event depend on where you're coming from (or your frame of reference, in classical physics terms), but your observing an event can also alter the event itself. Think Avery's suspended for six games if this incident doesn't spread as far? If the media in that locker room didn't broadcast this, there likely would be no suspension whatsoever. That's not to blame them; Avery basically called his own press conference and made his statement unprompted, so he needs to take responsibility, and I'd consider it worth reporting. The point is that the media's observance of and decision to report that event altered the event itself. The event was then further altered by the spread of the news. If it's shown on TSN once and maybe mentioned in one or two game-day stories, we might have a suspension on our hands, but I doubt it would be six games. This turned into one of the biggest hockey stories in recent memory, though, and was picked up by everyone from entertainment TV shows and websites to American newspapers that never cover the NHL. You have to think that that expansion of the coverage affected the league's response.
There are plenty of other examples of this failure to see the shades of grey. One of the classics is Buzz Bissinger's rant against Will Leitch and blogs in general. Bissinger had some good points, including some of the same ones that I've made above about the sensationalist tendencies of some blogs. However, he shot his own argument in the leg Plaxico Burress-style by sensationalizing it. If he keeps that as a rational discussion, differentiates between posts and comments and talks about a few particular blogs or posts he has issues with, he might be taken somewhat seriously. Ironically, he used the same sensationalism he was complaining about, and that destroyed his credibility.
Like everything else, though, Bissinger-Leitch (or traditional media vs. blogs) doesn't have to be an absolute argument. Our current media world wants it to be, though. Are you a blogger? Well, you'd better move back to your mother's basement and pound out uninformed diatribes against the prejudices of the media. Are you in the media? Get to work on those anti-blog columns. Fortunately, there are many of those on both sides who do see the shades of grey; the problem is that they don't draw the attention. Our tendency is to pay attention to the one-sided rants, like this piece from Christie Blatchford; never mind that at the very same paper they have reporters like Michael Grange and James Mirtle who can navigate both worlds with aplomb. There's the same problem with the bloggers who rant about traditional media outlets being useless and biased; yes, parts of their coverage may be, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It's folly to respond to overgeneralized arguments against blogs with overgeneralized arguments against mainstream media.
It extends to everything in sport. Steroids and the Mitchell Report? It seems that either you hate what drugs have done to the game and think every user should be banned for life, or you have no problem with them at all. Spygate? Either Bill Belichick and the Patriots are the worst criminals in the game's history or cunning figures who should be rewarded for outsmarting everyone else. Statistics? Either they tell us everything and we shouldn't bother playing the games any more, or we should erase them all and go back to analyzing sports without numbers. Take any sports issue of recent memory and look for points of view on it; my guess is that most of them will cluster towards the two extremes. This polarization just leads to more yelling than constructive debate. We need people who can see both sides, and there are some; they should be praised for this, not ignored because they haven't taken the strongest stand of anyone on the issue.
It's not just sports, either. As a history student, I've seen this more and more in my research on a wide variety of topics. Many historians have realized that the way to get cited and become prominent is to take a strong, provocative stand on an issue. That gets people talking about you and gets your name out there. No one wants to hear the "on the one hand, but on the other hand", even if it may be closer to the truth. The subtlety is lost in favour of notoriety.
The problem isn't opinions. Everyone has a right to an opinion, and the more opinions, the better, in my view at least. The problem is that the opinions are moving to the extremes, and the natural conclusion to this is that the opinion-holders become less and less willing to consider alternative points of view. The problem is the people who think that their opinion is the only one worthy of note. It's very rare that these individuals take the middle ground on anything, as it's tough to be an absolutist about a moderate position. If they represent the ultimate goal, though, as many in the media and the blogosphere seem to think, why do we even bother discussing sports any more? There's no point in an argument between two unflinching individuals (or, to return to physics, an unstoppable force and an immovable object).
Enough negativity for now. There are plenty of writers, bloggers, radio hosts and the like who do see the shades of grey. Some of them are listed in my links, but there are many others. I thought I'd point out three of the best shades-of-grey pieces I've read recently to try and give you an idea of what I'm talking about.
First, there's Joe Posnanski's great essay on George Steinbrenner. Posnanski epitomizes what I'm talking about here; he's a columnist and a blogger, and he sees subtlety in situations where others would fly to the extremes. The Steinbrenner piece is a fantastic case in point. Most people in sports have very strong feelings about Steinbrenner; either they love the way he's changed the game and the success he's brought to the Yankees, or they hate his meddling, his arrogance and his purchase of dominance. Posnanski shows us all sides of the man and lets his readers draw their own conclusion, which is a laudable tactic and goal. Here's the key paragraph of his work:
"The story of King George is fascinating to me because, at the end of the day, the story goes wherever the narrator wants it to go. Do you want a hero? Do you want a scoundrel? Do you want a tyrant? Do you want a heart of gold? Steinbrenner is what you make him. He is the convicted felon who quietly gave millions to charity, the ruthless boss who made sure his childhood heroes and friends stayed on the payroll, the twice-suspended owner who drove the game into a new era, the sore loser who won a lot, the sore winner who lost plenty, the haunted son who longed for the respect of his father, the attention hound who could not tolerate losing the spotlight, the money-throwing blowhard who saved the New York Yankees and sent them into despair and saved them again (in part by staying out the way), the bully who demanded that his employees answer his every demand and the soft touch who would quietly pick up the phone and help some stranger he read about in the morning paper."
Second, we have the great Gary Smith of Sports Illustrated, who's one of my favourite writers. Smith has an unbelievable talent for portraying athletes in all their dimensions. He writes about tragedy and perseverance without ever trivializing or deifying the struggles of those involved, and his palette has an unbelievable amount of different shades of grey. Fortunately, those unfamiliar with his work can now read his many great pieces for free at the SI Vault. If you haven't yet read "Remember His Name", his tribute to former NFL player Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan, you owe it to yourself to check it out.
Thirdly, we have Stephen Brunt of The Globe and Mail, who needs little introduction to Canadian readers. His most recent column on the Buffalo Bills-to-Toronto situation is a perfect example of what I'm trying to argue. Yes, he'd get much more attention if he started yelling about how this would doom the CFL irrevocably, or how Toronto desperately needs an NFL team, or how Buffalo doesn't deserve one, or any absolutist side you prefer. Instead, he considers all the sides and all of the potential effects, and even puts himself in the shoes of the fans in Buffalo, which is surely a rare perspective north of the border these days. This column provides the solid, reasoned analysis he's known for, and I'd love to see more in the Canadian media emulate him.
Anyway, the point of all this is to establish a central manifesto for my work and my blog. With apologies to Rod Serling, my goal is to offer a "middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition". Everything I write here is what I actually believe; it has not been altered or inflated into a more provocative case to draw attention. I vow to look at both sides of an argument and weigh all of the evidence before reaching a conclusion, and my goal is to be fair and open to discussion. I'm willing to look at my own views critically, and alter them if someone makes a persuasive arguement. This is a rallying call to the shades of grey excluded from the conversation from the shift to the black and white extremes; you'll always have a home here.
Update: 3:45 P.M.: Bloody hell: Jason Whitlock just made pretty much the same arguement as me on the Avery case. Here's his comment: My real problem is with my peers in the media. I think we're too quick to go for the death penalty when it comes to verbal screw-ups. We can never see the gray areas and just want hard and fast rules. Hadn't seen this one before; thanks to Neate for the link.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
CFL: Send in the Don!
This [David Naylor, The Globe and Mail] is absolutely out of the blue. I hadn't even heard rumours that Toronto Argonauts head coach Rich Stubler was about to be fired, but that makes sense given their play this year, and it makes abundant sense if you can replace him with the CFL's all-time leader in wins, Don Matthews. The team has called a press conference for 11:15 this morning to announce the change, and everyone from the CBC to The Fan 590's Bob McCown to Sportsnet's Perry Lefko has picked it up: TSN still hasn't had anything on the air, though, as they're still focusing on yesterday's firing [Stephen Brunt, The Globe and Mail, a must-read as always] of Hamilton Tiger-Cats head coach Charlie Taafe.
It's pretty funny that both struggling Ontario franchises decide to get rid of their coaches within a day of each other. Perhaps this is just the usual Argos' plan to upstage the Ti-Cats? Seriously, though, Matthews certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea, and has had notable struggles with the media in the past, as well as bizarrely resigning his last job with the Montreal Alouettes part of the way through the season. Most thought he was retired for good, but if he wants to come back, I'd think most teams would be willing to give him a shot: the man knows how to win, and how to win without the best players (a problem faced by both Toronto and Hamilton these days). He certainly can't make things any worse in Toronto, and just his hiring will reinvigorate the interest in the franchise from both fans and the media. In my mind, this is a pretty smart move by franchise president Pinball Clemons, and it makes much more sense than him stepping back to the sidelines himself, which was the preferred rumour for a long period.
The downsides of this move are mostly for fans of other CFL teams, including my beloved B.C. Lions, as playing Toronto just got a lot more intimidating. Also, Wally Buono's charge to pass Matthews on the all-time wins list (Matthews currently leads by 15, according to cfl.ca) may take a bit longer. Still, all things considered, it's great to see a legend like the Don return to the game. That should make it a very, very interesting stretch drive in the East, where Toronto is currently second(!) with a 4-6 record: at the moment, the bottom-of-the West Lions (5-5) would take the third playoff berth in the East via crossover and have a better record than the second-place team. I'm guessing a Matthews-coached Argonauts team is good for at least .500 though, especially in that division. It should be fun to watch.
(As an aside, this might cheer Neate up. This morning, he wrote, "What's worse: Supporting for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, who tied the can to Charlie Taaffe on Monday, or supporting the only CFL team the Tabbies can beat, the other one in Southern Ontario?" Well, at the moment, it looks like there's a lot more hope for Toronto.)
It's pretty funny that both struggling Ontario franchises decide to get rid of their coaches within a day of each other. Perhaps this is just the usual Argos' plan to upstage the Ti-Cats? Seriously, though, Matthews certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea, and has had notable struggles with the media in the past, as well as bizarrely resigning his last job with the Montreal Alouettes part of the way through the season. Most thought he was retired for good, but if he wants to come back, I'd think most teams would be willing to give him a shot: the man knows how to win, and how to win without the best players (a problem faced by both Toronto and Hamilton these days). He certainly can't make things any worse in Toronto, and just his hiring will reinvigorate the interest in the franchise from both fans and the media. In my mind, this is a pretty smart move by franchise president Pinball Clemons, and it makes much more sense than him stepping back to the sidelines himself, which was the preferred rumour for a long period.
The downsides of this move are mostly for fans of other CFL teams, including my beloved B.C. Lions, as playing Toronto just got a lot more intimidating. Also, Wally Buono's charge to pass Matthews on the all-time wins list (Matthews currently leads by 15, according to cfl.ca) may take a bit longer. Still, all things considered, it's great to see a legend like the Don return to the game. That should make it a very, very interesting stretch drive in the East, where Toronto is currently second(!) with a 4-6 record: at the moment, the bottom-of-the West Lions (5-5) would take the third playoff berth in the East via crossover and have a better record than the second-place team. I'm guessing a Matthews-coached Argonauts team is good for at least .500 though, especially in that division. It should be fun to watch.
(As an aside, this might cheer Neate up. This morning, he wrote, "What's worse: Supporting for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats, who tied the can to Charlie Taaffe on Monday, or supporting the only CFL team the Tabbies can beat, the other one in Southern Ontario?" Well, at the moment, it looks like there's a lot more hope for Toronto.)
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Earning the (re)cap: Deutschland marches on
Photo: Wingback Philipp Lahm seals the Germans' place in the finals with a stoppage-time goal. [Photo from The Daily Telegraph]
Breaking down Day XVII of the European Championships...
Germany 3, Turkey 2
What a game that was. Unlike their snooze-fest against the Croatians, the Turks went for the throat right from the start and created chances by the bushel. The Germans, meanwhile, seemed to be caught flat-footed, and could only defend for the first little while as Turkey racked up 10 shots to their two in the first 20 minutes: amazing, considering the short bench Turkey was left with due to suspensions and injuries.
The offensive pressure soon paid off for the Turks, as Ugur Boral drilled a rebound off the crossbar through the legs of Jens Lehmann in the 22nd minute. However, Germany quickly equalized four minutes later against the run of play on a great combination from Lukas Podolski and Bastian Schweinsteiger, and it was 1-1 going into the half.
In the second half, watching began to get frustrating. The on-pitch product was superb, but it was rarely available, as a lightning strike [The Associated Press via The Globe and Mail] overloaded the satellite transmission and blacked out the broadcast for most of the world three separate times for over 25 minutes in total. Unfortunately, one of these times just happened to coincide with Miroslav Klose's brilliant header off a Philipp Lahm cross in the 79th minute to drill the ball past Turkish keeper Recber Rustu, which we didn't find out about until later. The feed came back just in time to see Semih Senturk work his magic again, snatching a desperate late equalizer for the Turks by sliding in to knock what looked like an easy ball for Lehmann to collect past him into the back of the net.
The Germans weren't finished yet, though. In stoppage time, Lahm made a great run forward from his wingback position, put a brilliant move on Colin Kazim-Richards and played a beautiful give-and-go with Thomas Hitzlsperger to break into the box. Rustu came out and cut down his angle, but Lahm made no mistake on the finish from 12 yards out, slotting it into the top left corner. Unfortunately for the Turks, they'd already used up not only their supplies of last-minute miracles, but probably those of the entire footballing world. Unfortunately for the viewers, another power outage meant we didn't get to see their last-ditch attempt.
It was a remarkably even game overall. The Germans only recorded nine shots to Turkey's 22, and only five of those were on target, but they made the most of their limited opportunities while Turkey wasted many of theirs. The first half was all Turkey, but the Germans showed their class in the second, and the end result was probably fair. An amazing stat is that Turkey made it through five matches and ten hours of play during this tournament, but only led for 14 minutes. They gave a great account of themselves, and we'll hopefully see more from them in the future. In the end, it truly was a feast of football... just with portions slightly charred by the power surges.
Related:
- Stephen Brunt's great column, focusing on Lahm's contributions (and so what if he can't spell Low or Hitzlsperger?). [The Globe and Mail]
- Ben Knight has an excellent piece comparing Turkey's run this time around with Greece's tournament four years ago. [On Soccer]
- Duane has a good recap of the game (complete with an awesome picture). [Out of Left Field]
- Brunt has a hilarious story about his train trip to Austria. [On Soccer]
On deck today: Spain vs. Russia (Kick-off: 2:45 P.M. ET)
Should be a great match. Russia will give Spain a run for their money, but like I predicted yesterday, I think the Spanish will advance in the end. Either way, we'll have a fantastic matchup for Sunday's final.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Don't you forget about me
An interesting combination of circumstances conspired to form the genesis of this post. Yesterday, I was riding back from a field trip to the Globe and Mail's Toronto office with several Journal colleagues, sitting in a crowded van, listening to 80's music and reading Sports Illustrated's Fifty Years of Great Writing. The Simple Minds song Don't You (Forget About Me) of Breakfast Club fame came on, and it struck me that in many ways, that's what great sportswriting is really all about: capturing the games, events and legends and firmly entrenching them in the readers' minds. The ability to do that turns a talented backfield from merely Stuhldreher, Crowley, Miller and Layden, who would have been remembered as merely one of the many talented units in 1920s college football and likely forgotten about soon afterwards, into the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, who have remained outlined against a blue-gray October sky for almost 84 years and seem probable to stay there for many more.
There are many different ways to immortalize someone. Some, like Grantland Rice, the man who transplanted the Horsemen from the realm of fantastic apocalyptic literature to the much tamer gridiron, take athletes and almost mythologize them. However, as revealed in Mark Inabinett's terrific book Grantland Rice and His Heroes: The Sportswriter as Mythmaker in the 1920s, Rice also took pains to humanize his subjects off the field. Others take the approach of negative immortality, or creating legends who will forever live in infamy. A great example of this (to someone who was more than deserving) is Russ Conway's superb takedown of Alan Eagleson in his "Cracking the Ice" series for the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, which was later turned into the book Game Misconduct: Alan Eagleson and the Corruption of Hockey. Still others receive immortality for being the traditional role player who steps up to make the big play at the crucial time: great examples of this are Paul Henderson and David Tyree. Then there are those who are famous only because of tragedy: John Malangone, who Gary Smith immortalized in Damned Yankee, and Mickey Renaud, who thousands have wrote about, but Gare Joyce perhaps best chronicled.
The overarching point is that making people and events memorable, whether they're already famous in their own right or not, is the essence of a sportswriting job in my mind. Sometimes, you're in the right place at the right time to cover a spectacular event and catch lightning in a bottle: other times, you have to go out and find the story. There are plenty of ways and styles to etch people or events in memories, whether it's Rice's poetic allusions, the emotion Smith conveys to the audience, or Conway's scathing investigative journalism. Sports are one of the best arenas for legends: many of us can recall the "Shot Heard Round the World," the "Rumble in the Jungle", or the exploits of Cyclone Taylor, even though they were long before our time. It's up to this generation of sportswriters to carry the torch, and make it so people 50 years down the road will be talking about events like Manning-to-Tyree (or, as I prefer, "David and Eliath" or "The Great Escape"), Barnsley knocking off Chelsea, or closer to home, the overthrow of the Ravens, and people like Bobby Orr or Michael Beasley.
As an interesting sidebar, I went to a 1920s party last night, and of course chose to dress as Grantland Rice (fedora and all, thanks to Mike). Many people had no idea who he was, but a few of the more sport-inclined types got it, which is pretty impressive considering that Rice died 54 years ago. Perhaps spending a career immortalizing legends sometimes brings its own deserved immortality.
There are many different ways to immortalize someone. Some, like Grantland Rice, the man who transplanted the Horsemen from the realm of fantastic apocalyptic literature to the much tamer gridiron, take athletes and almost mythologize them. However, as revealed in Mark Inabinett's terrific book Grantland Rice and His Heroes: The Sportswriter as Mythmaker in the 1920s, Rice also took pains to humanize his subjects off the field. Others take the approach of negative immortality, or creating legends who will forever live in infamy. A great example of this (to someone who was more than deserving) is Russ Conway's superb takedown of Alan Eagleson in his "Cracking the Ice" series for the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune, which was later turned into the book Game Misconduct: Alan Eagleson and the Corruption of Hockey. Still others receive immortality for being the traditional role player who steps up to make the big play at the crucial time: great examples of this are Paul Henderson and David Tyree. Then there are those who are famous only because of tragedy: John Malangone, who Gary Smith immortalized in Damned Yankee, and Mickey Renaud, who thousands have wrote about, but Gare Joyce perhaps best chronicled.
The overarching point is that making people and events memorable, whether they're already famous in their own right or not, is the essence of a sportswriting job in my mind. Sometimes, you're in the right place at the right time to cover a spectacular event and catch lightning in a bottle: other times, you have to go out and find the story. There are plenty of ways and styles to etch people or events in memories, whether it's Rice's poetic allusions, the emotion Smith conveys to the audience, or Conway's scathing investigative journalism. Sports are one of the best arenas for legends: many of us can recall the "Shot Heard Round the World," the "Rumble in the Jungle", or the exploits of Cyclone Taylor, even though they were long before our time. It's up to this generation of sportswriters to carry the torch, and make it so people 50 years down the road will be talking about events like Manning-to-Tyree (or, as I prefer, "David and Eliath" or "The Great Escape"), Barnsley knocking off Chelsea, or closer to home, the overthrow of the Ravens, and people like Bobby Orr or Michael Beasley.
As an interesting sidebar, I went to a 1920s party last night, and of course chose to dress as Grantland Rice (fedora and all, thanks to Mike). Many people had no idea who he was, but a few of the more sport-inclined types got it, which is pretty impressive considering that Rice died 54 years ago. Perhaps spending a career immortalizing legends sometimes brings its own deserved immortality.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Scribblings of the Scribes of Sport: Diamond Dreams by Stephen Brunt
Stephen Brunt's Diamond Dreams is a classic for any fan of the Toronto Blue Jays. Published in 1996, it's an amazing retrospective into the history of the franchise. What's more impressive than the on-field action though is the clarity Brunt brings to the shady backroom maneuverings that are as much of a part of baseball in this day and age as "Take Me Out To The Ballgame" or the seventh-inning stretch. Along the way, we're treated to some interesting vignettes and character sketches of the key personalities involved: Pat Gillick, the withdrawn baseball genius, Don McDougall, the young, ambitious Labatt's president and eventual key ownership figure, and Howard Webster, the eccentric sport-loving millionaire.
Perhaps the most interesting portrait, though, is that of a man still deeply involved with the franchise: Paul Godfrey, who The Tao of Steib recently called "a kitten-drowning baby shaker " for his plans to sell Jays' tickets to Red Sox and Tigers fans before local fans could buy them. Godfrey's recent actions, particularly his deep involvement in the nefarious plot to bring the NFL north of the border , certainly make a lot more sense when you consider his history and his involvement in bringing the Jays to town. He was originally on North York council, a tiny role that was insufficient for his lofty dreams, and chose baseball as his ticket to the big time. He later was the Metro Toronto chairman from 1973-1984, and published the Toronto Sun from 1984-1991 before eventually joining the Jays' front office as president. As he told Brunt in an interview for the book, his involvement with the franchise was always with regards to what it could do for him.
"I figured there was no political downside for me," he said. "Only a political upside in any event. So I started this campaign to try to bring major league baseball to Toronto. I was going to be the guy who brough major league baseball."
In fact, as Brunt so eloquently points out, bringing a team was always going to be a massive effort involving many people, particularly as none of them knew how to do it.
"A politician [Godfrey], a brewery [Labatt's], a bank [CIBC] and an eccentric businessman [Webster] set out to buy a baseball team for Toronto," he writes. Sure enough, the punchline follows: "Not one of them really knew for sure how to do it."
Interestingly enough in the end, Brunt seems to conclude that Godfrey's role wasn't all that essential. As he writes, "...[T]he idea evolved that [Godfrey] was exactly what he had hoped to be—"the man who brought baseball to Toronto"... Some of those more directly involved with bringing the team to town―and especially with paying the bills—came to resent that image, though the friction never became public."
Brunt also quotes a couple of Jays' officials disgruntled with Godfrey for taking all the credit. "The guys at Labatt resent Godfrey being credited with bringing baseball to Toronto, because he didn't put up the money," one says. The overall consensus seems to be that Godfrey was helpful, particularly with Exhibition Stadium, but didn't do as much as he generally gets credit for: not surprising, given that it was always a political matter with him.
The on-field drama is also compelling, from the Jays' poor start to the back-to-back World Series wins in 1992 and 1993. Brunt's strong writing means the reader is never bored even in the midst of long stretches of mediocrity, and the in-depth profiles he provides of Jays' players, coaches, managers and front-office staff means the book always stays interesting even when the team isn't.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book: for a younger Jays fan like myself, it gave a lot of insight into the origins and roots of the team, which I think is vital to an understanding of where they are now. As previously mentioned, many of the same features in the original expansion to Toronto seem now to be repeating themselves with the NFL situation, so this book certainly is still relevant. Moreover, though, it stands as a strong example of sportswriting at its best: telling the behind-the-scenes story of a franchise to the fans who only get to see the on-field product.
A few quick links of the day:
- A post I put up over at my Journal blog predicting the various Queen's teams first-round playoff matchups: 1 for 1 so far, with women's volleyball's loss to the Varsity Blues tonight (my story on that should hit the Journal's website soon).
- Allan Maki has a great feature on Lakehead's basketball team over at the Globe and Mail's website
- Mike's take on the Senators' trade to get Cory Stillman and Mike Commodore
- Neate has a nice piece in the Ottawa Sun about a goalkeeper attending Toronto FC's summer camp
- The Globe's James Mirtle has some interesting stats on defensive forwards up on his blog: also, he wrote a hilarious post on the Globe on Hockey blog about former Canuck goalie Johan Hedberg facing rubber chickens in Atlanta
- The CIS Blog's newest contributor, Rob Pettapiece, has an interesting post up about the possible demise of campus sports radio over at the University of Waterloo
Perhaps the most interesting portrait, though, is that of a man still deeply involved with the franchise: Paul Godfrey, who The Tao of Steib recently called "a kitten-drowning baby shaker " for his plans to sell Jays' tickets to Red Sox and Tigers fans before local fans could buy them. Godfrey's recent actions, particularly his deep involvement in the nefarious plot to bring the NFL north of the border , certainly make a lot more sense when you consider his history and his involvement in bringing the Jays to town. He was originally on North York council, a tiny role that was insufficient for his lofty dreams, and chose baseball as his ticket to the big time. He later was the Metro Toronto chairman from 1973-1984, and published the Toronto Sun from 1984-1991 before eventually joining the Jays' front office as president. As he told Brunt in an interview for the book, his involvement with the franchise was always with regards to what it could do for him.
"I figured there was no political downside for me," he said. "Only a political upside in any event. So I started this campaign to try to bring major league baseball to Toronto. I was going to be the guy who brough major league baseball."
In fact, as Brunt so eloquently points out, bringing a team was always going to be a massive effort involving many people, particularly as none of them knew how to do it.
"A politician [Godfrey], a brewery [Labatt's], a bank [CIBC] and an eccentric businessman [Webster] set out to buy a baseball team for Toronto," he writes. Sure enough, the punchline follows: "Not one of them really knew for sure how to do it."
Interestingly enough in the end, Brunt seems to conclude that Godfrey's role wasn't all that essential. As he writes, "...[T]he idea evolved that [Godfrey] was exactly what he had hoped to be—"the man who brought baseball to Toronto"... Some of those more directly involved with bringing the team to town―and especially with paying the bills—came to resent that image, though the friction never became public."
Brunt also quotes a couple of Jays' officials disgruntled with Godfrey for taking all the credit. "The guys at Labatt resent Godfrey being credited with bringing baseball to Toronto, because he didn't put up the money," one says. The overall consensus seems to be that Godfrey was helpful, particularly with Exhibition Stadium, but didn't do as much as he generally gets credit for: not surprising, given that it was always a political matter with him.
The on-field drama is also compelling, from the Jays' poor start to the back-to-back World Series wins in 1992 and 1993. Brunt's strong writing means the reader is never bored even in the midst of long stretches of mediocrity, and the in-depth profiles he provides of Jays' players, coaches, managers and front-office staff means the book always stays interesting even when the team isn't.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book: for a younger Jays fan like myself, it gave a lot of insight into the origins and roots of the team, which I think is vital to an understanding of where they are now. As previously mentioned, many of the same features in the original expansion to Toronto seem now to be repeating themselves with the NFL situation, so this book certainly is still relevant. Moreover, though, it stands as a strong example of sportswriting at its best: telling the behind-the-scenes story of a franchise to the fans who only get to see the on-field product.
A few quick links of the day:
- A post I put up over at my Journal blog predicting the various Queen's teams first-round playoff matchups: 1 for 1 so far, with women's volleyball's loss to the Varsity Blues tonight (my story on that should hit the Journal's website soon).
- Allan Maki has a great feature on Lakehead's basketball team over at the Globe and Mail's website
- Mike's take on the Senators' trade to get Cory Stillman and Mike Commodore
- Neate has a nice piece in the Ottawa Sun about a goalkeeper attending Toronto FC's summer camp
- The Globe's James Mirtle has some interesting stats on defensive forwards up on his blog: also, he wrote a hilarious post on the Globe on Hockey blog about former Canuck goalie Johan Hedberg facing rubber chickens in Atlanta
- The CIS Blog's newest contributor, Rob Pettapiece, has an interesting post up about the possible demise of campus sports radio over at the University of Waterloo
Sunday, January 20, 2008
To Swede, or not to Swede (and if so, which Swede?)
There's lots of discussion going on in Canuck Nation at the moment regarding Hockey Night in Canada panelist Al Strachan's suggestion last night that Mats Sundin may be headed to Vancouver. It's certainly an intriguing notion: the Canucks' major weakness is a lack of deep, consistent scoring, which Sundin would certainly provide. However, given that he's likely to only be a rent-a-player and wind up back in Toronto next season, the question is if he's worth the steep price the Leafs will certainly demand. My thinking is he is, but only if two conditions are met: first, that Vancouver's playing well enough that his addition would be enough to push them over the top into the realm of serious Cup contenders, and second, that the Canucks don't have to mortgage their entire future to grab him.
The first condition seems to be a bit of an iffy proposition at the moment, as the Canucks haven't played consistently lately. After falling behind to Detroit, one of the best teams in the league, they mounted an incredible comeback and only lost in a shootout. However, they then fell 4-3 Saturday to the Los Angeles Kings, one of the worst teams in the league, on Hockey Night in Canada. The Canucks seemed to catch fire later in the game, and easily could have tied it with chances like the one Ryan Kesler had with less than a minute left: however, as Kesler himself said, they never should have been down that far.
"We seemed to be all over them at the beginning, but for us to be down 3-0 to the last-place team in our conference is inexcusable for us," Kesler told Ben Kuzma of the Vancouver Province.
A positive that can be taken from the game was the Canucks' generation of offensive chances: however, their defensive play that has stood out for most of the year was noticeably absent. They'll need to find a way to get both to click simultaneously, and on a consistent basis, if they want to be a serious contender. Interestingly enough, this condition is necessary for more than one reason: not only do the Canucks need to be able to challenge for the Stanley Cup to have a Sundin trade approach the realms of rationality for the organization, but they'll likely need to be in contention in order to have Sundin consider it, due to his no-trade clause.
On Condition II: it's uncertain what the market would require, so this is hard to discuss at the moment. I would certainly jump at the scenario Sportsnet hockey analyst and former Leaf GM Gord Stellick proposed in Rick Westhead's Jan. 9 Toronto Star article: swapping Sundin straight up for Cory Schneider, Mason Raymond and Taylor Ellington. This is nice because Schneider isn't that incredibly valuable to a Canucks team that will live and die on Roberto Luongo's play (and has also been getting strong backup play from Curtis Sanford). Drew MacIntyre has also shown himself to be a good prospect, and has been actually outplaying Schneider so far this year from what I understand, making Schneider a very expendable prospect (but one the goaltending-troubled Leafs might be interested in). Losing Raymond and Ellington would hurt a bit more, but many would happily give up both for a chance to win the Cup: this scenario also allows the Canucks to retain their draft pick this year, a good move considering that this draft is supposed to be very deep. However, my guess is that John Ferguson Jr. (or his successor) would want more for Mats, including picks.
Perhaps a better option is lurking out there in Peter Forsberg. Zanstrom wrote that Forsberg claims to be completely healthy and might be a possibility for the Canucks. If so, the Canucks would be a great fit for him, due to both Swedish ties and potential to contend. They also have enough cap space (especially if Morrison's injury turns out to be longer-term) to make Forsberg a decent offer. His injury problems notwithstanding, this is a gamble the Canucks should try. If it fails and Foppa gets hurt, all they've lost is a chance to make a run this year, rather than pieces of their future.
Related:
- Alanah's take on the Sundin/Forsberg situation
- Zanstrom's thoughts
Other links of the day:
Hockey
- Tom Benjamin's take on the Toronto situation
- James Mirtle on the records teams will need to get into the playoffs
Soccer
- The always-inspiring Uli Hesse-Lichtenburger of ESPN Soccernet has a great piece on how media oversensationalize even the most routine goals
- Stephen Brunt's take on the possible split between Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr (originally with the great headline "Doomed to Walk Alone")
- Brunt's compatriot Ben Knight of the Globe and Mail on Kevin Keegan's return to Tyneside
- Soccernet has Hicks denying the split
- A piece I wrote for my Journal blog about the Premier League title race
CIS
- Neate Sager has some interesting thoughts over at The CIS Blog about the NCAA situation
- Speaking of the NCAA: my long-in-the-making piece for the Journal on the situation appeared on Friday: I'll have more on it both here and in Tuesday's Journal
- Mark Wacyk of cishoops.ca on U of T's recent win over the Gaels in CIS basketball
- Sager again on his personal blog, talking about the weekend that was in CIS hockey and basketball
Football
- Bill Simmons' always entertaining mailbag and picks
- Brunt again on the Patriots' triumph over San Diego
Baseball
- Sager with Brunt's thoughts on why he didn't submit a Hall of Fame ballot: very interesting stuff. I admire Brunt for taking a stand for what he believes, but as Sager points out, it's a shame he's not voting while far lesser minds are
- Jeff Blair on an interesting clause in Scott Rolen's contract
- Blair's globesports.com colleague Larry Millson has a nice retrospective on John McHale, the former Montreal Expos
president who died Thursday
The first condition seems to be a bit of an iffy proposition at the moment, as the Canucks haven't played consistently lately. After falling behind to Detroit, one of the best teams in the league, they mounted an incredible comeback and only lost in a shootout. However, they then fell 4-3 Saturday to the Los Angeles Kings, one of the worst teams in the league, on Hockey Night in Canada. The Canucks seemed to catch fire later in the game, and easily could have tied it with chances like the one Ryan Kesler had with less than a minute left: however, as Kesler himself said, they never should have been down that far.
"We seemed to be all over them at the beginning, but for us to be down 3-0 to the last-place team in our conference is inexcusable for us," Kesler told Ben Kuzma of the Vancouver Province.
A positive that can be taken from the game was the Canucks' generation of offensive chances: however, their defensive play that has stood out for most of the year was noticeably absent. They'll need to find a way to get both to click simultaneously, and on a consistent basis, if they want to be a serious contender. Interestingly enough, this condition is necessary for more than one reason: not only do the Canucks need to be able to challenge for the Stanley Cup to have a Sundin trade approach the realms of rationality for the organization, but they'll likely need to be in contention in order to have Sundin consider it, due to his no-trade clause.
On Condition II: it's uncertain what the market would require, so this is hard to discuss at the moment. I would certainly jump at the scenario Sportsnet hockey analyst and former Leaf GM Gord Stellick proposed in Rick Westhead's Jan. 9 Toronto Star article: swapping Sundin straight up for Cory Schneider, Mason Raymond and Taylor Ellington. This is nice because Schneider isn't that incredibly valuable to a Canucks team that will live and die on Roberto Luongo's play (and has also been getting strong backup play from Curtis Sanford). Drew MacIntyre has also shown himself to be a good prospect, and has been actually outplaying Schneider so far this year from what I understand, making Schneider a very expendable prospect (but one the goaltending-troubled Leafs might be interested in). Losing Raymond and Ellington would hurt a bit more, but many would happily give up both for a chance to win the Cup: this scenario also allows the Canucks to retain their draft pick this year, a good move considering that this draft is supposed to be very deep. However, my guess is that John Ferguson Jr. (or his successor) would want more for Mats, including picks.
Perhaps a better option is lurking out there in Peter Forsberg. Zanstrom wrote that Forsberg claims to be completely healthy and might be a possibility for the Canucks. If so, the Canucks would be a great fit for him, due to both Swedish ties and potential to contend. They also have enough cap space (especially if Morrison's injury turns out to be longer-term) to make Forsberg a decent offer. His injury problems notwithstanding, this is a gamble the Canucks should try. If it fails and Foppa gets hurt, all they've lost is a chance to make a run this year, rather than pieces of their future.
Related:
- Alanah's take on the Sundin/Forsberg situation
- Zanstrom's thoughts
Other links of the day:
Hockey
- Tom Benjamin's take on the Toronto situation
- James Mirtle on the records teams will need to get into the playoffs
Soccer
- The always-inspiring Uli Hesse-Lichtenburger of ESPN Soccernet has a great piece on how media oversensationalize even the most routine goals
- Stephen Brunt's take on the possible split between Liverpool owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr (originally with the great headline "Doomed to Walk Alone")
- Brunt's compatriot Ben Knight of the Globe and Mail on Kevin Keegan's return to Tyneside
- Soccernet has Hicks denying the split
- A piece I wrote for my Journal blog about the Premier League title race
CIS
- Neate Sager has some interesting thoughts over at The CIS Blog about the NCAA situation
- Speaking of the NCAA: my long-in-the-making piece for the Journal on the situation appeared on Friday: I'll have more on it both here and in Tuesday's Journal
- Mark Wacyk of cishoops.ca on U of T's recent win over the Gaels in CIS basketball
- Sager again on his personal blog, talking about the weekend that was in CIS hockey and basketball
Football
- Bill Simmons' always entertaining mailbag and picks
- Brunt again on the Patriots' triumph over San Diego
Baseball
- Sager with Brunt's thoughts on why he didn't submit a Hall of Fame ballot: very interesting stuff. I admire Brunt for taking a stand for what he believes, but as Sager points out, it's a shame he's not voting while far lesser minds are
- Jeff Blair on an interesting clause in Scott Rolen's contract
- Blair's globesports.com colleague Larry Millson has a nice retrospective on John McHale, the former Montreal Expos
president who died Thursday
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The Rocket's real fuel
In the wake of his 60 Minutes interview on Sunday, Roger Clemens held a press conference Monday to repeat his denials of steroid use (alleged in George Mitchell's report earlier). The most interesting thing to come out of it was his playing of a (secretly) taped conversation between himself and former trainer Brian McNamee, which he thought would help his cause (aside: who knew that only one party to a conversation had to consent to taping it? Apparently New York and Texas have no problems with people acting like Richard Nixon). As the Globe and Mail's Jeff Blair reports, it actually may have hurt Clemens' case. Clemens shows his outrage at McNamee for telling Mitchell that he used steroids, but never actually accuses McNamee of lying (and McNamee never said he lied on the tape). As Stoeten points out over at Drunk Jays Fans, another interesting moment comes from McNamee's line, "The truth is the truth. It is what it is," which Clemens, not so shockingly, danced around. It's impressive that Clemens comes off second-best in perhaps the most favourable circumstances possible: a secretly recorded conversation with his principal antagonist. As the New York Daily News' Mike Lupica writes, "All that was confirmed is that every time Clemens steps in front of the public these days, he doesn't seem to help himself very much." If Clemens can't even win under these circumstances (or in his own press conference, for that matter), how will he ever survive questioning by Congress? At this rate, he'll convict himself. Blair has another nice post on the Globe's baseball blog detailing just how flawed this conference was.
A good case was made by Glenn Kulkla, a former CFL lineman who admitted to steroid use during his career, who said on TSN's Off The Record today, "Whether he's telling the truth or lying, I don't think he's doing a good job of either." Kulkla went on to say that Clemens' explanation that McNamee's injections contained B12 and lidocaine is flawed: lidocaine shots (a local anesthetic similar to those used by dentists) in the back would likely result in the muscles tearing apart during exercise. Another interesting aspect of this is revealed in Jon Heyman's exclusive interview with McNamee for SI.com while watching Clemens' performance on 60 Minutes. McNamee said that lidocaine and B12 would be administered through the arm rather than the butt. You'd think Clemens would have bothered to check that before crafting his denials.
As Robert MacLeod of the Globe writes, whatever your opinion on where the truth is, this saga makes for great drama. McNamee’s lawyer, Richard Emery, announced “It’s war now,” after Clemens’ conference. It should get even more interesting when Clemens goes before Congress. It looks to me like he's left a pitch hanging up in the zone, as he did so many times this year: here's hoping McNamee, the media and Congress step up to the plate and knock this one out of the park.
Related links:
- Stephen Brunt’s column on Clemens’ 60 Minutes appearance, and how everyone overlooks the NFL’s steroids problem
- Peter Botte in the New York Daily News has more in an interview with McNamee
- ESPN's Patrick Hruby talks to experts on why Clemens' story doesn't make sense
- A hilarious take on this from Jeff Tydeman at Bleacher Report (featuring a line that cracked me up, "Roger Clemens has revealed his strategy in responding to accusations about steroid use: He's going to lie repeatedly and emphatically until hopefully the whole thing goes away.").
- A great collection of cartoons on the Mitchell report and steroids in general (my favorites are here, here, and here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
