Like all good New Yorkers, I thoroughly enjoyed yesterday’s game. It was actually the first time in years I can remember watching the game with friends with the intent of actually enjoying the game – as opposed to “parties” where socialization or watching for the commercials1 takes precedent.
I’ll leave the actual football discussion to those more qualified, but I did notice three trends with how people relate to the game. The first trend is historical revisionism and occurs when the media completely rewrites the narrative depending on the outcome. Had Plaxico Buress not made the deciding catch, we would be talking about Wes Welker’s inspired performance, how Brady’s ankle was a non-story, and how Randy Moss made the difference in the game and achieved redemption. Many football games are decided on one play at the end of the game, and yet that microcosm of football will retroactively influence all which preceded it. This is of course most convenient for media writers who are expected to churn out “analysis” on a moment’s notice and likely have two versions of the game written up, and will be ready with either narrative regardless of the outcome.2
Given that sports media rarely have opportunity (or capacity) for insight, talking heads will often resort to glib clichés. One such example is the post-game assertion that the winning team “wanted it more.” This is nonsense for two reasons. First, in high-profile games such as the Superbowl, it is safe to assume that both teams desire victory. It’s the Superbowl after all! One caller to WFAN similarly opined before the Giants/Dallas playoff game that the winner would be “who wants it more.” The host correctly responded that it’s the playoffs! Everyone wants to win in the playoffs! Secondly, the assumption is that mere desire wins games, not the ability to execute plays.3 Did Plaxico Burress want to win more than Wes Welker? Tom Brady more than Eli Manning? Jason Tuck more than Teddy Bruschi? Tom Coughlin more than Bill Billicheck? Equating after-the-fact results with desire is disrespectful to the effort of both teams.
Finally, I noticed a gender-based clichés in how men and women approach the game. Naturally the men were more into the game, but were clearly focused on the seriousness of each play and how it would effect the outcome. By the end of the game we were joking that according to our conversations were at least seven “biggest plays of the game right here.” On the flip side, the hostess had a less-competitive approach to the game, saying more than a few times, “regardless of who wins, this is a really good game.” She gets credit for trying, the guys were having none of it, “no, it’s about who wins.”
Got any more of your own?
1. With few exceptions (the FedEx pigeon, the balloons, Carville/Frist, and the Terminator assaulting the irrationally irritating Fox Football Robot), this year’s commercials were particularly depressing This is not surprising considering that Superbowl commercials have collectively declined in quality for several years. This trend started several years ago when the ads became more tongue-in-cheek postmodern self-referential satires of the institution of “Superbowl commercials.” Think of the “we just wasted $1,000,000 on this ad” commercials or GoDaddy’s commercial which referenced the previous year’s commercial. Since advertisers went for snark and clever over funny there has been no going back to the glory days of talking frogs and Bud Bowl.
2. For an amusing example of such a hedge, see the Amazon page for 19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England’s Unbeatable Patriots which includes the following Amazon marketing line, “Buy this book with New York Giants: 2008 Super Bowl Champions by Sports Publishing today!”
3. Another in a long list of football clichés.
(כִּי לֹא מַחְשְׁבוֹתַי מַחְשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם וְלֹא דַרְכֵיכֶם דְּרָכָי (ישעיהו נה:ח
February 4, 2008 Sports
Actually, I disagree. Normally, the “wanting it more” line is BS, but I genuinely believe that David Tyree “wanted it more” than Rodney Harrison in what essentially amounted to a jump ball, where in a vacuum, Harrison is clearly the more athletic, accomplished (and, *ahem*, enhanced) of the two.
Also, the Giants came out with WAY more enthusiasm and energy that the Pats. The Pats looked flat, while the Giants looked (and played) like a pack of wild dogs, especially their defensive line. It wasn’t as bad as the Bucs-Raiders SB, where the Raiders genuinely looked like they didn’t care at all, but it was close.
Also, even if the Giants don’t score on the final drive, and the no. 1 offense in football wins 14-10, you really think anyone would say Brady’s ankle was a “non-factor”? (But yeah, Welker definitely got the short end of the stick.)
Finally, I don’t think it’s a gender gap but a knowledge gap (which, admittedly, frequently correlates to gender.) People who know and care a lot about the game go nuts about each play, regardless of gender, and people who don’t know much and/or don’t have much invested often root for a “good game” or the like. Having watched the playoffs in NY sports bars, I assure you there are plenty of crazed women fans. And some milquetoast males as well.
I don’t buy that lack of displayed emotion is connected to desires. After all, wasn’t that the longstanding gripe against Eli Manning? A lower key approach could also mean focus, or business-like approach to a game which can be just as effective.
Regarding Tyree’s catch, I think you need to consider the difficulties in defending well without getting called for penalties. I’ll have to see the replay again, but from what I saw that pass was defended as well as it could have been legally.
I think you’re right regarding the attitude of women who are into sports; admittedly, I don’t have that much exposure. But even having been around YU I can’t imagine any guy articulating something similar mid-game.
A low-key business-like approach can be fine, IF that’s your usual style, as Eli has displayed for years. It’s very rare for football players to be business-like or low-key, and the patriots are no exception. Their lack of emotion showed a lack of desire, because that’s not the way they played when they won big in the first half of the season – or in the fourth quarter of the week 18 game against the giants (or in any of their previous super bowls).
Re the Tyree pass, look at it again; Harrison has his hand punching out the ball as Tyree is holding on with one hand as the ball is balanced against his helmet. (He then secured it with a second hand) It was 100% a battle of physical arm-and-finger strength, and the laws of physics were on Harrison’s side; based on the momentum and the angle, the ball should have come out. The fact that it didn’t, even though Tyree is simply not as strong as Harrison overall, is because Tyree was working harder on THAT play. In other words, for that moment, he wanted it more. (The same may be said for Eli’s escape on that play, despite being fairly wrapped up by Thomas, who had Eli by the jersey with on hand and by the shoulder with his other).
PS: Don’t take my word for it; here’s what (rabid pats fan) Bill Simmons wrote:
“everything you need to know about Super Bowl XLII happened on the Miracle Play To Be Named Later — you know, the third down on the do-or-die drive when Eli Manning ripped himself away from the entire Patriots defensive line (THEY HAD HIS JERSEY!!!!!!) and threw a pass that hung in the air forever like one of those sports movie passes, and even though David Tyree and Rodney Harrison had an equal chance of getting it, Tyree jumped a little bit higher, hauled in the football, trapped it against his helmet and somehow held on while Harrison was doing everything but performing a figure-four leg lock on him.”
(Earlier in the piece he also wrote about how the pats looked flat and played with less energy than the giants.)
Did you notice that Tom Petty covered more yards than Tom Brady?
Hillel – Upon further review (multiple times at that), I find the results inconclusive. I don’t know the skills involved in breaking up a pass or momentum etc. But I’m willing to see your distinction between being low-key and being lethargic. From what I saw I couldn’t tell the difference (also realize that we only get what Fox decides to broadcast).
RAV – Cute. I was disappointed with the set choice (and band). I do like Tom Petty, but they also seemed a little flat for my tastes.
What do you expect from the NFL re musical choices post-nipplegate? We get the Stones, Paul McCartney and Tom Petty. By the 2010’s, we’ll be getting the Eagles and the Police.
It’s a simple equation: Famous band + PG lyrics + 30 years past relevancy = Super Bowl!!
Can’t wait for that 2020 Super Bowl: Hootie and the Blowfish and the Goo Goo Dolls. Yaaay!