(In sports, I mean.)
Grantland’s wrap-up of the year in sports seems to be mostly about the moments of underdog triumph. Which is fair enough, but I feel like those are the sports events that already get too much attention. I don’t have a point with this and this isn’t based on any piece of news or anything, and I know this has been said many times before, but still, by being counter-counterintuitive, I feel like I’m keeping one step ahead. Cheering for the underdog is like admitting you don’t care who’s good. And if you don’t care who’s good, why do you care about the sport? I remember once watching a French Open where all the best tennis players were quickly eliminated. This was great for the underdog cheerers who could now champion the 143rd ranked player in the world fresh from the steppes of Kazakhstan or whatever. Unfortunately, it became apparent that compared to the top seeds, the underdogs kinda sucked at tennis. You’d end up watching boring matches filled with unexciting shots and unforced errors. Or that time Greece won the Euro. Great for the Greeks, but for non-Greeks, awful. Now, every once in a while, just so it’s not predictable, it’s fun when a crappy team beats a good one. And outside of sports, especially, the criteria for winning and for being good are usually not the same. But in sports, they most often are.
Besides, for me there was an unequivocal moment of the year in sports that wasn’t any of the above: Canucks-‘Hawks Game 7