Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Tenacious Da Bears!

For those bloggers who did not watch the ESPN Monday Night Football telecast, you missed one for the ages. MY Chicago Bears....the Bears I watched growing up...THE 1985 Super Bowl Champion Bears.....came back from a 23-3 hole to beat the Arizona Cardinals in AZ last night. Was it their fantastic offense you say? Nope! The Bears scored on a field goal, 2 defensive fumble recoveries for td's and a punt return for a td. They did not score a td on offense. This type of comeback has never happend in the NFL...ever! When a grown man is screeming at the tv at 11pm at night because Devin Hester returns a punt for the go ahead score....priceless.

Lots of "beer flu" in Chicago today I bet.

Could this be the year? stay tuned.

bunny out


Kern said...

Is football that game with the brown, oblong ball?

In any case, hard fought victories in any sport are dramatic and incredibly exciting. Congrats to your team!

krysta jo said...

Thank God for the Bears Defense (who...coincidentally enough is on my fantasy football team). Awesome game!!!

Kern said...

The Sheriff's description of a grown man screaming at the TV takes me back to the beginning of September, when the US Open was in full swing in NY.

Only multiply that by fourteen days, a few of which I watched matches for ten to twelve hours straight, and you've got an amusing snapshot of an unusually enthusiastic Kern.

Deit Heimley said...

OK. The bunny yelling at the TV for a total of probably an hour (and it was a fabulous ending - not a huge Bears fan, but that is a feat even the 86 Bears could not have done, and in this day of "the Quarterback is a god" football I am happy to see a team that actually values defense. Even though this is the Bears and that's a bit like saying that the French favor a fast court. But I digress.) Point being, there exists a point where screaming at the TV is no longer enthusiasm for one's chosen team or side, and suddenly becomes a point of concern for the mental health of said individual. I might caution one against handing a pair of scissors to said person when said person's side is in peril - for the health of all involved. And I would say, or dear Kern, that point is reached at about hour four. At about hour ten one is no longer a fanatic for one's side, but becomes that crazy guy in 42C that you don't step into the elevator with or perhaps you send said person on long projects in the library where her poses little harm to anything other than the Dewey Decimal system.

I'm not try to imply that this shows a certain malaise of your higher cognative functions -- I'm just saying that a man may or may not show up in the next two hours and ask you to come with him. Please go with him. It's OK. We can help you. ECT is not the demon it was 40 years ago -- advances have been made that can help you.

Kern said...

Deit-I see what you're saying, but keep in mind, I've been warped for years, and tennis is a little different than other sports. As you know, fellow tennis fan, some men's matches can easily go four hours plus if they get into a fifth set. At that point it's totally reasonable to be pretty amped about the outcome. Really ten hours is only approximately three matches or so, give or take depending on whether it's a men's or women's match. That will change soon, from what I understand, as there are talks of making both men's and women's matches only three sets apiece, which would eliminate these monster marathon matches. I think the reason is partially because it is so taxing on some of the major players, that last year several of them had to withdraw from other tournaments they would have otherwise played in, had their bodies not been so ravaged by the previous tournaments.

I did like your comment about not harming anything but the Dewey Decimal system. Touche, good sir. Touche.

Deit Heimley said...

And it wouldn't be so bad if two of the four majors were not played in such intermitable heat. I mean the US and Austrialian Opens are not that bad, but playing two four hour plus matches in the French Open -- landing in the middle of the season as it does -- can just be a killer. Besides, I know you will disagree with me, but I have found that most of the drama in tennis recently has been in the Woman's sport. I know part of that is that the Men's side has been consistently dominated by a string of "unbeatable" players so the tournament conclusion is almost a formality, but still I think part of the apeal of a woman's match is that if you mess up just one game you can end up in serious trouble. In a men's match, the point are so many that something like this (7-5,2-6,6-4,6-7(4-6),7-5) is now typical and just think of how many volleys would be in a score like that, and in the 90 degree plus heat of the French Open's clay oven!!!! I mean in a match like that you can just lose it for an hour and still come back to win!!!!! SO I do understand how you can yell at the screen for twelve hours, but I still question your sanity for doing it.

But let's not take away from the Bears! Let me put it in your terms. What happened last night would be like if in the Finals your guy was just pounded by his opponent in straight sets, and then he miraculously wins even though he doesn't win a single point on his serve, but only because the other guy makes some 25+ consecutive double faults. Now imagine the foul utterences that would come out of your mouth at that!!

Kern said...

Deit-I actually do agree with you that a lot of the drama does come in the woman's game, and exactly for the reason you specified. In certain respects, I think that this change in the Men's game is going to really force them to dig deep and not rely on the fact that they might be able to simply let their opponent succumb to fatigue, and come back swinging. Granted, I've seen some awesome five setters in my short time of watching tennis, but I do think that this is going to potentially be a good thing for the sport.

Also, in certain respects I enjoy the Women's game a little more because it's not such brute force being used. Sure, Roddick has a huge serve, and Federer is pretty amazing no matter what, and Nadal looks like Conan the Barbarian with those arms, but brute strength is not the most lyrical aspect of the game. Because the women in tennis can never hope to be as strong as guys like Nadal for example, they place a lot more emphasis on shot making and finesse, which in my opinion is a lot more fun to watch than an out and out slugfest.

Good point about the weather conditions, as well.

Deit Heimley said...

I wonder if Bunny is mad we have usurped his post about football to discuss tennis. To be fair you will have to now post about some racing glory your team just performed and Bunny and I will have to come on and start talking about football.

Though I have to say that the way the Men play tennis does allow for greater upset potential. You may be unranked, but if your opponant's last match was a marathon and you can hold on for the first couple of sets, you have a chance. Just ask Agassi. (who seemed to have been affected by this effect more than his skill should have predicted) That is, unless your match is with Federer. That guy is a machine.

Point being though, if you look at Men's and woman's tennis over the season, the finals of the women's tournements seem to be filled with the number one facing the number two or three substantially more than the men's side, where a number nine facing a number three in the finals is not uncommon (again, with the exception of Federer in the last couple of years)

Kern said...

Yes, apologies for threadjacking. I didn't see much other response, so I was just trying to keep it lively.

Otherwise, my lack of manliness would have prohibited me from participating at all in today's event.