Matthew Grieco wrote:
The only thing that made last year's World Series exciting was that the winning team was the Red Sox -- had a less storied team prevailed, it would have ranked as an unwatchably dull non-contest.
I don't think the Cardinals are a less storied team than the Red Sox. In fact, with the second-most world championships in history, they're probably much more storied.
Quote:
The Cardinals were never in the lead, and they were never not trailing except when the score was 0-0. It was probably the dullest World Series in 40 years to anyone not a member of Red Sox Nation.
The Cards and Sox were also tied in Game 1 at 9-9, before Damon hit one down the right-field line in the eighth inning. And I didn't find it too dull. Neither did the 40,000 people at Busch, the 3.2 million in St. Louis, and the countless others in the Midwest. Horrid? Yes. Disgusting? Yes. Dull? Nah.
Quote:
Every game of this Series was close and the Astros were very much in it all along, unlike last year's Cardinals.
The Cardinals and Red Sox traded blows throughout Game 1 last year, with a final score of 11-9. It seemed that the momentum wasn't going away from the Red Sox after that, especially when the Cardinals' bats decided not to show up (a problem I noticed was repeated this year). And everyone else in the country was so caught up in the Red Sox momentum (thanks to 50,000,000 promos and "cursed" previews from Fox) that the score didn't matter. So I think you're partially right -- last year's series was all about who won, not what the scores of the games were. But I don't think it was dull.
(Sorry. I'm pretty much required by contract to post about thing like this.)