Same guy, two ways of wording the same thing.

Steve Simmons writes here:

[url=http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/GreyCup/2006/11/20/2430422-sun.html]http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/ ... 2-sun.html[/url]

"Not far from Bates, another player screamed and pointed at his teammate: "Ninety-four years of tradition down the drain."

The player was talking about the broken trophy. He might as well have been talking about a broken Canadian Football League season.

The most forgettable, least offensive Canadian season in recent memory ended oddly last night in a festival of field goals and safeties and huge defensive plays on an otherwise perfect night for football on the Prairies. This was everything the Grey Cup isn't supposed to be. The weather was superb, the football was barely tolerable.

Just as it has been for too much of the season."

AND here:

[url=http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Football/2006/11/20/2430315-sun.html]http://www.torontosun.com/Sports/Footba ... 5-sun.html[/url]

"The 19 points scored by McCallum was all the Lions needed in an offensively challenged Grey Cup that could have been a blow-out but wasn't. McCallum was named top Canadian player in a game that somehow awarded a rather inconsistent Dave Dickenson with the most-valuable-player award.

The big field goal -- the record-tying sixth, placing him alongside Don Sweet, Paul Osbaldiston and Sean Fleming, three kickers from three generations -- was the final one. The 47-yard boot just barely cleared the uprights in the fourth quarter, enabling the Lions to protect the lead and the victory.

But the game was won ostensibly by B.C.'s impressive defence, obliterating the Alouettes offence in the first half, then making an enormous stop and turnover in the second."

I don't understand how the same guy describes the game with "offensively challenged", "inconsistent Dave Dickenson" and "impressive defence" in one article, but then says it was a "broken CFL season" and that the game was "barely tolerable" in another.

One of them reflects the game for what it was, and focuses on the one game itself. The other tries to deride the whole CFL, and doesn't even consider that this was an individual, one-off game that happened to be defensive.

Why do they - and frankly, Steve Simmons, all on his own - have to use this double standard?!? The media LOVES the NFL, with its festivals of field goals and safeties (how many 9-6 or 6-3 NFL games are there?), but when a CFL game is defensive (and ends with a 25-14 score?) it's barely tolerable to watch.

The difference in tone between how they complain about the CFL and how they "complain" about the NFL is blatantly obvious, and damned annoying.

You will never read about an NFL game being barely tolerable to watch - at least, not in Canada, where bashing the NFL implies liking the CFL (and we can't have the media doing that). I bet American media complains about NFL games being boring. In Canada, the media says those games are impressive defensive struggles - the same as how Simmons described the Grey Cup in ONE of his articles ...

If only every article about a "boring" CFL game was written like Simmons' second bit up there, and not like his first!

PS: The reason the GC game was "boring" is not the same reason why the whole season was (apparently) "boring" ... 6 FG's has nothing to do with the new rules they brought in at the start of the season, for blocking on punt/kick returns.

I don't get it.

Is it the renowned Canadian inferiority complex, or have we just been spoiled by consistently spectacular football?

The game was not out of reach until the end and defences were playing well.

Sure it wasn't a classic, but it was hardly a stinker.

It was great, but it wasn't bad either. I enjoyed it.