Every four years the World Cup comes around. Every four years I vow to get serious about watching football. I find it endlessly fascinating. But usually, like a three year old wandering in the park, I find something new and shiney to distract me.
Not this year.
I've decided to simply pick a team in the Premiership and root for them. Unfortunately, I have no ties to any particular city or side. So in my own very American way, I am going to pick a club based on things that are very important to me but to my English brethren would probably appear quite daft.
The criteria.
It can't be Chelsea, Man United or Arsenal. This would be akin to rooting for the Yankees and that just won't do.
It can't be a London club. I'm just a small town boy at heart. This eliminates one hefty chunk of clubs.
Finally, the really daft part. They have to have a cool name. And if can't figure out my choice, check my club's name against the blog name. Get my drift?
So, say hello to the official EPL club of Drifting Through The Grift.
The Blackburn Rovers.
And to be really daft, yes, The Beatles song was probablly the clincher.
First match? Saturday against Portsmouth.
5 comments:
The Rovers are more of a fit than the Wanderers?
Anyway, let's make a wager. I took out the Big Four, removed your Rovers, and added a little Excel Rand function fun. That leaves me adopting Tottenham Hotspur for the season (Hooray, Robbie Keane!).
I'll see you November 19th at the Brewhouse. Loser pays for beer and is a barmy plonker.
Bolton was in consideration. But the Rovers just felt right.
And you are on.
Actually, rooting for Man Yoo is like rooting for the Yankees. Rooting for Arsenal is like rooting for the Mets:
1. Spend tons
2. Fall short
3. Always be second fiddle
4. Relish the rare championship like a family heirloom
I don't know what rooting for Chelsea is like. Maybe the Avs of five years ago? USC?
Shank is a Liverpool guy. I say Seth stays onsistent and takes Wolves.
There are two crucial flaws with your analogy:
1) Aresenal has the baddest ass name of any professional sports team pretty much anywhere. Any team that takes the name Metropolitans, yet was formed 80 years after the 1880's, has to suck.
2) As it so happens, the Mets do, in fact, suck.
That's true. Perhaps the Mets should have named themselves after the baby version of another of the city's sports teams. That would be intimidating.
Also, contrary to popular (and Chris Berman's) belief, the Mets are just the Mets. They are not the Metropolitans.
No analogy is perfect, especially when dealing with the English and all their rucksacks, ladettes, etc.
Post a Comment