So i watched a game today.
Boston Red Sox against someone...good memory, eh?
They lost 2-1 anyway.
Erm...it was weird to say the least. It wasn't difficult to grasp. It's actually a very basic game (of course there were a few things i didn't understand, but that's taken as granted) it was just sureal to watch nad that's because it didn't feel like anything was really happening...yet people still cheered.
And i still enjoyed it. I think the commentators helped wtih that aspect.
Would i have enjoyed it live?
Probably not, because with ESPN there were so many things on screen that i couldn't get lost - but live i most certainly would have sat there dribbling into my lap for 3 hours.
[/b]
Firstly I would say that, unfortunately, that probably wasn't the most exciting game to see first up; the same problem my girlfriend had when I tried to show her a baseball game. Beckett throwing a superb game against a Toronto Blue Jays team who scrapped 2 runs, and then the Red Sox's offense completely failing to support him is definitely
not the perfect introduction to the game.
Secondly, the reason I suggested watching the game late night on Channel 5 is that ESPN cuts to an ad-break between half-innings, when there's a great play, when the pitcher changes, basically any reason you can think of - the advantage of Channel 5 in the UK is that whenever their ESPN feed takes an Ad break, their coverage goes back to the presenters in the studio who can discuss the latest plays, what the pitching change means, etc. I suggested this not only because it will help a newcomer to understand better what is happening, but also because it makes it a
lot more enjoyable to watch because there isn't an Ad break every 16.5 seconds. I have tried watching games in the UK on ESPN, and it is far less enjoyable.
As for your points about it being a simple but sureal game (and I know you weren't having a dig at the game itself), I would say that this is where a bit more experience of watching the game does actually let you appreciate the more intricate and less obvious points of the game - yes, the game you saw wasn't a Home Run, RBI explosion, but there was some excellent pitching from both Josh Beckett and his Blue Jays opponent Jesse Litsch, who actually threw less innings and had a greater number of hits against him, but still got the win - this is where the skill lies, to get out of situations like, for examples, with David Ortiz on second and Eric Hinske hitting a line drive to right, yet no run scoring.
Obviously baseball is a slower-paced game then rugby, or Full-Contact Chinese Mud Death Ball, but I reckon you should give it a couple more goes, you might learn to love it. Though, obviously I am biased.
Edit: Just another thought that occured to me. As a massive Red Sox fan, and watching it on semi-highlights without knowing the result, I actually found the pitching dual (what a low scoring game is commonly called) very tense and exciting, especially the moment with Ortiz was thrown out at home plate. As I've said previously, supporting a particularly team, and watching their game if possible, improves any sport.
