by Mark Lawrence, Down-Under EditorSydney, Australia. December 12, 2011—In one of my increasingly rare idle moments down here in Sydney, I dialled up the Boston Herald website where I was confronted with a link too good to pass up: Beloved Fenway? Bah!
Herald scribe Steve Buckley - for some thus far unexplained reason - decided to favor his readers with one of those so-last-century rants about Fenway Park's shortcomings. The usual whining ensued - cramped conditions, obstructed views, expensive seats - you know the drill. But it got me thinking - no mean feat in and of itself, sportsfans.
Located as I am, down here in the 51st State of The Nation, I can't just hop on a 747 and zoom across the Pacific to Logan for a Saturday afternoon ballgame whenever I feel like it - although I have done that exactly once - so, the rare times I do get to see a game at Fenway Park are special occasions indeed. I don't bitch about narrow seats - they fit my narrow butt quite well, thanks very much - and I don't whine too much about ticket prices, either, because I prefer those bleacher seats out in center. And beer prices are a little steep, but at my age that's probably a good thing. But really, the only thing I think about when I'm there is the fact that I'm Actually There - inside one of the most famous ballparks in all the USA, the same place where Williams and Ruth swung the bats and the history of the National Pastime was made.
Buckley berated the NOG for hyping Fenway as America's Most Beloved Ballpark, calling the nickname a cynical marketing ploy - no kidding, Steve, really? Who'da thought it?? Of course it's a marketing ploy and a damn fine one - that elegant descriptor is now common code for Fenway pretty much the world over. Henry and his cohorts bought Fenway Park for two reasons - because they had a passing interest in the game and they wanted to make a boatload of money. No one can blame them for that. The fact that they chose to renovate rather than rebuild simply reflects their acquiescence to the facts - building a new Fenway would've split the fan base pretty evenly, and caused a distracting ruckus of Ruthian proportions, not to mention costing squillions of bucks. Add in all the associated local government shenagigans (planning permissions, zoning laws and so on) and the NOG was likely convinced that doing anything other than just renovating Fenway would be a major pain in several parts of the body. And for following the path of least resistance - in other words, being human - old Buckley gives the NOG a ragging. By the way, I think the renovation program worked out pretty well.
Now before you get on my case about me being too soft on Larry, Curly and Moe - let me finish. If you're going to take up space anywhere writing about the NOG and their performance, your time would be better spent investigating and reporting on their shortcomings as managers of a major leagure baseball club that - right now - is in more trouble than Flash Gordon, rather than giving them static over the amenities of a hundred year old ballpark. Or am I missing something?