OK, so my prediction, based on a Sun Tzu-inspired analysis, of a Bears victory in the Super Bowl failed. Does this mean Sun Tzu is somehow flawed in his strategic outlook? I think the answer is clear: No. The terms of Sun Tzu's analysis were correct.
The Colts offense was not the force that won this game. They were largely kept in check by the Bears defense. Strength matched strength. Manning and company put up only 22 points on offense and the game was within the Bears' reach into the fourth quarter. The Bears could have done a better job in their pass rush and blitzing: Manning was untouched for most of the game. But even with that limitation, the Bears defense did what they had to do. They held the Colts to field goals at critical moments and kept the score manageable.
What mattered most in the game, as the Sun Tzu analysis suggested, was the face-off of the Colts defense versus the Bears offense. Now, I certainly admit that I thought the Bears offense would be able to win this match. And they did not. Two things need to be mentioned here. First, and most obviously, was the bad play of Grossman (one of my esteemed colleagues remarked that is was bad play of historically significant proportions). He was the key weakness and it clearly showed. He turned out to be worse than I expected. But, secondly, props are due to the Colts defensive line and linebackers. Not only did they keep Grossman off balance - and at times diving backwards! - but they also handled the Bears running game.
The first quarter looked like vindication for my prediction - Thomas Jones had the long run and things were working for the Bears. But then they stalled. I think Lovie Smith, or his offensive coordinator, made a strategic error in the second half by not running Jones more. Even though he was less effective in the second quarter, it would have been better to stick with him in the second half than to risk the game with Grossman.
I think, then, that the Sun Tzu analysis comes out pretty well: it predicted the key to the game and that turned out to be true. In light of that, it is a travesty that Manning was given the MVP - obviously a marketing ploy by the corporate overlords to keep a familiar face in the advertisements. The real MVPs were the Colts defense. I would have given it to a defensive lineman or linebacker: they pressured Grossman and stopped Jones at key moments. They exploited the Colts weakness, as Sun Tzu would counsel, and won the game.
Of course, for better predictions, next time I will consult the I Ching.
Comments