Why ESPN is not showing Men's Matches ?? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why ESPN is not showing Men's Matches ??

tennis_spider
06-21-2004, 07:20 PM
They are covering Women's one after another.. :o

All boring & one sided . Why not men's.

Can someone call them & complain.

Deboogle!.
06-21-2004, 07:45 PM
They showed Roger this morning and parts of Lleyton and they showed a good amount of Goran.... I'd say it's about even actually.

Havok
06-21-2004, 07:59 PM
They showed both mens and womens matches, so I don't get the point of this thread :scratch:

Deboogle!.
06-21-2004, 07:59 PM
and they're gonna show Guille live in the 4th set after the interview with Roger....

anton
06-21-2004, 08:01 PM
they should show gambill now...

SaFed2005
06-21-2004, 08:49 PM
They showed Roger this morning and parts of Lleyton and they showed a good amount of Goran.... I'd say it's about even actually.


I agree... I found the coverage to actually be good this time on ESPN. It sucked so bad during the FO... I can't even compare the two. The Wimbeldon coverage just seems sooooo mcuh better.

Deboogle!.
06-21-2004, 08:51 PM
well today... I have absolutely not one complaint. Whenever there was live tennis being played, they showed something live. We saw all kinds of matches from way more non-Americans than Americans. They cut into the 4th set of Coria/Moodie, showed Sharapova, Roger, Myskina, and many more. Right now they're showing Goran AGAIN and could be showing something live but they did so well all day I can forgive an hour at the end of coverage;) Let's hope they keep it up all week and next!

Lee
06-21-2004, 08:59 PM
Can't complain about ESPN showing Goran again after Coria/Moodie was suspended. They can't scramble from one court to another because of approaching darkness. ESPN may show one match for 2 minutes and then it will be suspended.

So far, the coverage is good but l won't draw any conclusion for a few more days.

|-Safin_Coria-|
06-21-2004, 09:06 PM
i'm pretty impressed with ESPN, hopefully they can keep it up!

Lee
06-21-2004, 09:10 PM
ESPN starts to slip already. Davernport's match was promised but was put aside early. Now instead of showing that match, ESPN will show Venus, a match that was showed live already. :rolleyes:

YoursTruly
06-21-2004, 09:37 PM
Hmmm let's see....

I watched Roger's match on TV, Martina Navratilova's, Lleyton's, some of Venus vs. Marie was shown too, Paradorn vs. Ivo.

But let me add this just to voice out: MY CARLOS WASN'T SHOWN!!! :mad:

I'd say they showed a good amount of men's matches!!! :)

Fee
06-21-2004, 10:26 PM
It was a C+ day from ESPN. They should not have shown Goran's match 3 times today, especially while there was an upset in the making on the court right behind them (JMG v. Miryni, and JMG was playing like a man possessed). They spent too much time on fluff with Sharapova instead of just showing her match (Tim Ryan's over use of the phrase 'glamour girl' is screaming out for a drinking game) and it's a shame that they were not able to show a little bit more of Lindsay match, but it looked like another boring blowout anyway. Would have been nice to see a little bit more of Lleyton's match during the rain delay instead of seeing Martina three times as well. And how could they not show us one single point of JCF? I'm sure he was on a court with cameras.

Tomorrow will be the real challenge, with so many matches scheduled including Roddick and Serena. We'll see....

Deboogle!.
06-21-2004, 10:35 PM
Tomorrow will be the real challenge, with so many matches scheduled including Roddick and Serena. We'll see....

Well the three scheduled matches on Centre court are: Serena, Andy and JCap. The fact that they happen to be American is almost irrelevant because their accomplishments deserve TV coverage, but because they are American, they are the matches we will, and the matches we should, see. I mean the home coverage is gonna show the hometown people, just like in England they'll show Tim instead of someone else, in Argentina today they showed Guille instead of what we got in the US, etc.

I don't really have a problem with that as long as it's live and when there are no matches with Americans that they show something else LIVE instead of showing an American TAPED. The problem comes when there's a great 5-setter between two non-Americans and they show Venus rout someone 63 60 again. But I don't see how they can be faulted for showing the top Americans live, even if they're boring.

But it's gonna rain tomorrow anyway so this is all probably irrelevant :p

jmp
06-21-2004, 10:43 PM
I saw a whole lot of effort from ESPN today. I would say that coverage was as even and as live as they could make it allowing for the rain delays. I was a little annoyed about the three-peats and the Maria Talk. But, I'm still on board and looking forward to the rest of the coverage rather than dreading it.

Seraphim
06-21-2004, 11:28 PM
They showed Roger this morning and parts of Lleyton and they showed a good amount of Goran.... I'd say it's about even actually.

yeah, I agree. The coverage was pretty damn decent for a change.

CVK
06-21-2004, 11:50 PM
What's the point of showing men's matches when Roddick is not playing:)
At least i got to see Roger play, the dream-like artistry:D

Tricky_Forehand
06-21-2004, 11:51 PM
I have to chime in and say that it was nice for it to be worth me having ESPN on at 4 AM this morning. I was probably watching the live SB almost as much as what was on my TV screen.

I was mostly watching Kiwi's match and Janko's matches so I was watching the SB a little more but to see either of those two matches would've been a stretch for ESPN :lol:

I was extremely happy when they went to Guille's match. I was getting ready to be all pissed and fired up that he was being ignored. He was for the most part but it was still great to see him. He's nice to watch move on grass too. His shots seemed a little bigger.

This is only the first day so to expect ESPN to stick to this is unrealistic. Tomorrow is looking to suck. Whether it rains or not. I only hope that we get to see Guille's match finished rather than watch Roddick roll over that poor qualifier. And a little of Carlos. ETC. ETC.

Deboogle!.
06-22-2004, 12:00 AM
Well Carlos plays before Andy on the same court. They have already advertised Serena, Andy, JCap, and Henman (who they always show during Wimby just as they showed Lleyton and Flip during AO). And you know that if Coria/Moodie is going on while an American is playing that they will either show the American or show the American and cut to something major in the 5th set.

To expect ESPN to NOT show the top Americans when they're playing live is just unrealistic, for the US and worldwide. Home broadcasts show their home countries' players. It's not like it's just ESPN that does that at all, there just happen to be a lot of top American players so the coverage is dominated. But that's not ESPN's fault lol. And just because we avid tennis fans want to see a better mix of players doesn't mean that's what the other 95% of the viewing audience wants to see. And ESPN is reaching after them, not us.

Maybe ESPN's coverage will go downhill, but compared to the AO and RG, what we got today was pretty damn good IMO. They showed the defending champ and world #1, as they should have, they showed Martina who is a big story and is also VERY popular here. They showed Venus, again, very popular and one of the top Americans (and someone who has won this event twice, no less). They showed parts of Lleyton and Ivo/Paradorn (which I found very impressive), they've taken some ridiculously obsessive interest in Sharapova (who, I should add, they showed in favor of Davenport), they showed Myskina, etc. etc. I just do not see one can complain about the coverage we got today :confused:

Tricky_Forehand
06-22-2004, 12:17 AM
Well Carlos plays before Andy on the same court.

That doesn't mean anything.

To expect ESPN to NOT show the top Americans when they're playing live is just unrealistic, for the US and worldwide. Home broadcasts show their home countries' players. It's not like it's just ESPN that does that at all, there just happen to be a lot of top American players so the coverage is dominated. But that's not ESPN's fault lol. And just because we avid tennis fans want to see a better mix of players doesn't mean that's what the other 95% of the viewing audience wants to see. And ESPN is reaching after them, not us.

Sometimes I wonder if you work for ESPN ;) . You wrote something similar to this during RG and as I responded then...just because that's the way things are doesn't mean that I have to sit back and eat it. Yes, today's coverage was fine. Tomorrow's will probably suck. Why? Because I don't like Roddick or Serena Williams. I like Jennifer but I highly doubt that her match will be mesmerizing (sp?). And I can only take Henman in small doses. And, honestly, we don't really know what 95% of the audience wants either. ESPN gets my TV ratings as well. Does that mean I'm satisfied with the coverage? Noooo...it means that my TV is tuned into ESPN even though I'm probably watching a scoreboard

They showed Venus, again, very popular and one of the top Americans (and someone who has won this event twice, no less).

Oh yea, that match was a real barn burner to show twice :yawn:

I just do not see one can complain about the coverage we got today :confused:

Because, regardless of how good that Day 1 was they could still do better. I read the Tennis Week Interview and it looks like it could go to shit again any day now.

I'm not a fan of just American Tennis. I'm a Tennis fan so unless ESPN figures out how to keep both sides happy like USA Network does, then there always be room for improvement

Havok
06-22-2004, 12:39 AM
SO who do you wanna see Tennis724? They gotta be at least known, have a good ranking, etc. You won't see them show a match vs scrubs. And do you want the coverage to be like RG? No I think not, so be lucky its gotten better. ESPN doesn't care how much people bitch and moan, they show what they wanna show because they want to make money.

Deboogle!.
06-22-2004, 12:47 AM
ESPN doesn't care how much people bitch and moan, they show what they wanna show because they want to make money.

Exactly! And their ratings PROVE to them that showing the Americans makes them money. I don't work for ESPN, I'm just commenting on things the way I see them. Just because I can see where ESPN is coming from and you can't does not mean I'm not being objective.

OK so they showed Venus again at the end of their coverage.... but, what else would they show? Taped Davenport? I didn't say their coverage was perfect today, but compared to RG and AO and uh... pretty much everything else, what we got today was pretty damn good.

Katherine, I understand that most of your faves are not the "big names" and stuff, but you're not thinking about it realistically. I have online pals in Argentina and Brazil who have to watch Guille and Guga respectively all the time and they don't like them. They'd rather see other players, but their stations show the home players no matter what. And that's why I always argue about this even though I probably shouldn't - it's the double standard that ESPN is being held to. No one complains that they give preference to the Argentine players in Argentina or that they give preference to Paradorn in Thailand or whatever, they only complain that ESPN gives preference to American players. But it's no different. I AM American and I AM patriotic and quite frankly even though they're not all my faves, *I* think that they SHOULD give preference to the American players as it is only fair to them to get exposure in their home country. What I think ESPN could do a better job with is promoting the other Americans like Robby whose match they barely discussed today, Mardy, Taylor, etc.

And I'm sorry but if we are included into the BROADER viewership of ESPN, people like us are in the majority. And well, we live in a majority rule society so when the ratings go up when they show American players it is ridiculous to expect them to alter their policies. I just don't see how one can rationally think otherwise, even if it goes against mine or your personal preferences. Just because you didn't see the matches you wanted does not mean that ESPN did a bad job.

star
06-22-2004, 12:51 AM
I draw the line at them promoting Robby. :devil:

But I don't see where patriotic = supporting athletes from one's own country. I would hope that "patriotic" had a better and nobler meaning. :)

|-Safin_Coria-|
06-22-2004, 12:52 AM
ESPN doesn't care how much people bitch and moan, they show what they wanna show because they want to make money.
they should care about what we think! how do they expect to make any money when we're not happy, pretty soon people will just stop tuning in

Havok
06-22-2004, 12:58 AM
they should care about what we think! how do they expect to make any money when we're not happy, pretty soon people will just stop tuning in
we hardcore tennis fans are a minority of the people who tune into watching tennis. the average tennis watcher in the us wants to see us players play. and are you not a tennis fan? don't tell me you'll stop watching tenns:rolleyes:

Deboogle!.
06-22-2004, 12:59 AM
I draw the line at them promoting Robby. :devil:

But I don't see where patriotic = supporting athletes from one's own country. I would hope that "patriotic" had a better and nobler meaning. :)

Star, you know me well enough to know what I meant :)

Safin_Coria, they are a business. The ratings determine advertisers and the advertisers is how they make money. Therefore they listen to us by looking at the ratings. Real people have control over the rankings. I have a friend who's a Nielsen house, it's all very scientific and very specific and covers all TVs in her house. So if she turns on tennis during, say, Andre and turns it off during, say, Coria, that's noted and ESPN sees that and the advertisers see it. It's not like ESPN is just making it up.

Havok
06-22-2004, 12:59 AM
mind you I would be all for watching a bunch of different players play, but oh well such is life.

heya
06-22-2004, 01:11 AM
Wimbledon organizers know a lot about scheduling matches. :mad:
ESPN loves to hire chimp commentators like McEnroe, Mal and Fowler.
Why show entertaining matches when we can see boring repeats of Martina and the Williams? If that's not good enough, there're predictable, embarrassing interviews with Gilbert and Sharapova.

Tricky_Forehand
06-22-2004, 01:37 AM
Exactly! And their ratings PROVE to them that showing the Americans makes them money.

Blah, Blah, Blah. That's all I hear when I hear talk about ratings and maybe you didn't read my post well enough. My TV is also on ESPN's coverage and they also get the points from it but because my TV is tuned to that channel does that mean that I'm watching it??? NOT NECESSARILY.

I don't work for ESPN, I'm just commenting on things the way I see them. Just because I can see where ESPN is coming from and you can't does not mean I'm not being objective.

How do you know whether I can see where ESPN is coming from or not? Because I don't agree with them and try and rationalize it in some way that must mean that I don't know their agenda??


Katherine, I understand that most of your faves are not the "big names" and stuff, but you're not thinking about it realistically.

If not thinking "realistically" means that I'm not willing to sit back and say that I must want to watch this because ESPN says so then no I guess I'm not being realistic. :rolleyes: . Did I say that I wanted them to specifically show my "faves" only? No, I didn't. And ESPN really isn't showing all that many "big names" either. They showed Roger because they didn't have much choice.

I have online pals in Argentina and Brazil who have to watch Guille and Guga respectively all the time and they don't like them. They'd rather see other players, but their stations show the home players no matter what.

And I have friends from other countries that complain as well. So?? That means we're all in the same boat. Does that mean that we shouldn't complain here in the States?

No one complains that they give preference to the Argentine players in Argentina or that they give preference to Paradorn in Thailand or whatever, they only complain that ESPN gives preference to American players.

And you know this for an absolute fact??

But it's no different. I AM American and I AM patriotic and quite frankly even though they're not all my faves, *I* think that they SHOULD give preference to the American players as it is only fair to them to get exposure in their home country. What I think ESPN could do a better job with is promoting the other Americans like Robby whose match they barely discussed today, Mardy, Taylor, etc.

I would agree with more "exposure in home country" theory if this was a nationalistic sport. It's international and that's the beauty of it.

And I'm sorry but if we are included into the BROADER viewership of ESPN, people like us are in the majority. And well, we live in a majority rule society so when the ratings go up when they show American players it is ridiculous to expect them to alter their policies.

Back to the ratings again :rolleyes: . Do we know for an absolute fact that the B.S. that is dished out is truth? No, we don't. I tend to not take a man's word who says that Tennis fans don't mean anything and have it quoted in a Tennis magazine. Brilliant.

Just because you didn't see the matches you wanted does not mean that ESPN did a bad job.

Did I say they did? Go look at the first post that I wrote in this thread. I agree they did well today but that means absolutely nothing for tomorrow.

I find it kind of amusing that the two people who disagree with me strongly are hardcore Roddick fans :lol:. I.E. Fans who are probably rarely dissatisified with stateside coverage :)

gina_
06-22-2004, 01:41 AM
I don't know if ESPN Asia is different from the other ESPN groups...

but it was fine, if not a little choppy.

star
06-22-2004, 01:42 AM
Gratuitous Insult Warning.

Should have been attached to the foregoing post.

I have watched tennis coverage in the U.S. for a long time. I rarely, if ever, (trying to think of a time) have had an player from the U.S. as my top favorite. But I do agree that ESPN is in the business to make money.

I suggest that if you want an actual change in the coverage, instead of spending time complaining on a message board, you get busy and show ESPN how it can make more money by programing in the manner you suggest.

Havok
06-22-2004, 01:51 AM
Newsflash, I have bitched many a times about ESPN's coverage and what they show. I don't feel the need to do it on a daily basis, but at least i understand WHY they show what they show.

Deboogle!.
06-22-2004, 01:53 AM
I find it kind of amusing that the two people who disagree with me strongly are hardcore Roddick fans :lol:. I.E. Fans who are probably rarely dissatisified with stateside coverage :)

I'm really disappointed and hurt that you think I only care about watching one tennis player. And if that's what you think of me, then continuing this discussion is absolutely pointless, especially consdering that Andy was not even shown on TV today, NOR were many Americans in general. In fact, ONE match with an American in it was shown in full. And yet you still think ESPN did a horrible job today! Plus if you read what I say on a day-to-day basis, I am just as disappointed with most of ESPN's coverage as everyone else. So please, don't give me that :bs: And I agree with everything you said Naldo. You can play devil's advocate without agreeing with it.

Anyway, I'm not going to propagate this pointless discussion any further. But there's interesting new stuff at Tennis Week. If you think they're bullshitting all the numbers then I'm not sure what to say. I can't imagine some exec sitting in their office messing around with Nielsen numbers just to be able to show Americans. They will show whatever brings the most viewers which is what brings the most advertising $$$. whether it's Americans or whatever, they don't give a rat's ass.

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=11100&bannerregion=

But I suppose if you think they're just making stuff up, then you should just save the time and not bother reading it.

Havok
06-22-2004, 01:53 AM
oh and btw, I don't get nearly as much coverage as people in the states do, and I still don't feel the need to bitch. I would gladly want those extra 3 or 4 hours of coverage even if its blah americans or people I hate. Oh gosh I am a tennis fan right :scared:

Tricky_Forehand
06-22-2004, 03:10 AM
I'm really disappointed and hurt that you think I only care about watching one tennis player. And if that's what you think of me, then continuing this discussion is absolutely pointless, especially consdering that Andy was not even shown on TV today, NOR were many Americans in general. In fact, ONE match with an American in it was shown in full. And yet you still think ESPN did a horrible job today!

Are you not even reading what they hell I wrote????? Where did I say that ESPN did a horrible job today? I said that it was nice to be up at 4 AM and having it be wroth it to have ESPN on. Because I don't have the faith that the coverage will stay this way doesn't mean that I don't realize the coverage was, at the very least, decent.


Anyway, I'm not going to propagate this pointless discussion any further. But there's interesting new stuff at Tennis Week. If you think they're bullshitting all the numbers then I'm not sure what to say. I can't imagine some exec sitting in their office messing around with Nielsen numbers just to be able to show Americans. They will show whatever brings the most viewers which is what brings the most advertising $$$. whether it's Americans or whatever, they don't give a rat's ass.

http://www.sportsmediainc.com/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=11100&bannerregion=

But I suppose if you think they're just making stuff up, then you should just save the time and not bother reading it.

I guess this proves my point that you're not reading my posts in full. I mentioned that TW interview already and their ratings numbers are given to them by those at ESPN. Do I trust the ESPN offices? Not as far as I can throw them.

You talk about being disappointed & hurt. Maybe you wouldn't feel that way if you actually read what I wrote rather than skimming. I didn't say that you only watch for one player. I merely pointed out who the two people were that were disagreeing with me the most. You can't possibly be as disappointed in the coverage as me and some others because of who your favorites are.

Tricky_Forehand
06-22-2004, 03:16 AM
I suggest that if you want an actual change in the coverage, instead of spending time complaining on a message board, you get busy and show ESPN how it can make more money by programing in the manner you suggest.

I agree :lol:. And if those that are attacking me would actually read my first post in this thread they would see that I wasn't even complaining about today's coverage. But I'm not willing to take the one day and say that's how the rest of the time will go. I know better than that.

Leo
06-24-2004, 12:04 AM
They don't handle rain delays well. In the first three days, they have played Serena/Zheng four times, Henman/Hidalgo four times, Navratilova/Castano two times at least, Ivanisevic/Youzhny two times, etc. In the time when there is no live tennis, they should not be re-playing matches multiple times but should be showing us unseen tennis like matches from Davenport, Moya, Safin, Ferrero, Grosjean, Kuznetsova, Dementieva, and others. They were all on show courts with cameras and tapes of their matches must be available, so there's no excuse for this. Or, they could always play the classics (i.e. Borg/McEnroe, Navratilova/Evert, Becker/Edberg, etc. - and no, last year's women's final is not a classic).

ESPN's coverage does not compare to that of HBO (Wimby), TNT (Wimby), and USA Network (RG, USO).

Deboogle!.
06-24-2004, 12:18 AM
totally agree, Leo.

But, they did show Borg/McEnroe today during the last hour of coverage :)

Leo
06-24-2004, 12:23 AM
totally agree, Leo.

But, they did show Borg/McEnroe today during the last hour of coverage :)

They did? Not over here in New Jersey. They finished the women's final and then ended coverage an hour early and went to SportsCenter (or one of those shows).

:confused:

J. Corwin
06-24-2004, 12:23 AM
I liked the last hour of coverage today. :) But I would have rather seen a match (between them) instead of just showing tiny clips and commenting on their rivalry.

J. Corwin
06-24-2004, 12:24 AM
They did? Not over here in New Jersey. They finished the women's final and then ended coverage an hour early and went to SportsCenter.

Well considering Deb is on the East Coast, and I'm on the West Coast...and we both received the same coverage, it must be that NJ is special. ;)

Deboogle!.
06-24-2004, 12:25 AM
That's so bizarre Leo.....up in Boston they showed the 4-5pm hour!

Oh that's what they did, Jace? but they said they were gonna show a documentary about Borg/McEnroe... so I guess they never actually said they were gonna show the match lol.... I stopped watching when they started it though, I figure it's better to fight with my parents to watch live tennis LOL

even so it had to have been better than Serena or Tim or Martina or Venus AGAIN. :)

Leo
06-24-2004, 12:27 AM
Well considering Deb is on the East Coast, and I'm on the West Coast...and we both received the same coverage, it must be that NJ is special. ;)

Well duh, of course New Jersey is special. That's always been known.

Hmmm, maybe it was just a commercial for SportsCenter or something and I thought they cut the tennis and I turned off the telly. :confused:

J. Corwin
06-24-2004, 12:29 AM
Oh that's what they did, Jace? but they said they were gonna show a documentary about Borg/McEnroe... so I guess they never actually said they were gonna show the match lol.... I stopped watching when they started it though, I figure it's better to fight with my parents to watch live tennis LOL

even so it had to have been better than Serena or Tim or Martina or Venus AGAIN. :)

Ok fine, it was a documentary (but I was asleep when it began ;)). But I still rather see a full match then watch a documentary. I did find the documentary pretty cool though.

Hate to say this but, I think I would have better tennis coverage on TV in a decent hotel room in China.

J. Corwin
06-24-2004, 12:30 AM
Well duh, of course New Jersey is special. That's always been known.

Hmmm, maybe it was just a commercial for SportsCenter or something and I thought they cut the tennis and I turned off the telly. :confused:

Dude, I was joking. Besides, I didn't know NJ was special. Cut me some slack. :rolleyes:

Leo
06-24-2004, 12:52 AM
Dude, I was joking. Besides, I didn't know NJ was special. Cut me some slack. :rolleyes:

Errrr, I was joking too. Next time I'll use smilies. New Jersey is shit, btw.

And that second part was a genuine question. I have no clue what happened/what I was thinking.

Ray
06-24-2004, 02:53 AM
I think you guys should be very happy with whatever coverage you get cause I live in South America and I don't get any fucking Wimbledon coverage :mad:
That's bullshit I know I wonder why though does anyone know why?
Because they(Espn Latin America) usually show Wimby?

Leo
06-25-2004, 04:31 AM
Another major problem with their coverage is that they continue to come back late after commercial breaks and miss 1-2 points. This was not an issue for ESPN even a couple of years ago, as I remembered they cut commercials to get back to a match on time after the changeover. But this problem has arisen in the past year and it's unnacceptable.

michelleg
06-25-2004, 04:49 AM
So I am to naturally assume that ESPN makes all of its programming decisions based on Nielsen ratings/advertiser dollars....

I can only therefore ask the following:

Who the hell is handing out the Nielsen boxes to people who watch lumberjacking, national cheerleading competitions and spelling bees?

I'm just happy that I got to see some of the Canas match today, and even more overjoyed that Ruben Ramirez Hidalgo is now a household name in the United States. I've kept the coverage on in the background (mute button handy for those lovely Brad moments and noisy girl matches) and have to honestly say that ESPN is doing a better job in Wimbly than they did in RG (its pretty hard to not do better than abysmal, but...) I won't hold my breath looking for coverage of the Benneteau-Ancic match, know that I won't see any coverage of Feli until he plays an American but that's ok, because this is a step in the right direction for ESPN.

Deboogle!.
06-25-2004, 04:52 AM
Another major problem with their coverage is that they continue to come back late after commercial breaks and miss 1-2 points. This was not an issue for ESPN even a couple of years ago, as I remembered they cut commercials to get back to a match on time after the changeover. But this problem has arisen in the past year and it's unnacceptable.

I totally agree. This seems to be a new thing. It's really annoying!

LCeh
06-25-2004, 04:55 AM
I suspected that that was the reason they showed tape matches. They could show more commercials and could still not cut a point. But I don't know, that's my guess.

Leo
06-25-2004, 05:03 AM
Who the hell is handing out the Nielsen boxes to people who watch lumberjacking and spelling bees?


*raises hand* :o

I enjoy watching the variety of sports and activities on ESPN. Yes, this includes spelling bees, scrabble, table tennis, lumberjacking, chess, strongest (wo)man contests, dog shows, miniature golf, etc. :lol:

I just wish there would be more and better tennis. No need for all those common and popular sports like baseball and American football to be shown, I say!

michelleg
06-25-2004, 12:37 PM
OMG you don't actually watch that stuff, do you? :confused:

Leo
06-25-2004, 01:41 PM
OMG you don't actually watch that stuff, do you? :confused:

I do every now and then.

naiwen
06-25-2004, 09:27 PM
Both Federer and Capriati will play tomorrow at 12pm.
Do you think there's any possibility ESPN will show Federer?
I doubt it. :(