patrick McEnroe at it again [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

patrick McEnroe at it again

arcus
01-16-2006, 12:11 AM
basically, "(federer?, whatever), lets just talk aout the 'young' americans". Roddick is the one he tips to win a slam this year.

This pisses me off so much.

Tennis in the US will not build till TV channels that cover it promotes ALL the talent, not just those that the commentators like.

jole
01-16-2006, 12:12 AM
Umm, they talk about Federer non-stop.

tangerine_dream
01-16-2006, 12:14 AM
Get over it. PMac wacks off to Federer and Nadal a lot too.

arcus
01-16-2006, 12:21 AM
Do u bad rep every post where u perceive a negative connotation for Roddick?

I have nothing against roddick, I just think that PMac hypes him to the pint of harm.

Sparko1030
01-16-2006, 12:37 AM
Pat Mac is a biased idiot. I have nothing against Andy -like him actually but Pat Mac is an awful commentator. There has got to be someone better to cover tennis in the US! (his brother perhaps ;) )

IDJ49
01-16-2006, 12:42 AM
I think PMac drools over Federer and Nadal just about as much as slobbers on and on about Roddick. Those 3 are who he gets off on the most.

OddJob
01-16-2006, 12:47 AM
Yea PMac talks just as much about Fed then he does "The Young Americans". Remember ESPN is an American network so of course U.S. players are always going to be discussed.

liptea
01-16-2006, 12:50 AM
Yea PMac talks just as much about Fed then he does "The Young Americans". Remember ESPN is an American network so of course U.S. players are always going to be discussed.

Besides, he spent most of his time talking about James Blake. Considering James won Sydney, I think it's fine to discuss him.

arcus
01-16-2006, 12:58 AM
I think PMac drools over Federer and Nadal just about as much as slobbers on and on about Roddick. Those 3 are who he gets off on the most.

Back when Fed was climbing the rankings, and his talent was so obvious, I was lin awe but I couldnt believe how little coverage he got here in the US. I'm still smarting. PMac did not acknowledge Fed then, IMO.

Now, of course, PMac HAS to acknowledge the top ranked players, but make no misktake, over the last few years, he's favored Roddick way more than Nadal and Federer in a manner that is not consistent with their level of success.

tangerine_dream
01-16-2006, 01:03 AM
Fedtards and their never-ending crocodile tears. :rolleyes:

Besides, he spent most of his time talking about James Blake. Considering James won Sydney, I think it's fine to discuss him.
I agree. I don't blame PMac for being excited to see James Blake doing so well and it's nice to see James get some attention for once. :cool:

nobama
01-16-2006, 01:04 AM
Gilbert bothers me more than PMac. They both have two Americans already in the SF. So we'll see if they end up with egg on their face or not.

What really pisses me off is while they're waiting for the Venus match to start they could be showing Nalbandian but instead choose filler and commercials. :ras:

IDJ49
01-16-2006, 01:07 AM
Back when Fed was climbing the rankings, and his talent was so obvious, I was lin awe but I couldnt believe how little coverage he got here in the US. I'm still smarting. PMac did not acknowledge Fed then, IMO.

Now, of course, PMac HAS to acknowledge the top ranked players, but make no misktake, over the last few years, he's favored Roddick way more than Nadal and Federer in a manner that is not consistent with their level of success.
I'm sorry but what do you expect? Roddick is an American who plays for the American Davis Cup team, and guess what PMac is the Davis Cup captain. What do you expect him to say that he is the worst player he's ever seen? And since Federer and Nadal became successful you can't PMac to shut up about them.

nobama
01-16-2006, 01:11 AM
I'll be very surprised if there's a Blake or Ginepri match that Gilbert or PMac doesn't declare them the winner before it starts. They've already predicted an all American SF. But what about Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Berdych? Then you have PMac claiming that Fed has an easy draw. I guess he forgot about Hewitt, Hass, Gasquet and Monfils (among others). :rolleyes:

arcus
01-16-2006, 01:19 AM
I'm sorry but what do you expect? Roddick is an American who plays for the American Davis Cup team, and guess what PMac is the Davis Cup captain. What do you expect him to say that he is the worst player he's ever seen? And since Federer and Nadal became successful you can't PMac to shut up about them.

I acknowledge ur point and I realize that PMac is DC captain. But that's still a conflict. Commentators shouldn't have conflicts. If hes interviewed as a supporter, cool, he should supprot his team members. However, if hes supposed to be a commentator, i'd like to NOT feel his personal bias so much.

I'm old enough to have felt the love in the US for Bjorn Borg, and Borgs popularity was a result of balanced media coverage. That doesnt exist anymore. Sadly. US tennis audiences miss out on a lot 'cos of distorted coverage, unfortunately.

just my opinion. :-)

mangoes
01-16-2006, 01:24 AM
Gilbert bothers me more than PMac. They both have two Americans already in the SF. So we'll see if they end up with egg on their face or not.

What really pisses me off is while they're waiting for the Venus match to start they could be showing Nalbandian but instead choose filler and commercials. :ras:


This coverage is beginning to suck, I just went to Desperate Housewives :lol:
I don't mind the Venus match, but I think they could show other matches and not just ones involving the Americans. I thought ESPN had changed due to the great coverage we had from the FO and Wimbledon, but I guess not! Maybe it's because it's Sunday night............................ :confused:.....I just thought we'd see views of other courts and catch pieces of the other matches.

Dusk Soldier
01-16-2006, 01:25 AM
If you lower your expectations, it won't bother you as much.

Brad and Pat never shut up about the americans. As soon as they popped up on the screen, I knew it was going to be Andy this and Andy that.

It's a good thing that Robbi, James, and Dent are doing better this year. Gives them more to talk about.

I agree with one of his predictions though. I think Roddick will win a slam this year. It's time.

Skyward
01-16-2006, 01:28 AM
They've already predicted an all American SF.

It's a normal routine. They've been predicting Roddick-Agassi QF in Paris for years. :D

nobama
01-16-2006, 01:29 AM
This coverage is beginning to suck, I just went to Desperate Housewives :lol:
I don't mind the Venus match, but I think they could show other matches and not just ones involving the Americans. I thought ESPN had changed due to the great coverage we had from the FO and Wimbledon, but I guess not! Maybe it's because it's Sunday night............................ :confused:.....I just thought we'd see views of other courts and catch pieces of the other matches.When a match becomes a blowout they could show other matches. Who needs to see Venus Williams feed her opponent bagles and breadsticks?

onewoman74
01-16-2006, 01:30 AM
Gilbert bothers me more than PMac. They both have two Americans already in the SF. So we'll see if they end up with egg on their face or not.

What really pisses me off is while they're waiting for the Venus match to start they could be showing Nalbandian but instead choose filler and commercials. :ras:

I don't know about you, but I'm watching Nalby on the web...why are u relying on ESPN?

nobama
01-16-2006, 01:32 AM
It's a normal routine. They've been predicting Roddick-Agassi QF in Paris for years. :DYeah, but at least this past year it made more sense because that part of the draw was wide open. But there's plenty of good players in the bottom half of the draw. Of course assuming Roddick in the SF isn't much of a stretch, but Blake I think is.

mangoes
01-16-2006, 01:37 AM
When a match becomes a blowout they could show other matches. Who needs to see Venus Williams feed her opponent bagles and breadsticks?

Oh I agree completely, we should be able to see a bit of Nalbandian or even the Ferrer/serra that's in the 4th set. I didn't need to see the whole of Lindsey's match either.............

arcus
01-16-2006, 01:37 AM
When a match becomes a blowout they could show other matches. Who needs to see Venus Williams feed her opponent bagles and breadsticks?

They should have showed dementieva losing, thats a major upset.

The BBC used 2 show wimbledon on 2 channels, and always switched to A-N-Y dramatic match, os u never missed a seed in trouble orany drama L-I-V-E.

Clara Bow
01-16-2006, 01:37 AM
I don't know about you, but I'm watching Nalby on the web...why are u relying on ESPN?

Could you povide a link please?

Fedex
01-16-2006, 01:40 AM
What really pisses me off is while they're waiting for the Venus match to start they could be showing Nalbandian but instead choose filler and commercials. :ras:
Yes, true.

gooner88
01-16-2006, 01:40 AM
They should have showed dementieva losing, thats a major upset.

The BBC used 2 show wimbledon on 2 channels, and always switched to A-N-Y dramatic match, os u never missed a seed in trouble orany drama L-I-V-E.

We also have an interactive service here during Wimbledon where you can choose from 5 courts what match you want to watch. :cool:

Deboogle!.
01-16-2006, 01:47 AM
just out of curiosity, those who are complaining about ESPN have you ever seen other countries' coverage? Because the nationalist favoritism is just as bad if not worse.

mangoes
01-16-2006, 01:51 AM
Well, I have based my complaint on the fact that during the FO and Wimbledon, they switched to different courts and showed different pieces of the matches taking place on them. Not to mention, USA's coverage of the US Open..............it made me smile.

arcus
01-16-2006, 01:53 AM
just out of curiosity, those who are complaining about ESPN have you ever seen other countries' coverage? Because the nationalist favoritism is just as bad if not worse.

Thats a good point. But US coverage, traditionally, has been different, cos the the US have more top players.

I grew up watching the BBC, and for them, patriotism wasn't such an issue, cos there were fewer top UK players, but still the flexibility of coverage was good.


With current technology, they could show every match simultaneously on-line, with virtually no effort............

World Beater
01-16-2006, 01:53 AM
just out of curiosity, those who are complaining about ESPN have you ever seen other countries' coverage? Because the nationalist favoritism is just as bad if not worse.

it isnt as bad because most countries players dont get very far :help:

im not so particular about the american network showing american players. what irks me more is that every featured match so far, is womens.

ESPN is seriously dumb. do they think people will wake up to see serena hands breadsticks her opponents at 3 in the morning?

World Beater
01-16-2006, 01:54 AM
USA's coverage is amazing...they do such a good job with the usopen!!!

espn...morons..

nobama
01-16-2006, 01:59 AM
just out of curiosity, those who are complaining about ESPN have you ever seen other countries' coverage? Because the nationalist favoritism is just as bad if not worse.I don't doubt it is. It doesn't bother me so much that they're talking up the Americans, but when they have time to fill they should be showing other matches, not just waiting for the next American to come on court with stupid filler from Gilbert and Co.

tangerine_dream
01-16-2006, 02:04 AM
just out of curiosity, those who are complaining about ESPN have you ever seen other countries' coverage? Because the nationalist favoritism is just as bad if not worse.
It is, in fact, much worse.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to deb. again :hatoff:

nobama
01-16-2006, 02:05 AM
OMG Venus Williams was fed a bagel in the second set. :o Could we have our first major upset?

arcus
01-16-2006, 02:16 AM
I don't doubt it is. It doesn't bother me so much that they're talking up the Americans, but when they have time to fill they should be showing other matches, not just waiting for the next American to come on court with stupid filler from Gilbert and Co.

mirkaland, good post, but, I'd go further, I think they should talk up the talent, no matter what the nationality, the US always has plenty of players in the mix.

There is a bigger picture, "promoting tennis in general", let the US viewers see players from over the world and the popularity of tennis will continue.

Deboogle!.
01-16-2006, 02:19 AM
it isnt as bad because most countries players dont get very far :help:

im not so particular about the american network showing american players. what irks me more is that every featured match so far, is womens.

ESPN is seriously dumb. do they think people will wake up to see serena hands breadsticks her opponents at 3 in the morning?The UK has one star. Ok. I watched a match in french from french tv and the commentators were practically living and dying by the french player's shots and stuff. There are some countries that only come on the air to show the home country's players. The fact that the US has more top players only means it's that much more difficult to have good coverage - especially for the AO where the timezones and saturation of other major sports going on right now is heavy. Why should the US have to not show its own stars just because they have more of them? That's illogical.

nobama
01-16-2006, 02:30 AM
I don't think they should show other players over Americans. But for sure when a match looks like a blow out they could show one that's more close and entertaining.

Btw...wtf happened to Nalbandian? 6-2 6-2 1-6? We won't know watching ESPN...they haven't even been flashing the scores of other matches on the screen.

amierin
01-16-2006, 04:00 AM
The best tennis coverage in the States is done by the USA Network. If a match is a blow out they'll go to a competitive one. They feature the up and comers and the vets.
Right now Luke Jensen just said Venus loss has really stunned people and the atmosphere in the complex is subdued. PMac and I guess Gilbert are acting like "Why?"
They don't even understand the appeal of American players they deem unworthy.
Coupled with lumping all the Spanish players into the category of "them" and "soccer players" is really pissing me off right about now.
You don't get that when the USA network does the coverage.

mangoes
01-16-2006, 04:41 AM
The best tennis coverage in the States is done by the USA Network. If a match is a blow out they'll go to a competitive one. They feature the up and comers and the vets.
Right now Luke Jensen just said Venus loss has really stunned people and the atmosphere in the complex is subdued. PMac and I guess Gilbert are acting like "Why?"
They don't even understand the appeal of American players they deem unworthy.
Coupled with lumping all the Spanish players into the category of "them" and "soccer players" is really pissing me off right about now.
You don't get that when the USA network does the coverage.


Agree, Agree, Agree................... :D

rofe
01-16-2006, 04:44 AM
The best tennis coverage in the States is done by the USA Network. If a match is a blow out they'll go to a competitive one. They feature the up and comers and the vets.
Right now Luke Jensen just said Venus loss has really stunned people and the atmosphere in the complex is subdued. PMac and I guess Gilbert are acting like "Why?"
They don't even understand the appeal of American players they deem unworthy.
Coupled with lumping all the Spanish players into the category of "them" and "soccer players" is really pissing me off right about now.
You don't get that when the USA network does the coverage.

Yeah USA is better but not that much. Doesn't anyone remember how they cut out the Ginepri-Gasquet match at the USO 2005 to show Law and Order?

mangoes
01-16-2006, 05:15 AM
Yeah USA is better but not that much. Doesn't anyone remember how they cut out the Ginepri-Gasquet match at the USO 2005 to show Law and Order?


That was the only match they cut and they even explained their reasoning. While I didn't totally agree with it, their coverage was still very good, so much so, I'm not going to judge the entire two weeks of their coverage on their actions during the Gasquet/Ginepri match. Overall, their coverage was great and very appreciated, especially, as I sit here and only watch ESPN show Americans.

World Beater
01-16-2006, 05:43 AM
The UK has one star. Ok. I watched a match in french from french tv and the commentators were practically living and dying by the french player's shots and stuff. There are some countries that only come on the air to show the home country's players. The fact that the US has more top players only means it's that much more difficult to have good coverage - especially for the AO where the timezones and saturation of other major sports going on right now is heavy. Why should the US have to not show its own stars just because they have more of them? That's illogical.

football doesnt air at 11pm at night. the fact that there is a time difference means that there is no excuse to show taped coverage, when there is nothing more important at night. so saturation is not a factor here. unless you mean fishing, poker and world strongest man.

i have no objection to hometown coverage, but i would like to see some men's matches, not women all the time. each womens match was followed to completion, while the mens not.

Silawen
01-16-2006, 10:00 AM
just out of curiosity, those who are complaining about ESPN have you ever seen other countries' coverage? Because the nationalist favoritism is just as bad if not worse.

Aah, fair point, but the reason for this - a lot of the time - is that otherwise those players don't get shown on tv, and since people know 'their' players best they'll want to see them.

True tennisfans might now care - heck I don't care if I see a Dutchman all tournament, which isn't that difficult seeing as there are only two - but the 'average' viewer wants to see their countrymen.

buddyholly
01-16-2006, 12:37 PM
basically, "(federer?, whatever), lets just talk aout the 'young' americans". Roddick is the one he tips to win a slam this year.

This pisses me off so much.

Tennis in the US will not build till TV channels that cover it promotes ALL the talent, not just those that the commentators like.

Use the mute. Or emigrate to Switzerland.

Julio1974
01-16-2006, 12:39 PM
Let's be realistic. ESPN is an american network. So, it's reasonable they talk more about American players. ESPN Latinamerica focuses on Latin players and I'm sure Spanish tv focuses on Spanish players and so on.

Viken01
01-16-2006, 12:56 PM
Well he is an american player, so i think it's normal that he supports another american player but i don't agree with him :p

partygirl
01-16-2006, 01:07 PM
as an american i want to say:

P mac sucks.

espn sucks...

but its all ive got :sad: my reasons for hating it have nothing to do with its favoritisim but lack of sense and the big picture they are unable to see-
if you want tennis to be popular again you have to show it...poker is not a sport. :mad:

my point...both of them are on my list :armed:

PamV
01-16-2006, 01:13 PM
basically, "(federer?, whatever), lets just talk aout the 'young' americans". Roddick is the one he tips to win a slam this year.

This pisses me off so much.

Tennis in the US will not build till TV channels that cover it promotes ALL the talent, not just those that the commentators like.

PMac also said that Federer won 5 majors ( not 6). Later they spoke of the new young players who may have a shot at the title and they mixed up the names and pictures. Berdych was labled as "Monfils" and Monfils was labeled as "Berdych".

They keep saying that Americans are not that interested in foreign players and that interest in tennis is not that high in the US. However, ESPN contributes to that problem by continuing to show all the AMERICAN matches even when they are boring and one sided. For example who needed to see Davenport's entire 2 set victory in her 1st round? I for one won't be watching the tape of Roddick in his 1st set blow out against Lammer. I'd rather they show LIVE tennis of anyone else.

PamV
01-16-2006, 01:15 PM
as an american i want to say:

P mac sucks.

espn sucks...

but its all ive got :sad: my reasons for hating it have nothing to do with its favoritisim but lack of sense and the big picture they are unable to see-
if you want tennis to be popular again you have to show it...poker is not a sport. :mad:

my point...both of them are on my list :armed:

BRAVO! Well said. That's it in a nutshell. Tennis is actually exciting if they would show some of the good match ups instead of going to their standard of showing basically only top Americans regardless of the big picture.

Horatio Caine
01-16-2006, 01:23 PM
basically, "(federer?, whatever), lets just talk aout the 'young' americans". Roddick is the one he tips to win a slam this year.

This pisses me off so much.

Tennis in the US will not build till TV channels that cover it promotes ALL the talent, not just those that the commentators like.

Why can't he win a Slam? He is second to Federer, on the same plateau as Safin and Hewitt when it comes to the Slams outside the French. He can win one of those three slams where Federer doesn't. :confused:

nobama
01-16-2006, 01:44 PM
I see ESPN has decided to start their coverage three-and-a-half hours later than they did last night. So all the matches that start at 11am (like Fed) won't be shown live. It'll probably be another night of all womens matches - maybe they'll throw in a bit of Hewitt. This coverage really blows. :ras:

Pea
01-16-2006, 01:52 PM
Nothing will change. Only the ducktrolls like pattymac give duck a chance at winning a slam every year.:lol:

PamV
01-16-2006, 02:44 PM
I see ESPN has decided to start their coverage three-and-a-half hours later than they did last night. So all the matches that start at 11am (like Fed) won't be shown live. It'll probably be another night of all womens matches - maybe they'll throw in a bit of Hewitt. This coverage really blows. :ras:

It's too bad that we have a Tennis Channel devoted to tennis all day but they don't have the rights to cover any major. It would seem logical to give the Tennis Channel the coverage because they could show ALL the matches. Some day that might happen if TTC merges with a network. Now they don't have the money to compete and all they do is show reruns and ads.

Deboogle!.
01-16-2006, 04:01 PM
football doesnt air at 11pm at night. the fact that there is a time difference means that there is no excuse to show taped coverage, when there is nothing more important at night. so saturation is not a factor here. unless you mean fishing, poker and world strongest man.This thread wasn't about taped coverage, I didn't think. Of course tennis should be live. I'm not happy that tonight they don't start til 11 and that the coverage will be all taped. That upsets me a lot. I was just saying that there are a lot of sports going on right now so I don't expect ESPN To be showing all tennis all the time.

But that has nothing to do with favoring US players. Last night we got to see Robby, James, Taylor, Lindsay, Venus, and Serena - every US star in the tournament that was playing. They were moving around, it was all live, I don't know what anyone else could have asked for. Sure, we here are real tennis fans, so we'd rather see a great 5-set struggle over a 6-1 6-1 WTA clobbering, but ESPN isn't stupid, they go where they're ratings lead them, and their ratings lead them to showing Americans, regardless of the score.

We have this same discussion every single year. Ma nishtana :lol: It's a vicious cycle. the AVERAGE American ESPN Viewer wants to see Americans. But is that because they are patriotic or because they haven't been exposed to the great international players. But I think they're doing better than they were a couple years ago, when it was even worse. Tomorrow's scheduled taped coverage is Flip/Grosjean, and they're mentioning Hingis a lot.

ESPN's coverage will never be perfect. Unfortunately we just have to accept this, I think. It saddens me a lot that they've dropped Davis Cup matches, even though I get TTC, because it demonstrates that they still have a lack of commitment to tennis.

But I think we have to keep in mind that we're not ESPN's target audience. The average viewer is. For most of US, tennis is our favorite sport. For many of us, it may be the ONLY sport we follow closely. So obviously we will have more of an appreciation for the international players and stuff, and we would want to see them. I'd KILL to see Haas/Gasquet, but I doubt we'll get more than a highlight reel, if that. It's too bad that ESPN doesn't realize the potential that a match has like that, in the first round, to be so good and involve two such good players. But I think it's easy for us to get myopic about it and forget that we're not the targets. It sucks, but it's the reality. We can keep tuning in and keep complaining to them about it and all that stuff, but what else can we do?

It'd be nice if TTC could get the rights to matches ESPN Doesn't want to show. Even if they showed them on tape so as to not compete with ESPN's coverage, I think that'd be cool. But I don't think TTC has the money to pay for the rights to slam matches yet.

Merton
01-16-2006, 05:36 PM
Coverage policy becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. The network wants to provide the viewers what they recognize, that is local players. However, providing coverage of local players implies that the viewers don't get to know the foreign players, thus recognizing the local players and perpetuating this cycle.

Since all networks act like that, there must be a point where there will be the temptation to deviate: Provide coverage of international players to increase overall viewers' population and differentiate the product offered. So far, it has not happened, possibly because the tennis viewers are not many, thus reducing the networks incentives to deviate.

nobama
01-16-2006, 05:48 PM
We didn't see much of James, Taylor, Robby or any other male player. But of course we saw full or almost full matches of Lindsay, Venus, Masha and Serena. I dont' know what we'll see tonight but my guess is there will be more coverage of the women draw then the mens.

DJ dropshot
01-16-2006, 06:19 PM
Speaking of ESPN - Anyone catch the typo on the ESPN tennis home page?

Ginepri, Blake, Roddick advanceAmerican Robby Ginepri won his first-round match in Melbourne, as did James Black and Andy Roddick who, unlike at the U.S. Open, avoided a first-round upset.

Oops!

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/index

njnetswill
01-16-2006, 07:42 PM
They DO like Blake/Ginepri/Dent a lot. I don't know, I guess they are supporting the American players, but it does get quite annoying when they start painting Blake/Ginepri/Dent/Roddick as the next Fab 4. :o

Leo
01-16-2006, 08:31 PM
But PMac wore a great tie yesterday.

World Beater
01-16-2006, 09:09 PM
This thread wasn't about taped coverage, I didn't think. Of course tennis should be live. I'm not happy that tonight they don't start til 11 and that the coverage will be all taped. That upsets me a lot. I was just saying that there are a lot of sports going on right now so I don't expect ESPN To be showing all tennis all the time.

But that has nothing to do with favoring US players. Last night we got to see Robby, James, Taylor, Lindsay, Venus, and Serena - every US star in the tournament that was playing. They were moving around, it was all live, I don't know what anyone else could have asked for. Sure, we here are real tennis fans, so we'd rather see a great 5-set struggle over a 6-1 6-1 WTA clobbering, but ESPN isn't stupid, they go where they're ratings lead them, and their ratings lead them to showing Americans, regardless of the score.

We have this same discussion every single year. Ma nishtana :lol: It's a vicious cycle. the AVERAGE American ESPN Viewer wants to see Americans. But is that because they are patriotic or because they haven't been exposed to the great international players. But I think they're doing better than they were a couple years ago, when it was even worse. Tomorrow's scheduled taped coverage is Flip/Grosjean, and they're mentioning Hingis a lot.

ESPN's coverage will never be perfect. Unfortunately we just have to accept this, I think. It saddens me a lot that they've dropped Davis Cup matches, even though I get TTC, because it demonstrates that they still have a lack of commitment to tennis.

But I think we have to keep in mind that we're not ESPN's target audience. The average viewer is. For most of US, tennis is our favorite sport. For many of us, it may be the ONLY sport we follow closely. So obviously we will have more of an appreciation for the international players and stuff, and we would want to see them. I'd KILL to see Haas/Gasquet, but I doubt we'll get more than a highlight reel, if that. It's too bad that ESPN doesn't realize the potential that a match has like that, in the first round, to be so good and involve two such good players. But I think it's easy for us to get myopic about it and forget that we're not the targets. It sucks, but it's the reality. We can keep tuning in and keep complaining to them about it and all that stuff, but what else can we do?

It'd be nice if TTC could get the rights to matches ESPN Doesn't want to show. Even if they showed them on tape so as to not compete with ESPN's coverage, I think that'd be cool. But I don't think TTC has the money to pay for the rights to slam matches yet.

well you mentioned the saturation factor. i was responding to that primarily. yes i believe that if espn claims itself to be the grand slam network, they better show live tennis all the time in australia. Since the telecast does not clash w/ football or whatever else at night/early morning.

ESPN's target audience should be the hardcore fan for the LIVE AUSTRALIAN coverage because the casual fan wont tune into espn in the wee hours of the night anyway!!!! there is nothing else to watch but tennis at the time, so they should expose them tennis if they do tune in.

During the daytime, its ok, they can show whatever.

Also, yesterday, we didnt see much of the american men anyway. i was complaining that we only saw womens matches in this thread.

World Beater
01-16-2006, 09:11 PM
We didn't see much of James, Taylor, Robby or any other male player. But of course we saw full or almost full matches of Lindsay, Venus, Masha and Serena. I dont' know what we'll see tonight but my guess is there will be more coverage of the women draw then the mens.

exactly, its pathetic.

but at least one of the sisters lost, thats one less match they can choose to show in favor of the women.

now serena and maria should lose :devil:

mangoes
01-16-2006, 10:40 PM
exactly, its pathetic.

but at least one of the sisters lost, thats one less match they can choose to show in favor of the women.

now serena and maria should lose :devil:

Well, I'm hoping Maria loses next....................it would free up so much air time since they seem to rather show her than Serena. Plus, I'm still waiting for the real Serena to show up :lol:

buddyholly
01-16-2006, 10:53 PM
We have this same discussion every single year. Ma nishtana :lol: It's a vicious cycle. the AVERAGE American ESPN Viewer wants to see Americans.

So true. Unfortunately a lot of posters still want to believe that ESPN is a public service, not a business. Or maybe not even a public service, but a service provided exclusively for tennis fans.
Anyway, I am in Thailand and get coverage of the Rod Laver arena from the first ball to the last every day, irrespective of who is on court. That is about 14-15 hours live coverage right now. Strangely enough, this service is provided by ESPN! Gotta go, it's 10 minutes to ''play''.

BiancaUL
01-16-2006, 10:56 PM
yes i believe that if espn claims itself to be the grand slam network, they better show live tennis all the time in australia. Since the telecast does not clash w/ football or whatever else at night/early morning.

It costs more to show something live than it does to show something taped most of the time.

Is it really cost-effective for ESPN to go out of its way to show live early tournament, non-American, non-hot girl action in the wee hours of the morning when they can get the same ratings for reruns of poker/WSM/Scrabble?

Nope.

buddyholly
01-16-2006, 10:57 PM
USA's coverage is amazing...they do such a good job with the usopen!!!

espn...morons..

The US Open on TV in the US is an entirely different business deal from the AO on TV in the US.
Methinks you should not be tossing around the ''m'' word so freely.

buddyholly
01-16-2006, 11:00 PM
ESPN is seriously dumb. do they think people will wake up to see serena hands breadsticks her opponents at 3 in the morning?

Did you see Serena's first round match? Just proves how dumb YOU really are.

Lee
01-17-2006, 12:47 AM
The one complain I have on ESPN was they spent sooooooo much time (while waiting for Venus and/or Sharapova matches) on Fowler, Gilbert and Pat yapping while there're live matches going on. Yes, they are talking about tennis but I prefer watching matches. They can show live tennis while the 3 are yapping, right?

World Beater
01-17-2006, 01:01 AM
Did you see Serena's first round match? Just proves how dumb YOU really are.

how often does serena struggle in round 1? check her record before you yap at the mouth

i am not a fortune teller.i said it previous to the match. she struggled uncharacteristically.


yes, they didnt bother to show federer vs safin semi last year live...why do you think they changed their schedule this year? because they made mistakes.

AgassiDomination
01-17-2006, 01:05 AM
PMac rocks! :cool:

arcus
01-18-2006, 02:56 AM
The one complain I have on ESPN was they spent sooooooo much time (while waiting for Venus and/or Sharapova matches) on Fowler, Gilbert and Pat yapping while there're live matches going on. Yes, they are talking about tennis but I prefer watching matches. They can show live tennis while the 3 are yapping, right?

God!, that is SO TRUE, but the "threEGOs" need their on camera face-time :-)

arcus
01-22-2006, 05:07 AM
k, so Roddick loses and all Pmac can say is that he didnt hit out enough and allowed his opponent to "grow". Are we supposed to believe that Andy Roddick has no idea how to hit hard to win a match. I'm not buying that.

There has to come a time when they tone down the HYPE and allow the american players to build on their own.

amierin
01-22-2006, 05:11 AM
k, so Roddick loses and all Pmac can say is that he didnt hit out enough and allowed his opponent to "grow". Are we supposed to believe that Andy Roddick has no idea how to hit hard to win a match. I'm not buying that.

There has to come a time when they tone down the HYPE and allow the american players to build on their own.

Pmac also said that Baghdatis knows how to construct a point and strategize and by implication is sayhing that Roddick doesn't.

I'll be the first to dog PMac out but tonight he seemed to speak some truth.

federated
01-22-2006, 05:22 AM
Pmac also said that Baghdatis knows how to construct a point and strategize and by implication is sayhing that Roddick doesn't.

I'll be the first to dog PMac out but tonight he seemed to speak some truth.

lost of Word to this. This is the first time I haven't found PMac annoying.He was very much on point.

Tennis Fool
01-22-2006, 05:24 AM
I guess the bad news for Marcos when is no more men's matches and nothing but Sharapova and Davenport?

nobama
01-22-2006, 05:24 AM
Pmac also said that Baghdatis knows how to construct a point and strategize and by implication is sayhing that Roddick doesn't.

I'll be the first to dog PMac out but tonight he seemed to speak some truth.Yes and he also pointed out that in Andy's first three matches his opponents basically gave it to him. And in this match Andy was looking for Baghdatis to fold which he obviously didn't. Maybe after that second set Roddick thought Baggy would fade away, but he should've gotten the message after the third that Baggy wasn't going anywhere.

Tennis Fool
01-22-2006, 05:27 AM
So Andy's habit of losing all comes down to hubris, it sounds. Even Federer would never take his opponent lightly (especially one he never met before and a former junior No. 1)...

athina7
01-22-2006, 05:27 AM
lost of Word to this. This is the first time I haven't found PMac annoying.He was very much on point.
I agree. So many times he gets on my nerves, but tonight I thought he was very objective and I actually enjoyed his commentary.

amierin
01-22-2006, 05:38 AM
Well it seems he did put his foot in it talking about buying some islands around Cyprus. Guess Basic Geography 101 is in order.

darnyelb
01-22-2006, 05:47 AM
PMac did well today, and he had a point about Roddick allowing Baghdatis to grow in confidence, but it annoyed me the way PMac kept emphasizing "allowed"... as if to imply this wasn't all on Baghdatis's terms.

njnetswill
01-22-2006, 05:48 AM
PMac isn't that bad. Tim Ryan, however, is another story.

The beloved "young Americans" all flamed out. Now it's a Federer worship party in the booth. :unsure: :o

sierra91
01-22-2006, 06:06 AM
Re ESPN2's tout of more than 100 hours of coverage and calling itself the Grand Slam network (not its division that sells feeds to networks around the world), I agree that ESPN is not a public service but a for-profit business. Yet, how do you know that the average American viewer would rather see American players? And, if that's true, could it be the result of the dummying down of tennis by their more often than not inane announcing, cutting to Gilbert and Fowler, interviewing Serena about her clothes, showing Justin Gimmelstob while Federer is playing (last year in one of the slams); ESPN'S assumption that all Americans and not just Dubya are idiots; as well as its emphasis on so-called human interest stories have contributed to this problem? Perhpas if ESPN2 showed the best match-ups (or at least aired them instead of repeating what they've already shown live) and let the quality of play speak for itself, more people would find it interesting. :banghead:

And, remember the spread. It costs less for ESPN to buy the rights for and broadcast tennis than for football, baseball, basketball, and NASCAR, which means that advertisers don't have to pay as much. They can still make a good profit percentage wise even without NBA-type of ratings, which will never happen. :kiss: I believe if they broadcast to a higher common denominator rather than the idiots, who probably don't tune in anyway, that they'd end up making more money. But what do I know ... I like tennis, which isn't considered a real or worthy sport (except when Americans play) by the sports media in the U.S. :shrug:

If there are any good plaintiffs' lawyers out there ... what about a lawsuit asserting claims under the federal and state consumer protection acts for false advertising (the "Grand Slam" network???), and for good measure, how about throwing in a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on tennis fans, plus whatever else the plaintiffs' bar can come up with -- hey, folks ... get creative. Would probably go down on a motion to dismiss, but it would be fun. :angel: :banana:

athina7
01-22-2006, 06:13 AM
The beloved "young Americans" all flamed out. Now it's a Federer worship party in the booth. :unsure: :o
Oh God, you're right. :unsure: I like Federer, but listening to PMac, Cliff etc go on and on and about him even when he is not playing and we are watching some other match gets on my nerves. It gets to be ridiculous at times.

TennisGrandSlam
01-22-2006, 06:28 AM
basically, "(federer?, whatever), lets just talk aout the 'young' americans". Roddick is the one he tips to win a slam this year.

This pisses me off so much.

Tennis in the US will not build till TV channels that cover it promotes ALL the talent, not just those that the commentators like.


Typical American Chauvinist! :rolleyes:

Alaways compare Federer with Sampras and belittle Roger! :mad:

If Andy (Roddick) is NO. 1, he will say "Andy is the NEXT Pete" :o



P. S. : Patrick's mouth is shitting like his brother's :cool:

amierin
01-22-2006, 06:34 AM
Re ESPN2's tout of more than 100 hours of coverage and calling itself the Grand Slam network (not its division that sells feeds to networks around the world), I agree that ESPN is not a public service but a for-profit business. Yet, how do you know that the average American viewer would rather see American players? And, if that's true, could it be the result of the dummying down of tennis by their more often than not inane announcing, cutting to Gilbert and Fowler, interviewing Serena about her clothes, showing Justin Gimmelstob while Federer is playing (last year in one of the slams); ESPN'S assumption that all Americans and not just Dubya are idiots; as well as its emphasis on so-called human interest stories have contributed to this problem? Perhpas if ESPN2 showed the best match-ups (or at least aired them instead of repeating what they've already shown live) and let the quality of play speak for itself, more people would find it interesting. :banghead:

And, remember the spread. It costs less for ESPN to buy the rights for and broadcast tennis than for football, baseball, basketball, and NASCAR, which means that advertisers don't have to pay as much. They can still make a good profit percentage wise even without NBA-type of ratings, which will never happen. :kiss: I believe if they broadcast to a higher common denominator rather than the idiots, who probably don't tune in anyway, that they'd end up making more money. But what do I know ... I like tennis, which isn't considered a real or worthy sport (except when Americans play) by the sports media in the U.S. :shrug:

If there are any good plaintiffs' lawyers out there ... what about a lawsuit asserting claims under the federal and state consumer protection acts for false advertising (the "Grand Slam" network???), and for good measure, how about throwing in a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress on tennis fans, plus whatever else the plaintiffs' bar can come up with -- hey, folks ... get creative. Would probably go down on a motion to dismiss, but it would be fun. :angel: :banana:

'Nuff said. :worship: