ESPN Coverage [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

ESPN Coverage

WF4EVER
01-21-2006, 02:55 PM
I just came in here to express my utter disgust with ESPN.

When does this story ever change? Same shit different day.

I can't believe it. I saw Lleyton Hewitt's match four times between ESPN2 and ESPN deportes, now I'm seeing Martina Hingis for the third time. Do they ever intend to show Roger's matches at all, or will they only do that if they're absolutely forced to if he reaches the FInal? What the fuck is going on over there, man.

I am so tired of Hingis, it's not even funny. And she just started playing. Everything is Hingis, Hingis, Hingis, and she has yet to beat any opponent of quality to make me think she's worth watching three times in a row, playing the same fucking match!

I swear I have not seen one single match of Roger's in its entirety up to now and I expected that with their limited programming (and by that I mean limited to certain players and limited in airtime) that they would at least show a match they hadn't shown before.

I swear the only consolation in all this is to know that Roger already won his match. ESPN just continues to sicken me, year after year, Slam after Slam.

I want to see if when the 12:00 coverage starts on ESPN2 they'll show Martina again. The fucked up thing is there are many matches being played, many exciting matches that they have not bothered to show yet they are drilling the same matches into our heads nonstop.

sigmagirl91
01-21-2006, 03:04 PM
This is nothing new. They've always shown whom they want to show, and that will never change.

PaulieM
01-21-2006, 03:05 PM
join the party:shrug:

partygirl
01-21-2006, 03:08 PM
DAMN RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

espn is the shit...and not in a good way.

they ought to be ashamed of their coverage...really if you cant do a decent job of bringing matches to people step aside and let somebody else try, fuck they piss me off- and its really the only place that i can see tennis- which really makes me sick...i wont even start on their commentators.

the thing is they have multiple channels they can spread their coverage through out, but do they no...its just horribble i think they had 4 hours of classic poker :eek: (what the fuck) on espn classic last night- i sat their thinking they could have used that time to show a couple of matches i mean these slams only happen for 8 weeks out of the year- and they are a "SPORTS" network right???? -poker is not a sport- :fiery: :help: :tape: :banghead: :explode:

they have lost thier minds over there they are even forgetting about players who's matches they always cover (they are even forgetting to show the final scores of matches they dont intend to show) now its like they dont know what to do or what to show...

did they do any planning before hand, forethought is a great thing- especially when you need to get your act together....or just quit

"leader in sports" -my ass, espn gets the big F U

Deboogle!.
01-21-2006, 03:14 PM
The fucked up thing is there are many matches being played, many exciting matches that they have not bothered to show yet they are drilling the same matches into our heads nonstop.Which do you want? To see Roger or to see exciting matches? Roger's matches haven't been exciting so far. They didn't even show Andy's beatdown from the other day. But they've picked up some crazy 5-setters late in the game, last night after Martina they showed Haas/Luczak and Kiefer/Ferrero - not huge tennis names in this country particularly, but pretty good tennis all-around. During their scheduled night live coverage they have surprisingly diverged from their original plans to show live tennis. So far during those windows they have shown one taped match when other good stuff was going on - that was Martina's last night. Otherwise, they've been willing to adjust to whatever the live tennis brings. Compared to 2 years ago or so, when if they said they were showing something live, if that match ended up finishing early, they'd just show it on tape - that's a huge leap forward, when they used to show everything on tape even during the "live" night coverage windows. There's no doubt that two years ago, for example, they would've shown Andy beat Benneteau on tape that night, instead of live tennis. This year they didn't show it and went for live tennis instead. Awesome! :D

Their coverage has improved a lot over the past couple years. It's obviously far from perfect but they're clearly learning from their mistakes and listening to complaints by adding all the 3:30am coverage for the first several days and by going late after their coverage is supposed to end most days.

Obviously it's still worth complaining to them about your individual gripes and concerns, but if you don't think they improved, we must not be watching the same thing. And the fact that they're committed to doing what they can in a culture where the sport is not all that popular, i'm not gonna bite the hand that feeds me my grand slam tennis :p

PaulieM
01-21-2006, 03:20 PM
their coverage this year is far worse than last year. and as for them not showing roger because they don't want to show a blow out, fine with me but don't show live and taped coverage of andy and sharapova beatdowns either.(yes both their first and second round matches were shown live and again the next day, and almost in their entirety as well) :shrug: i get that they want to show names that people know, but there has to be a middle ground somewhere, if you don't show others then people will never get to know other names, someone has to make the tough decision which will lead to improved coverage in the future. the thing that's bothered me the most is that almost all of their coverage has been women's tennis. i wish they'd just sell the rights to someone who will actually cover the sport well, but they won't as long as they can keep making money without having to do a good job because people can't go elsewhere. sorry but there has been nothing good about their coverage this year, in terms of not showing roger and otherwise. :shrug:

partygirl
01-21-2006, 03:22 PM
they are still rerunning a lot of matches...

really with such limited coverage...if you miss it then you miss it- move on

uNIVERSE mAN
01-21-2006, 03:25 PM
Which do you want? To see Roger or to see exciting matches? Roger's matches haven't been exciting so far. They didn't even show Andy's beatdown from the other day. But they've picked up some crazy 5-setters late in the game, last night after Martina they showed Haas/Luczak and Kiefer/Ferrero - not huge tennis names in this country particularly, but pretty good tennis all-around. During their scheduled night live coverage they have surprisingly diverged from their original plans to show live tennis. So far during those windows they have shown one taped match when other good stuff was going on - that was Martina's last night. Otherwise, they've been willing to adjust to whatever the live tennis brings. Compared to 2 years ago or so, when if they said they were showing something live, if that match ended up finishing early, they'd just show it on tape - that's a huge leap forward, when they used to show everything on tape even during the "live" night coverage windows. There's no doubt that two years ago, for example, they would've shown Andy beat Benneteau on tape that night, instead of live tennis. This year they didn't show it and went for live tennis instead. Awesome! :D

Their coverage has improved a lot over the past couple years. It's obviously far from perfect but they're clearly learning from their mistakes and listening to complaints by adding all the 3:30am coverage for the first several days and by going late after their coverage is supposed to end most days.

Obviously it's still worth complaining to them about your individual gripes and concerns, but if you don't think they improved, we must not be watching the same thing. And the fact that they're committed to doing what they can in a culture where the sport is not all that popular, i'm not gonna bite the hand that feeds me my grand slam tennis :p

stfu you women's tennis cronie!

Deboogle!.
01-21-2006, 03:27 PM
But they've been focusing on Roger as one of their main covered players basically since he hit #1. I think it's an aberration that his first two matches weren't shown in entirety because of when his matches were scheduled and the way the draws worked out. i mean, lindsay is #1 in the world AND American and they don't always show her matches with prime coverage either. I think it was Roger's 2nd round match that ESPN had scheduled to show during their nighttime window but it ended early and so instead they showed live tennis and they showed what they could of Roger's match later on in the coverage. Sorry, but I'll take any live coverage over any taped coverage, even my faves, even #1s in the world. And the fact that they've only pre-empted live coverage once so far, is a huge improvement over previous years in my mind.

I agree it'd be nice to see a different match on tape the next day, if what they're scheduled to show is something that they aired live the night before. But ESPN is first and foremost a business. If their research shows more people watch the repeat of the American or the pretty girl or whatever, that's what they'll show. Any good businessman would do the same. It's the same bad cycle that we all discuss 2985209482094 times a year and it never changes :)

Universe Man, if you knew anything about me at all (which you clearly do not by your ignorant and rude statement), you'd know I'm not a WTA fan :)

partygirl
01-21-2006, 03:30 PM
Universe Man, if you knew anything about me at all (which you clearly do not by your ignorant and rude statement), you'd know I'm not a WTA fan :)

yeah!
that and im not about to argue with a lawyer (or just as good as)

i do however reserve the right to be very displeased.

question:
is it too much to ask that they use more than one of their channels for maximum coverage???

PaulieM
01-21-2006, 03:31 PM
But they've been focusing on Roger as one of their main covered players basically since he hit #1. I think it's an aberration that his first two matches weren't shown in entirety. i mean, lindsay is #1 in the world AND American and they don't always show her matches with prime coverage either. I think it was Roger's 2nd round match that ESPN had scheduled to show during their nighttime window but it ended early and so instead they showed live tennis and they showed what they could of Roger's match later on in the coverage. Sorry, but I'll take any live coverage over any taped coverage, even my faves, even #1s in the world. And the fact that they've only pre-empted live coverage once so far, is a huge improvement over previous years in my mind.
i don't care that they didn't show roger's matches,his first two have been snoozers(although if it's really about the snooze factor i can think of a lot of other matches they should have skipped the first time around and certainly shouldn't have replayed). but i do care that rather than showing matches they didn't get to cover the night before during their taped stuff the next day, they show the same match they showed at 7pm the night before. if it was something they showed at 2:30 am when most people weren't up, then they have more of a point, but that isn't usually what they've been doing. that imo is a stupid way to do coverage.

PaulieM
01-21-2006, 03:33 PM
I agree it'd be nice to see a different match on tape the next day, if what they're scheduled to show is something that they aired live the night before. But ESPN is first and foremost a business. If their research shows more people watch the repeat of the American or the pretty girl or whatever, that's what they'll show. Any good businessman would do the same. It's the same bad cycle that we all discuss 2985209482094 times a year and it never changes :)

of course from their perspective it makes sense to do that, but that doesn't make it any less annoying. and since this thread is about how annoying espn's coverage is, then i'd say i agree with the thread starter, it has sucked balls(tennis balls of course :angel: ).

Deboogle!.
01-21-2006, 03:35 PM
that imo is a stupid way to do coverage.Yes, from a tennis fan's perspective. I'm not saying I AGREE with it, but ESPN is a business and they know what will make them money. They are gonna show what's good for their business, not what's good for us hard-core tennis fans. It sucks but it's the reality, and until somehow the cycle breaks and the average ESPN viewer is more aware of the internatilonality of the sport and all the players, I don't see that really changing unfortunately.

But I see a lot of people complain many times a year, every year, about all the same issues. but no one ever really comes up with a feasible solution that ESPN would actually be able to adopt.

PaulieM
01-21-2006, 03:41 PM
Yes, from a tennis fan's perspective. I'm not saying I AGREE with it, but ESPN is a business and they know what will make them money. They are gonna show what's good for their business, not what's good for us hard-core tennis fans. It sucks but it's the reality, and until somehow the cycle breaks and the average ESPN viewer is more aware of the internatilonality of the sport and all the players, I don't see that really changing unfortunately.

But I see a lot of people complain many times a year, every year, about all the same issues. but no one ever really comes up with a feasible solution that ESPN would actually be able to adopt.
i agree with you, like i said in my first post, in terms of making money it makes perfect sense, in terms of making me and a lot of hardcore fans happy, it makes none, and clearly money wins(yeah i'm special but i think they like money better:o ) the solution, is to make the tough choice, show some so called unknowns because it's a higher quality more entertaining match, with the hope that you'll actually create fans of the sport and have people tune in to see quality matches not to see individual names, and increase the customer's lifetime value for the company. for espn that gamble simply isn't worth it ie. feasible. until they have someone who can reasonably compete with them, they insentive isn't there. :awww:

Deboogle!.
01-21-2006, 03:56 PM
Where's the outrage that ESPN has dropped Davis and Fed Cups completely? To me this is far more egregious and disconcerting than imperfect slam coverage and really disappointing and shows a far worse problem in ESPN's commitment to showing tennis I think :(

PaulieM
01-21-2006, 03:58 PM
Where's the outrage that ESPN has dropped Davis and Fed Cups completely? To me this is far more egregious and disconcerting than imperfect slam coverage and really disappointing and shows a far worse problem in ESPN's commitment to showing tennis I think :(
that pissed me off too! :mad:

WF4EVER
01-21-2006, 04:00 PM
To be honest, I'd rather watch Roger play my dog than watch Martina Hingis win another no-match against a non-contender.

As for your intimation, debs, that Roger's matches weren't exciting. They are certainly a lot more exciting than watching Roddick pummel ace after ace. To show Martina beating Benesova for the third time over watching Federer/Mirnyi, the #1 and #30 seeds, is just ridiculous.

As the #1 player in the world, Roger deserves his airtime. I can't figure why blowouts on the women's side are getting so much coverage when there are other people to watch.

It's time ESPN get their shit together. You can defend them all you want but I really have to wonder if they're really making a lot of money this way with so many tennis fans pissed off. Who is it exactly that they're making all this money off of?

partygirl
01-21-2006, 04:03 PM
Where's the outrage that ESPN has dropped Davis and Fed Cups completely? To me this is far more egregious and disconcerting than imperfect slam coverage and really disappointing and shows a far worse problem in ESPN's commitment to showing tennis I think :(

oh im plenty outraged.:explode::explode::explode:
but you know this.

i think people are just fed up with them, so whats to say?
maybe its a good thing?

yeah- keep making bad decisions so people can turn away, we need a catylist.

croat123
01-21-2006, 04:10 PM
screw espn. just watch star sports or shanghai sports online - better matches and more variety. i turned off espn's coverage last night when they said they were going to show hingis because i had already seen it live :p

Leo
01-21-2006, 05:00 PM
Those live feeds never work very well or clearly for me. Buffering and buffering and buffering. I want to be able to watch tennis on my TV and record it if I want.

I was disturbed by ESPN dropping Davis Cup, but honestly I would prefer more complete GS coverage with more exciting matches, more tennis, and less reruns of big names over and over.

tennisace
01-21-2006, 05:06 PM
I've gotta agree with deb, here. I've been a huge critic of Espn in the past, but honestly I think their coverage has been pretty good this time around. Is it perfect - no - but comprted to the years when they showed Serena's match 4 times in 24 hours - it's a big improvement. They've stayed on air almost every night past their alotted "window" and have shown many more non-Americans then in the past. I even get why, from a broadcaster's view point - Hingis is a huge story and why they want to capitalize on that. Thankfully - she hasn't lost the plot and is wrapping her matches up in a tidy 45 minutes or so. Years ago they would have shown her match, then repeated Serena's from the day before and gone off the air. Last night - they stayed on - showed the end of Haas and then JCF. I've been watching tennis for well over 25 years and trust me - it's never been this good on Espn.

partygirl
01-21-2006, 05:13 PM
I've been watching tennis for well over 25 years and trust me - it's never been this good on Espn.
well with all due respect i have no such frame of reference...so maybe its getting better...maybe by 2010 they will have it right, i just hope that by then they have some competition.

its like tennis a better competitor helps raise everyones level (if they want to win)

what a dream, can you imagine...several choices in tennis coverage :hearts:

Deboogle!.
01-21-2006, 05:21 PM
As for your intimation, debs, that Roger's matches weren't exciting. They are certainly a lot more exciting than watching Roddick pummel ace after ace. To show Martina beating Benesova for the third time over watching Federer/Mirnyi, the #1 and #30 seeds, is just ridiculous.:o I meant scorewise. The rest is mere subjective opinion which is irrelevant here. When they showed Martina's match last night, Roger hadn't played yet :lol: That match was only showed once on ESPN2 in the US, I don't know where you saw it three times.As the #1 player in the world, Roger deserves his airtime. I can't figure why blowouts on the women's side are getting so much coverage when there are other people to watch.That's your opinion, that doesn't mean that's what it should be. I think ESPN should focus on live tennis, regardless.
It's time ESPN get their shit together. You can defend them all you want but I really have to wonder if they're really making a lot of money this way with so many tennis fans pissed off. Who is it exactly that they're making all this money off of?I'm not defending them, I'm being logical about it. I wish their coverage was better, but I am able to keep in mind the difficulties they are facing with balancing other sports and all the different players and maintaining a business.

I still maintain that cutting off DC and Fed Cup coverage completely is far far worse than not showing Roger when he doesn't fit into their schedule. :shrug:

WF4EVER
01-21-2006, 06:46 PM
Oh, BTW, thx ESPn for finally showing a Federer. And here comes Hingis again.

She would be a great story if she had beat someone of note; she has yet to do that. Capriati was a big story; ESPN is merely trying to make a story before there is any.

I have ESPn, ESPN2, ESPN Classic and ESPN Deportes and Iim still bitching. That oughta tell you how diverse their coverage has been.

uNIVERSE mAN
01-21-2006, 06:54 PM
But they've been focusing on Roger as one of their main covered players basically since he hit #1. I think it's an aberration that his first two matches weren't shown in entirety because of when his matches were scheduled and the way the draws worked out. i mean, lindsay is #1 in the world AND American and they don't always show her matches with prime coverage either. I think it was Roger's 2nd round match that ESPN had scheduled to show during their nighttime window but it ended early and so instead they showed live tennis and they showed what they could of Roger's match later on in the coverage. Sorry, but I'll take any live coverage over any taped coverage, even my faves, even #1s in the world. And the fact that they've only pre-empted live coverage once so far, is a huge improvement over previous years in my mind.

I agree it'd be nice to see a different match on tape the next day, if what they're scheduled to show is something that they aired live the night before. But ESPN is first and foremost a business. If their research shows more people watch the repeat of the American or the pretty girl or whatever, that's what they'll show. Any good businessman would do the same. It's the same bad cycle that we all discuss 2985209482094 times a year and it never changes :)

Universe Man, if you knew anything about me at all (which you clearly do not by your ignorant and rude statement), you'd know I'm not a WTA fan :)

ok as long as you're not plugging the wta then I retract my statement and offer my apologies.

tangerine_dream
01-21-2006, 06:54 PM
Go ESPN! :rocker2:

I'm loving the Martina coverage. She is the big story at AO this year and with every match she wins her chances of actually winning the title gets better as her draw opens up. I'd rather watch her matches than another boring Federer/Roddick beatdown on an unseeded player. The tennis pundits have already set Fed/Rod as the men's finalists but on the woman's side it's wide open and most of the more interesting action has been taking place on the women's side so far. JMO.

ESPN has tried to show us the good matches from courts where TV coverage isn't allowed like the Bogie Jr/Gonzo match and then the Andreev/Hrbaty match last night.

ESPN's coverage hasn't been as great as USA TV's coverage at the USO but it's not nearly as bad as many of you keep whining on about. Most of you who do all the complaining anyway are just sore that Roger hasn't grabbed the lion's share of ESPN attention. Sorry but there are other players to watch besides Roger. :shrug:

I've gotta agree with deb, here. I've been a huge critic of Espn in the past, but honestly I think their coverage has been pretty good this time around. Is it perfect - no - but comprted to the years when they showed Serena's match 4 times in 24 hours - it's a big improvement. They've stayed on air almost every night past their alotted "window" and have shown many more non-Americans then in the past. I even get why, from a broadcaster's view point - Hingis is a huge story and why they want to capitalize on that. Thankfully - she hasn't lost the plot and is wrapping her matches up in a tidy 45 minutes or so. Years ago they would have shown her match, then repeated Serena's from the day before and gone off the air. Last night - they stayed on - showed the end of Haas and then JCF. I've been watching tennis for well over 25 years and trust me - it's never been this good on Espn.

Well said tennisace and deb too. :cool:

nobama
01-21-2006, 07:08 PM
To be honest, I'd rather watch Roger play my dog than watch Martina Hingis win another no-match against a non-contender.

As for your intimation, debs, that Roger's matches weren't exciting. They are certainly a lot more exciting than watching Roddick pummel ace after ace. To show Martina beating Benesova for the third time over watching Federer/Mirnyi, the #1 and #30 seeds, is just ridiculous.

As the #1 player in the world, Roger deserves his airtime. I can't figure why blowouts on the women's side are getting so much coverage when there are other people to watch.

It's time ESPN get their shit together. You can defend them all you want but I really have to wonder if they're really making a lot of money this way with so many tennis fans pissed off. Who is it exactly that they're making all this money off of?Well Roger's match against Mirnyi was happening about 6-6.30 AM EST. So I'm not the least bit surprised ESPN2 didn't show it live. And they did show the entire match later in the day. If Roger's matches were scheduled when ESPN2 is on live I have no doubt they'd show him. But so far he's played either really early or really late. He's not had a match yet that was in progress while ESPN2 was on live.