WTF is wrong with US coverage??? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

WTF is wrong with US coverage???

fenomeno2111
06-04-2006, 05:33 PM
Okay for two days we get f*cking taped matches when the best match of the tournament was played yesterday and today a five setter with Robredo and Ancic and we don't even get anything plus Gaudio and Davydenko and we just get Blake-Monfils taped :mad: However thios is not new, so I'm not that mad :wavey:

El Legenda
06-04-2006, 05:35 PM
taped matchs cost less to broadcast then live matchs :)

fenomeno2111
06-04-2006, 05:41 PM
I don't care the reason they are supposed to be the GRAND SLAM NETWORK :rolleyes:

_pyromatic
06-04-2006, 05:45 PM
I'm still praying that they'll show Ancic/Robredo but I doubt it. Maybe if they get really bored... :rolleyes:

Scotso
06-04-2006, 05:53 PM
I think they should at least show a little of Ancic/Robredo. Maybe ESPN will?

athina7
06-04-2006, 06:10 PM
Now they are showing the very interesting Fed-Berdych match :rolleyes:

nobama
06-04-2006, 06:56 PM
Now they are showing the very interesting Fed-Berdych match :rolleyes:Well Fed is #1 in the world. That is why. I didn't need to see it because I watched it online, but I'm sure most people didn't or are unable to. What pisses me off is Hingis is playing right now and they're not showing her match live. :(

mp3junkie
06-04-2006, 08:24 PM
I don't understand why the Tennis Channel can't broadcast these matches if ESPN and NBC won't. It's ridiculous that we can't watch these matches live. It's a grand slam for goodness sake. The US television coverage is just awful. :(

El Legenda
06-04-2006, 08:35 PM
I don't understand why the Tennis Channel can't broadcast these matches if ESPN and NBC won't. It's ridiculous that we can't watch these matches live. It's a grand slam for goodness sake. The US television coverage is just awful. :(

it cost money to broadcast live match, and in US, who ever runs the stations knows that tennis is not big in US and they wont get large # of audience to make any kind of money from commercials

NicoFan
06-04-2006, 08:43 PM
it cost money to broadcast live match, and in US, who ever runs the stations knows that tennis is not big in US and they wont get large # of audience to make any kind of money from commercials

But not as much if they just pick up the international feed...which is why TTC would be a good option.

In my perfect tennis world for the Slams ;) :lol: I would have the networks carry the big names - that will keep the regular tennis fan happy. But then for tennis nuts like us have TTC and one other network carry other matches - the TTC can have the men and the other network whcih I would never look at would have the women. :lol:

Lee
06-04-2006, 10:40 PM
I don't care the reason they are supposed to be the GRAND SLAM NETWORK :rolleyes:

NBC is not the GS Network. :shrug: It's ESPN claimed being the GS Network but NBC holds the right to show French Open during weekends :shrug:

tennisace
06-04-2006, 10:49 PM
And thankfully after today we won't have The Shrieker cluttering up their broadcasts.

1520919
06-04-2006, 11:35 PM
I agree it couldn't be worse. I was watching the stream from NOL.nl and the camera angles made the game so much more exciting. They actually had a camera close to the court and from the perspective of the players. It made you feel as if you were part of the action.

NicoFan
06-04-2006, 11:38 PM
Isn't that live stream awesome! I have loved it - really good, no buffering. The only thing was that they interrupted RG play for motorcycle racing for a little bit today, but other than that, I can't complain.

And I really loved the camera angles too. And also the way they would show the face of the other guy while the server was getting ready.

JoJoMa
06-04-2006, 11:39 PM
It lacks Drysdale.

ASP0315
06-05-2006, 01:23 AM
Isn't that live stream awesome! I have loved it - really good, no buffering. The only thing was that they interrupted RG play for motorcycle racing for a little bit today, but other than that, I can't complain.

And I really loved the camera angles too. And also the way they would show the face of the other guy while the server was getting ready.

Yeah Big thanks to Nos.nl.

partygirl
06-05-2006, 01:34 AM
it cost money to broadcast live match, and in US, who ever runs the stations knows that tennis is not big in US and they wont get large # of audience to make any kind of money from commercials

yes but if they don't show the matches...people won't watch and if they continue the way they have, they risk (already have) pissed off die hard fans.

its like this- you want a bigger audience take the cost hit for awhile and show the matches, if they did a good enough job then more interest would follow and thus more cash.
tennis is not going anywhere its not a flash in the pan so i think its a safe gamble.

espn is so short sighted its gross, but they always show Roddick's matches so im happy...luckly most of my favorites are big names,
but i can imagine what its like on the other side :mad: i would'nt want to see my favorites never aired & never aired no matter how good the match:hug:

"...and TTC for all." -damn it already. :sad:

chicky841
06-05-2006, 01:48 AM
Isn't that live stream awesome! I have loved it - really good, no buffering. The only thing was that they interrupted RG play for motorcycle racing for a little bit today, but other than that, I can't complain.

And I really loved the camera angles too. And also the way they would show the face of the other guy while the server was getting ready.

I agree it couldn't be worse. I was watching the stream from NOL.nl and the camera angles made the game so much more exciting. They actually had a camera close to the court and from the perspective of the players. It made you feel as if you were part of the action.

Wow that sounds awesome, now I wish I had been watchin live stream.

My coverage is surprisingly not bad. I dnt get to see all my players that aren't as "popular" but w/e. I get to see alot of my players who are better on clay (which most are) so all in all not so bad.

NicoFan
06-05-2006, 02:01 AM
Unfortunately with the live streams you get the top players too. But here in the US this weekend, they only had taped coverage that didn't start until the matches were over so at least with the live stream I was able to watch part of Rafa and part of Roger while it was happening.

I wish they have live streaming of all the courts...and yes, I'm know I'm asking for a lot. :lol:

But...in Wimbledon this year, they will have for a fee (20-25 USD - don't know what the cost is in British pounds or Euros) live streaming of all the show courts. So that will be cool.

Hopefully slow but sure we'll get more live streaming - and I wish they would all pattern themselves after nos.nl. :yeah:

fenomeno2111
06-05-2006, 04:42 AM
Unfortunately with the live streams you get the top players too. But here in the US this weekend, they only had taped coverage that didn't start until the matches were over so at least with the live stream I was able to watch part of Rafa and part of Roger while it was happening.

I wish they have live streaming of all the courts...and yes, I'm know I'm asking for a lot. :lol:

But...in Wimbledon this year, they will have for a fee (20-25 USD - don't know what the cost is in British pounds or Euros) live streaming of all the show courts. So that will be cool.

Hopefully slow but sure we'll get more live streaming - and I wish they would all pattern themselves after nos.nl. :yeah:
Now, THAT is cool :D
Thanks for the info

16681
06-05-2006, 05:59 AM
I think once The Tennis Channel started to catch on that ESPN just pretty much said let TTC have tennis there are so many other sports we can cover :sad: But I can't get TTC :crying2:

sierra91
06-05-2006, 09:07 AM
Okay for two days we get f*cking taped matches when the best match of the tournament was played yesterday and today a five setter with Robredo and Ancic and we don't even get anything plus Gaudio and Davydenko and we just get Blake-Monfils taped :mad: However thios is not new, so I'm not that mad :wavey:In ESPN2-speak, "Grand Slam network" means taped matches -- even from prior years -- of Americans, Hingis, and most especially, Sharapova (recall that ESPN stands for Eat Sharapova's Pussy Now, which is what all the ESPN execs wish they could do). :help: The "Grand Slam network" would never broadcast great match-ups between non-American players like Ancic and Robredo, except for finals, semis, and sometimes QFs. Plus, ESPN2 understands its viewers and is so right-on that we'd rather see the montage/listen to theme song that is shown ad naseum when they come back from commercials and that we also prefer when they cut away from matches and honor us with the privilege of watching Chris Fowler and Brad Gilbert sitting at their desk and gracing us with their pearls of wisdom. :toothy: And it gets better this Friday when, at least in the Mountain time zone, neither men's semi will be broadcast live by NBC, in a very tight race for the most incompetent network with ESPN2. The fun continues. :cuckoo:

IDJ49
06-05-2006, 11:40 AM
NBC owns the rights to weekend coverage which means ESPN2 cannot show anything until after NBC has aired theirs. So whenever NBC gets around to showing whatever taped matches at whatever time they want to show it then ESPN2 can show their coverage which is long after all the matches have been completed.

nobama
06-05-2006, 12:19 PM
They don't have this problem in golf. Of course that's a more popular sport here in the USA. But you get to see golf live every weekend and even the events played overseas like British Open are carried live. I don't know about the slams but I believe the PGA owns the rights to all the other official tournaments. What exactly does the ATP/WTA have ownership of? I mean why is it that the finals of the Nasdaq 100 are carried live on network tv but not the Pacific Life?

nobama
06-05-2006, 12:25 PM
In ESPN2-speak, "Grand Slam network" means taped matches -- even from prior years -- of Americans, Hingis, and most especially, Sharapova (recall that ESPN stands for Eat Sharapova's Pussy Now, which is what all the ESPN execs wish they could do). :help: The "Grand Slam network" would never broadcast great match-ups between non-American players like Ancic and Robredo, except for finals, semis, and sometimes QFs. Plus, ESPN2 understands its viewers and is so right-on that we'd rather see the montage/listen to theme song that is shown ad naseum when they come back from commercials and that we also prefer when they cut away from matches and honor us with the privilege of watching Chris Fowler and Brad Gilbert sitting at their desk and gracing us with their pearls of wisdom. :toothy: And it gets better this Friday when, at least in the Mountain time zone, neither men's semi will be broadcast live by NBC, in a very tight race for the most incompetent network with ESPN2. The fun continues. :cuckoo:This whole thing about only covering Americans is getting so old. The majority of tennis I've watched on ESPN this past week has not featured Americans. And they have not shown any taped matches from prior years. :rolleyes: Maybe they've done that in the past but they're not doing it now. There's no Americans left on the mens side of the draw so if ESPN was as bad as you say they wouldn't even have live coverage today. And you must never have watched a PGA slam because they do the same thing....the first half hour or so is garbage, taped pieces, profiles of players, all about Jack and Tiger while there is live golf happening.

partygirl
06-06-2006, 12:25 AM
They don't have this problem in golf. Of course that's a more popular sport here in the USA.
this is shameful....GOLF, GOLF?!? WTF

at least tennis can be sexy sometimes...is'nt that what the U.S is all about? :devil: :worship:
-the concept that golf is a bigger sport here makes me ILL. :rolleyes:

also just to let espn know:
"PAINTBALL & POKER ARE NOT SPORTS!" :mad: :o

NicoFan
06-06-2006, 12:35 AM
They don't have this problem in golf. Of course that's a more popular sport here in the USA. But you get to see golf live every weekend and even the events played overseas like British Open are carried live. I don't know about the slams but I believe the PGA owns the rights to all the other official tournaments. What exactly does the ATP/WTA have ownership of? I mean why is it that the finals of the Nasdaq 100 are carried live on network tv but not the Pacific Life?

Okay certainly not an expert on this.

But I was watching a show on TTC with Mark Miles, the former CEO of the ATP. And he explained that unlike other sports, the ATP doesn't hold the TV rights - each tournament makes their own TV deals.

My personal humble opinion ;) but instead of de Villiers trying to make round robin tournaments out of all the small tournaments :rolleyes: , his #1 priority should be to work on getting TV rights under the ATP umbrella.

Looking at what other sports have done, there are a lot of ways that they can get more tennis on TV

Because even though live stream is cool etc. etc., I would rather watch matches on my TV than on a 3 inch by 3 inch screen on my computer. :p