ESPN annoyed me so much that I called them...........here's their explanation [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

ESPN annoyed me so much that I called them...........here's their explanation

mangoes
03-17-2005, 04:59 PM
So during a break I had in my morning schedule, I decided to call over to ESPN and ask them if they had any intention of carrying the Fed/Lju match.

Answer in summary:

Unless it rains, nope. The rating are higher when the match involves Americans. Well I exclaimed that "it's roger federer, the no. 1 tennis player in world. How could you guys think we wouldn't be interested??" Then it was pointed out that they are carrying live matches today including Henman and Canas. I also asked about them considering working out something with The Tennis Channel to carry the matches that don't give them ratings. In summary the answer to this is, ESPN's international arms prevent them from doing that because while they may not air a match in the American market, they are probably airing it in another market, so they have to hold on to the rights. Well that does make sense, even though, I am still annoyed.


Before I called over to ESPN, I had called Indian Wells and inquired about the match being shown. Well a lovely lady returned my call within a sec of my hanging up with ESPN, and said that she had been receiving a lot of calls about the match. She said that when they purchased timeslots from ESPN, the draw wasn't out yet, so what happened couldn't be helped. She also said that when they decided to rerun a tape of Agassi/Fed 2004 match the other day on ESPN, they received a lot of angry phone calls...........that shocked me.........

Well I am just more confused and the world of television seems complicated. I just thought I would post a summary of these explanations for anyone else that's wondering, as I did. Have a nice day at work everyone.

CHOW

Lee
03-17-2005, 05:04 PM
Nothing new from ESPN here. We're quite used to this explanation.

oneandonlyhsn
03-17-2005, 05:15 PM
ESPN is pathetic, plain and simple. We need a better network that would challenge their ratings.

BiancaUL
03-17-2005, 05:28 PM
Until the Neilson system is changed or totally removed from the ad rate equation, there's a fat chance of any network taking that 'risk.'

ESPN or whoever isn't about making the tennis fanatic happy. They're about the bottom line, especially when it comes to a sport like tennis that's been declining here for about 10 years in popularity. Agassi, the Williams sisters, Roddick, Sharapova... are the ones that will always be prioritized here TV-wise, because they're a 'steady' choice for ratings (at least in comparison to the other players when they are shown).

It sucks, but there's nothing that any petition, angry phone call, or writing campaign is going to do about it. Other than maybe make you feel like you got something off your chest or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, wasted your time.

mangoes
03-17-2005, 05:33 PM
It sucks, but there's nothing that any petition, angry phone call, or writing campaign is going to do about it. Other than maybe make you feel like you got something off your chest or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, wasted your time.


It wasn't an angry phone call, just one about that specific match. But you are correct, no petition or writing campaign will change this.

boliviana
03-17-2005, 05:34 PM
I applaud your persistence . . . very cool.

The problem isn't ESPN, it's the WTA and the ATP. They SUCK at marketing the sport and their players. They have to develop a compelling story or image for ESPN to buy into . . . it's not ESPN's job to do that. The keeper of the sport is responsible for that.

vene
03-17-2005, 05:38 PM
Here's why from the LA Times:
Federer Gets a Late Victory
The top-seeded player defeats Ljubicic, 7-6 (3), 7-6 (4), in a match that stretches into the night.


PACIFIC LIFE OPEN TENNIS TOURNAMENT

By Bill Dwyre, Times Staff Writer


Suddenly, the Pacific Life Open tennis tournament has become "Late Night with Roger Federer."

The Swiss superstar, clearly the top player in the world at the moment, won his way into the quarterfinals with a fourth consecutive victory this year over the pride of Croatia, Ivan Ljubicic. The score was 7-6 (3), 7-6 (4), and ended at 10:59 p.m.







The match didn't begin until 9:12 p.m., 42 minutes after its scheduled 8:30 start. That was because a women's match won by Kim Clijsters over Conchita Martinez went three sets and 1 hour 45 minutes. The start time, a tough sell in a retirement area, where bedtime was close to match time, still drew a slightly more than half-full stadium.

The Federer match was put in that later-than-normal time slot because Federer is near to international rock-star status and the European television group that has paid for international TV rights to this event wants to be able to put his matches live into all parts of the world, especially Asia and Australia, as often as it can.

His quarterfinal against Nicolas Kiefer of Germany will be played tonight and will also start at 8:30.

American TV does not pay to carry this event, but rather has a marketing deal in which the tournament pays to have its event on TV and is allowed to sell commercial time on the domestic telecasts.

The first set lived up to the hype, Federer finishing a 7-3 tiebreaker with a 127-mph ace at 10:03 p.m.

Neither player had a break point and both hit lines like they were playing with radar guns instead of rackets. If there had been any expectation of a falloff in play from Ljubicic after his Davis Cup heroics 10 days ago, there were no signs of that.

Matter of fact, the only real difference between the two in the first set, in addition to the swagger of confidence that Federer has carried since his second Wimbledon title last year, was the fraction of an inch that Ljubicic missed a little lob after chasing down a drop shot by Federer at 2-2 of the tiebreaker. That made it 3-2 for Federer, with the next two points on his serve.

And once given that edge, Federer made the best of it, winning the next point with a half-volley drop shot that mortals can't make, then reflexing back a volley after drawing Ljubicic into the net. Ljubicic saved one set point at 2-6, but then it was Federer's chance to serve. And then came the ace. In the first set, Federer won 41 points, Ljubicic 37.

Federer's only loss this season came at the hands of Marat Safin in the Australian Open semifinals. But Ljubicic has come close. He lost in the final at Doha, Qatar, in early January, 6-3, 6-1, then got much closer a month later in Rotterdam, dropping that final, 5-7, 7-5, 7-6 (5). The next week, they did it again in Dubai, Federer winning, 6-1, 6-7 (6), 6-3.

This is March, and between the two they have pocketed more than $1 million in prize money so far this year. Federer had $731,728 and Ljubicic $361,895, not including whatever the Croatian Tennis Federation paid him for his Davis Cup heroics.

sierra91
03-17-2005, 05:43 PM
Tennis coverage in the US has sucked for ages and ESPN has proven that it's the best at carrying on the mantle of pathetic TV coverage in this country, announcers included. I suggest we put together a consortium, raise a few billion, and by the fucking network.

vene
03-17-2005, 05:44 PM
So during a break I had in my morning schedule, I decided to call over to ESPN and ask them if they had any intention of carrying the Fed/Lju match.

Answer in summary:

Unless it rains, nope. The rating are higher when the match involves Americans. Well I exclaimed that "it's roger federer, the no. 1 tennis player in world. How could you guys think we wouldn't be interested??" Then it was pointed out that they are carrying live matches today including Henman and Canas. I also asked about them considering working out something with The Tennis Channel to carry the matches that don't give them ratings. In summary the answer to this is, ESPN's international arms prevent them from doing that because while they may not air a match in the American market, they are probably airing it in another market, so they have to hold on to the rights. Well that does make sense, even though, I am still annoyed.


Before I called over to ESPN, I had called Indian Wells and inquired about the match being shown. Well a lovely lady returned my call within a sec of my hanging up with ESPN, and said that she had been receiving a lot of calls about the match. She said that when they purchased timeslots from ESPN, the draw wasn't out yet, so what happened couldn't be helped. She also said that when they decided to rerun a tape of Agassi/Fed 2004 match the other day on ESPN, they received a lot of angry phone calls...........that shocked me.........

Well I am just more confused and the world of television seems complicated. I just thought I would post a summary of these explanations for anyone else that's wondering, as I did. Have a nice day at work everyone.

CHOW

Great you called.....pls can you post the #s?

kabuki
03-17-2005, 05:45 PM
I hate ESPN.

Saumon
03-17-2005, 05:48 PM
does anyone know a country where tennis coverage isnt pathetic? :confused:

BiancaUL
03-17-2005, 05:51 PM
The Federer match was put in that later-than-normal time slot because Federer is near to international rock-star status and the European television group that has paid for international TV rights to this event wants to be able to put his matches live into all parts of the world, especially Asia and Australia, as often as it can.

And in reverse, that's again kinda why ESPN didn't show it here. It didn't pay for them to continue live coverage, at that hour, for him in this market.

The problem isn't ESPN, it's the WTA and the ATP. They SUCK at marketing the sport and their players. They have to develop a compelling story or image for ESPN to buy into . . . it's not ESPN's job to do that. The keeper of the sport is responsible for that.

I agree, but I don't know how much more the ATP or WTA can do here without some serious network backing though.

The best shot either have of getting the non-chosen-by-ESPN ones out there is if TTC gets picked up by more providers and they advertise the living hell out of the channel in all types of media.

mangoes
03-17-2005, 05:56 PM
Great you called.....pls can you post the #s?

ESPN: 860-766-2236

jtipson
03-17-2005, 05:58 PM
The Federer match was put in that later-than-normal time slot because Federer is near to international rock-star status and the European television group that has paid for international TV rights to this event wants to be able to put his matches live into all parts of the world, especially Asia and Australia, as often as it can

Hmm. I wonder which "European television group" that is then - Sky perhaps?

Pity they weren't planning to air that match in the UK, even if it was 4:30 am.

sierra91
03-17-2005, 06:01 PM
The Federer match was put in that later-than-normal time slot because Federer is near to international rock-star status and the European television group that has paid for international TV rights to this event wants to be able to put his matches live into all parts of the world, especially Asia and Australia, as often as it can.
Very interesting ... thanks for posting this. One more reason to move to Australia.

vene
03-17-2005, 06:22 PM
Tennis coverage in the US has sucked for ages and ESPN has proven that it's the best at carrying on the mantle of pathetic TV coverage in this country, announcers included. I suggest we put together a consortium, raise a few billion, and by the fucking network.
Great idea! :D

khyber
03-17-2005, 06:26 PM
And in reverse, that's again kinda why ESPN didn't show it here. It didn't pay for them to continue live coverage, at that hour, for him in this market.However, ESPN Desportes showed the match at 9am my local time today. I don't see why the regular ESPN couldn't have also offered a delayed version of it in the morning while nothing else is going on. At least people could have taped it if they were at work.

Havok
03-17-2005, 06:39 PM
I don't understand why people are getting so pissy of the fact that they aren't showing every single Federer win. Didn't they show his second and third round wins on ESPN? I'm asking this because although TSN does show whatever ESPN does, we don't get the exact same hours like they do so we don't get all their coverage. There was loads of Federer at the Australian Open, there will be more Federer matches here at IW, and in the couple of weeks to come when the NAsdaq gets aired on tv because he's #1 and he's winning all the time. ESPN can't NOT show him, they'll have to show him. Obviously they won't show him nearly as much as Roddick/Agassi/Williams/Sharapova and co. for reasons stated to death, but he is on quite a lot.

boliviana
03-17-2005, 06:45 PM
Tennis coverage in the US has sucked for ages and ESPN has proven that it's the best at carrying on the mantle of pathetic TV coverage in this country, announcers included. I suggest we put together a consortium, raise a few billion, and by the fucking network.

I thought that was what the Tennis Channel is supposed to be about!!! They don't seem to have any leverage . . .

BiancaUL
03-17-2005, 07:06 PM
However, ESPN Desportes showed the match at 9am my local time today. I don't see why the regular ESPN couldn't have also offered a delayed version of it in the morning while nothing else is going on. At least people could have taped it if they were at work.

ESPN2 has that insipid Cold Pizza show on in the morning that they will never not show and ESPN couldn't have run it because the MLB steriod hearings started at 10 am.

tangerine_dream
03-17-2005, 07:37 PM
Unless it rains, nope. The rating are higher when the match involves Americans.

That explains why they showed us the Fed/Fish match. :lol:

This is why we need more top American players; so that we'll get a chance to actually see other players. ;)

PaulieM
03-17-2005, 08:23 PM
I don't understand why people are getting so pissy of the fact that they aren't showing every single Federer win. Didn't they show his second and third round wins on ESPN? I'm asking this because although TSN does show whatever ESPN does, we don't get the exact same hours like they do so we don't get all their coverage. There was loads of Federer at the Australian Open, there will be more Federer matches here at IW, and in the couple of weeks to come when the NAsdaq gets aired on tv because he's #1 and he's winning all the time. ESPN can't NOT show him, they'll have to show him. Obviously they won't show him nearly as much as Roddick/Agassi/Williams/Sharapova and co. for reasons stated to death, but he is on quite a lot.
people complain because it sucks to see the easy matches that they often show, like andy's ridiculously easy win over novak. people just want to see intense matches with really good tennis :)

athie
03-17-2005, 08:30 PM
Im actually quite horrified at some of the comments in this thread I would have honestly thought the USA would have had this covered obv not sounds to me like its a disaster. I really sympathise with you guys Ive got SKY Sports etc in the UK, and with the interactive option Im spoilt for choice on which match I want to watch.

sierra91
03-17-2005, 08:32 PM
I thought that was what the Tennis Channel is supposed to be about!!! They don't seem to have any leverage . . . Me too. But I can't even get TTC. Hoping the recent Comcast deal will change that.

And is it only me or when ESPN actually shows a match do you wish you could turn the announcers off without losing the sound from the court? Are Cliff Drysdale and Patrick McEnroe getting more idiotic with each match? Does Cliff Drysdale have a clothes fetish ... it's all he talks about. :rolleyes: At least Mary Carillo hasn't made an appearance yet. I swear the people at ESPN are doing everything they can to make sure I have a complete breakdown and wind up institionalized. :banghead: My husband is probably behind this. :eek:

sierra91
03-17-2005, 08:33 PM
people complain because it sucks to see the easy matches that they often show, like andy's ridiculously easy win over novak. people just want to see intense matches with really good tennis :) You said it. Isn't ESPN2 showing Roddick's 4th round match again this afternoon? Couldn't they show a tape of Fed/Luby? Just heard from someone who is at the tournament and she said it was by far the most exciting match so far.

World Beater
03-17-2005, 09:03 PM
Naldo, fed vs luby is not just a regular cakewalk match for roger... thats why ppl were angry that they didnt show the hottest player on tour vs #1... I would have no objections if fed was playing anyone else, but this was not just "any" match.

The same argument can be extrapolated to safin vs fed(ao) when they didnt air it live...man they realized their stupid mistake and immediately put it on classic

Cervantes
03-17-2005, 09:29 PM
In the Netherlands it's even worse, no tv channel has bought the rights to show the Master Series, so I can't watch anything, I have to go with livescores only.

Doesn't ESPN have a digital service like Sky Sports? From what I hear Sky's digital service is great and you can choose which matches you want to watch.

El Legenda
03-17-2005, 09:53 PM
, not including whatever the Croatian Tennis Federation paid him for his Davis Cup heroics.

hahahah probly not shit...They dont like him...many people in croatia dont think Ivan is croatian..cuz his mom is bosnian

boliviana
03-17-2005, 10:12 PM
Are Cliff Drysdale and Patrick McEnroe getting more idiotic with each match?

Well based on their most recent exchange 10 mintues ago, I would have to say yes. Cliff, the dear old fart, is/was perplexed why someone named Guillermo might be called willie for a nickname.

???????

for someone so well travelled, you would expect some basic class or knowledge or something remotely cultured?

and i don't mind Mary Carillo that much . .. she's better than Pam Shriver or Brad Gilbert.

ftd999
03-17-2005, 10:22 PM
Here's why from the LA Times:
Federer Gets a Late Victory
The top-seeded player defeats Ljubicic, 7-6 (3), 7-6 (4), in a match that stretches into the night.


PACIFIC LIFE OPEN TENNIS TOURNAMENT

By Bill Dwyre, Times Staff Writer


Suddenly, the Pacific Life Open tennis tournament has become "Late Night with Roger Federer."

The Swiss superstar, clearly the top player in the world at the moment, won his way into the quarterfinals with a fourth consecutive victory this year over the pride of Croatia, Ivan Ljubicic. The score was 7-6 (3), 7-6 (4), and ended at 10:59 p.m.







The match didn't begin until 9:12 p.m., 42 minutes after its scheduled 8:30 start. That was because a women's match won by Kim Clijsters over Conchita Martinez went three sets and 1 hour 45 minutes. The start time, a tough sell in a retirement area, where bedtime was close to match time, still drew a slightly more than half-full stadium.

The Federer match was put in that later-than-normal time slot because Federer is near to international rock-star status and the European television group that has paid for international TV rights to this event wants to be able to put his matches live into all parts of the world, especially Asia and Australia, as often as it can.

His quarterfinal against Nicolas Kiefer of Germany will be played tonight and will also start at 8:30.

American TV does not pay to carry this event, but rather has a marketing deal in which the tournament pays to have its event on TV and is allowed to sell commercial time on the domestic telecasts.

The first set lived up to the hype, Federer finishing a 7-3 tiebreaker with a 127-mph ace at 10:03 p.m.

Neither player had a break point and both hit lines like they were playing with radar guns instead of rackets. If there had been any expectation of a falloff in play from Ljubicic after his Davis Cup heroics 10 days ago, there were no signs of that.

Matter of fact, the only real difference between the two in the first set, in addition to the swagger of confidence that Federer has carried since his second Wimbledon title last year, was the fraction of an inch that Ljubicic missed a little lob after chasing down a drop shot by Federer at 2-2 of the tiebreaker. That made it 3-2 for Federer, with the next two points on his serve.

And once given that edge, Federer made the best of it, winning the next point with a half-volley drop shot that mortals can't make, then reflexing back a volley after drawing Ljubicic into the net. Ljubicic saved one set point at 2-6, but then it was Federer's chance to serve. And then came the ace. In the first set, Federer won 41 points, Ljubicic 37.

Federer's only loss this season came at the hands of Marat Safin in the Australian Open semifinals. But Ljubicic has come close. He lost in the final at Doha, Qatar, in early January, 6-3, 6-1, then got much closer a month later in Rotterdam, dropping that final, 5-7, 7-5, 7-6 (5). The next week, they did it again in Dubai, Federer winning, 6-1, 6-7 (6), 6-3.

This is March, and between the two they have pocketed more than $1 million in prize money so far this year. Federer had $731,728 and Ljubicic $361,895, not including whatever the Croatian Tennis Federation paid him for his Davis Cup heroics.

Thank for posting this, it's very informative :) . I am now so annoyed that I didn't get to see this match.

And thanks to the poster who called. If enough people keep bothering them, maybe they'll start to get a clue.

blosson
03-17-2005, 10:23 PM
Im actually quite horrified at some of the comments in this thread I would have honestly thought the USA would have had this covered obv not sounds to me like its a disaster. I really sympathise with you guys Ive got SKY Sports etc in the UK, and with the interactive option Im spoilt for choice on which match I want to watch.

lucky you. I got all sky sports and eurosport on ntl cable and non of them are showing tennis at the moment, not even when henman is playing which is now... sucks

sucks even more i can not put an anthena is my 'precious' protected building...

ftd999
03-17-2005, 10:24 PM
And in reverse, that's again kinda why ESPN didn't show it here. It didn't pay for them to continue live coverage, at that hour, for him in this market.


No, if they really have the rights, they could throw it over to ESPN Classic after Agassi. That match (Federer) would get higher ratings than the crap they show from 20 years ago, right?

ftd999
03-17-2005, 10:31 PM
I don't understand why people are getting so pissy of the fact that they aren't showing every single Federer win. Didn't they show his second and third round wins on ESPN? I'm asking this because although TSN does show whatever ESPN does, we don't get the exact same hours like they do so we don't get all their coverage. There was loads of Federer at the Australian Open, there will be more Federer matches here at IW, and in the couple of weeks to come when the NAsdaq gets aired on tv because he's #1 and he's winning all the time. ESPN can't NOT show him, they'll have to show him. Obviously they won't show him nearly as much as Roddick/Agassi/Williams/Sharapova and co. for reasons stated to death, but he is on quite a lot.

It's just the question of why does ESPN bother to go buy the rights, and then do such a bad job of coverage? You know the Tennis Channel would do such a better job of coverage, why not just let them have it? I can't believe tennis is a ratings bonanza for ESPN anyway when they've got poker, basketball, football, and sportscenter.

And why wouldn't we be pissy when the top player in the world plays the hottest player on tour in a masters event? And it sounds like it turned out to be a great match.

nkhera1
03-17-2005, 10:52 PM
I agree that ESPN's tennis coverage sucked, but when did you want them to show the match? If I'm not mistaken they buy slots to show the event just like any other sport. My biggest gripe is that they show the wrong players and don't show enough tennis but when should they have shown the Federer vs. Ljubicic match?

boliviana
03-17-2005, 11:06 PM
got give'em credit now . . . they are still showing the henamn-canas match and it's beyond the slot.

agree, it's the players they show . . . also they seem unable to give summaries with highlights or go between two matches . . . i guess go with the flow?

ftd999
03-17-2005, 11:08 PM
Me too. But I can't even get TTC. Hoping the recent Comcast deal will change that.

And is it only me or when ESPN actually shows a match do you wish you could turn the announcers off without losing the sound from the court? Are Cliff Drysdale and Patrick McEnroe getting more idiotic with each match? Does Cliff Drysdale have a clothes fetish ... it's all he talks about. :rolleyes: At least Mary Carillo hasn't made an appearance yet. I swear the people at ESPN are doing everything they can to make sure I have a complete breakdown and wind up institionalized. :banghead: My husband is probably behind this. :eek:

I absolutely agree with this. Can you imagine, a match with the sound of the hitting but no annoucers? I wish this was an option. And, yes, certain other people could be in the booth and it would be a lot worse.

I kind of liked TNT's coverage when they had Wimbledon with Courier, Marv Albert, and someone else who I can't remember. I always like the US Open coverage on USA as well (hope to God ESPN doesn't ruin that also), but I'd prefer just the sounds of the match :)

ftd999
03-17-2005, 11:18 PM
I agree that ESPN's tennis coverage sucked, but when did you want them to show the match? If I'm not mistaken they buy slots to show the event just like any other sport. My biggest gripe is that they show the wrong players and don't show enough tennis but when should they have shown the Federer vs. Ljubicic match?

They have like ten ESPN channels, they could show it somewhere. Even if its a replay at 3am or something. Their coverage is just odd. Yesterday, they showed Kuznetsova and Dementieva (which was a good match) which doesn't make much sense at all. Neither player is #1 and they're not American. Anyone know why they would bother showing that, or did one of the tech guys just screw up and think it was the Russian broadcast? Or maybe that same tech guy just got Sharapova mixed up with Dementieva :p ?

BiancaUL
03-18-2005, 12:00 AM
No, if they really have the rights, they could throw it over to ESPN Classic after Agassi. That match (Federer) would get higher ratings than the crap they show from 20 years ago, right?

True... but I think in the past year, the number of households that actually have ESPN Classic has decreased from a not-so-outstanding number previously, so that might not appease the same folks who are clamoring to see it.

And would it really be cost effective for them to do it (shuffling programming at the last minute, extra broadcasting/shooting, etc.)? Probably not.

It's just the question of why does ESPN bother to go buy the rights, and then do such a bad job of coverage?

Because enough people still watch it (and more people watch their 'preferred' players' matches) to justify the way they handle things.

mangoes
03-18-2005, 12:17 AM
Im actually quite horrified at some of the comments in this thread I would have honestly thought the USA would have had this covered obv not sounds to me like its a disaster. I really sympathise with you guys Ive got SKY Sports etc in the UK, and with the interactive option Im spoilt for choice on which match I want to watch.


You guys have an option to choose which tennis match you want to watch??? How cool!!! :worship: :worship:

Pea
03-18-2005, 12:20 AM
Eh. Everything is a business. Not surprised.

mangoes
03-18-2005, 12:22 AM
It's just the question of why does ESPN bother to go buy the rights, and then do such a bad job of coverage? You know the Tennis Channel would do such a better job of coverage, why not just let them have it? I can't believe tennis is a ratings bonanza for ESPN anyway when they've got poker, basketball, football, and sportscenter.

And why wouldn't we be pissy when the top player in the world plays the hottest player on tour in a masters event? And it sounds like it turned out to be a great match.


Thank you, and why isnt the tennis channel fighting for a bigger chunck of this action. If they fought harder, I'm sure they would get a lot of subscribers. I understand why ESPN wants to own all the rights, but everything can be negotiated.

ftd999
03-18-2005, 12:28 AM
Thank you, and why isnt the tennis channel fighting for a bigger chunck of this action. If they fought harder, I'm sure they would get a lot of subscribers. I understand why ESPN wants to own all the rights, but everything can be negotiated.

:yeah:

Yeah, I pointed this out in one of the other umpteen ESPN complaint threads. It seems like the Tennis Channel could reach an agreement with ESPN to broadcast a match like Federer yesterday, even though ESPN had rights to it, but only in areas where ESPN didn't plan to show it (i.e. America, not overseas, where they apparently did show it), and only at a time when ESPN wasn't showing Roddick, Agassi, or Serena (when ESPN's tennis coverage is off air).

But the question is, does Tennis Channel have the money to do this, and, if not, then what does ESPN get out of it, other than appeasing tennis fans?

mangoes
03-18-2005, 12:33 AM
:yeah:

Yeah, I pointed this out in one of the other umpteen ESPN complaint threads. It seems like the Tennis Channel could reach an agreement with ESPN to broadcast a match like Federer yesterday, even though ESPN had rights to it, but only in areas where ESPN didn't plan to show it (i.e. America, not overseas, where they apparently did show it), and only at a time when ESPN wasn't showing Roddick, Agassi, or Serena (when ESPN's tennis coverage is off air).

But the question is, does Tennis Channel have the money to do this, and, if not, then what does ESPN get out of it, other than appeasing tennis fans?



Good point about the money. After all, The Tennis Channel isn't worldwide, so they can't exactly screw ESPN out of business. But I think you are right, it is a money issue. But if The Tennis Channel worked closely with the WTA and ATP, just sitting here, I can think of many ways to begin to sqeeze ESPN into allowing the exta matches on The Tennis Channel.

Rogiman
03-18-2005, 12:40 AM
She also said that when they decided to rerun a tape of Agassi/Fed 2004 match the other day on ESPN, they received a lot of angry phone calls.........

How is life in Dumbland? :rolleyes:

Scotso
03-18-2005, 01:21 AM
Eh. Everything is a business. Not surprised.

Yes, and ESPN is doing what makes them the most money. That's what a business should do.

It sucks for us, but that's capitalism.

ftd999
03-18-2005, 01:44 AM
Good point about the money. After all, The Tennis Channel isn't worldwide, so they can't exactly screw ESPN out of business. But I think you are right, it is a money issue. But if The Tennis Channel worked closely with the WTA and ATP, just sitting here, I can think of many ways to begin to sqeeze ESPN into allowing the exta matches on The Tennis Channel.

Alright, let's here it. How do we squeeze ESPN? I'm game :) Keep in mind though, aren't they owned by the giant mouse? I don't think anyone can push the almighty rat around :p

Golfnduck
03-18-2005, 01:46 AM
I would have much rather had Roger's match today than Tim's. But ESPN is :retard: like that.

Hendu
03-18-2005, 02:44 AM
does anyone know a country where tennis coverage isnt pathetic? :confused:

I don't have any complaints about the coverage of the ATP Tour here in Argentina...

ESPN (Latin America) and ESPN+ (for South America) show the Grand Slams, the Masters Series and the Masters Cup.

We get to see almost all Latin American players (specially argentine, I guess because they are more), and also the most important matches involving foreign players.

We have two other channels that show many other ATP Tournaments: Fox Sports (for Latin America) and TyC Sports (an Argentine sports channel).

The Tennis coverage has grown a lot following the results of the local players...

:wavey:

Billabong
03-18-2005, 02:50 AM
;) I see!!

mangoes
03-18-2005, 03:15 AM
Alright, let's here it. How do we squeeze ESPN? I'm game :) Keep in mind though, aren't they owned by the giant mouse? I don't think anyone can push the almighty rat around :p


lolololol............It's just the business side of me that was thinking. I think before the Tennis Channel can come within a mile of sqeezing ESPN, the ATP and WTA needs to invest more time and money promoting Tennis in a America. The game just isn't promoted. If I had a say in The Tennis Channel, I would join the ATP and WTA in a very big promotion. But I think the ATP and WTA have a very big problem within themselves. I think they are in need of new leadership that isn't from within, but from the outside. Someone with vision whose goal is to make the game of tennis popular in America. Consider this interesting fact, Serena Williams is one of the most popular athletes in America.........whether you like her or not isn't the issue........ Is she used to the fullest potential to promote tennis???? NO. Instead we have John McEnroe and Mary Carillo filling the media with extremely negative statements about Serena. I started out as a WTA fan. Today, I will rarely be caught watching a WTA match because it is full of petty nonsense and incompetent players. How can the game of tennis be promoted with this image??? Someone needs to be fired from the WTA administrative offices. WTA is branding itself in a negative way and their image is poor. As for the ATP, Sampras was a big draw, he is no longer there. Most Americans consider Agassi pass his prime and wonder why he is still playing. As for Roddick, while popular, is considered a player full of himself without any results to support his projected image. Now don't get pissed, I am just being realistic. Personally I like Andy Roddick, but I don't know many people that like him. Most consider him full of "hot air" . The big draws within the ATP come from outside America, so the ATP has an automatic problem. Again, someone with vision and creativity is needed to jump that hurdle.

I think, only then, will ESPN even consider tennis important enough to schedule a meeting.

disclaimer: Leadership in America. I am not commenting on elsewhere.

ftd999
03-18-2005, 03:38 AM
lolololol............It's just the business side of me that was thinking. I think before the Tennis Channel can come within a mile of sqeezing ESPN, the ATP and WTA needs to invest more time and money promoting Tennis in a America. The game just isn't promoted. If I had a say in The Tennis Channel, I would join the ATP and WTA in a very big promotion. But I think the ATP and WTA have a very big problem within themselves. I think they are in need of new leadership that isn't from within, but from the outside. Someone with vision whose goal is to make the game of tennis popular in America. Consider this interesting fact, Serena Williams is one of the most popular athletes in America.........whether you like her or not isn't the issue........ Is she used to the fullest potential to promote tennis???? NO. Instead we have John McEnroe and Mary Carillo filling the media with extremely negative statements about Serena. I started out as a WTA fan. Today, I will rarely be caught watching a WTA match because it is full of petty nonsense and incompetent players. How can the game of tennis be promoted with this image??? Someone needs to be fired from the WTA administrative offices. WTA is branding itself in a negative way and their image is poor. As for the ATP, Sampras was a big draw, he is no longer there. Most Americans consider Agassi pass his prime and wonder why he is still playing. As for Roddick, while popular, is considered a player full of himself without any results to support his projected image. Now don't get pissed, I am just being realistic. Personally I like Andy Roddick, but I don't know many people that like him. Most consider him full of "hot air" . The big draws within the ATP come from outside America, so the ATP has an automatic problem. Again, someone with vision and creativity is needed to jump that hurdle.

I think, only then, will ESPN even consider tennis important enough to schedule a meeting.

disclaimer: Leadership in America. I am not commenting on elsewhere.

Maybe you're right. I don't know because I've been a tennis fan for so long that I have trouble judging how well the sport is promoted, etc. I watch regardless of promotion, or whether Americans are doing well or playing, etc. I do agree though, American tennis is likely about to face a big reality check when Agassi quits. Unless someone steps up soon. If that doesn't happen, I think ESPN will start broadcasting more American women's matches instead of top ranked men (from other countries). Like they were doing a couple years back.

nkhera1
03-18-2005, 03:50 AM
I don't even get the tennis channel in my region from my tv provider. :(

Another thing i don't like is that after the Sharapova match instead of showing the Federer vs. Kiefer match they show reruns of this evenings match. :(

ftd999
03-18-2005, 03:57 AM
I don't even get the tennis channel in my region from my tv provider. :(

Another thing i don't like is that after the Sharapova match instead of showing the Federer vs. Kiefer match they show reruns of this evenings match. :(

Yep, I'm watching it and thinking the same thing. They just showed this match a couple hours ago, and everyone knows the score. And I know Federer is on right now. Annoying.

ftd999
03-18-2005, 04:03 AM
I don't even get the tennis channel in my region from my tv provider. :(

Another thing i don't like is that after the Sharapova match instead of showing the Federer vs. Kiefer match they show reruns of this evenings match. :(

Interesting. They're throwing in 'bonus' coverage of Sharapova's semi with Davenport tommorow, a rerun of her live match (which they're not showing) at midnight. But they wouldn't throw in bonus of Federer tonight against Kiefer or last night against Ljubicic. They'd rather show the NIT.

Not surprising, but disappointing.

Hendu
03-18-2005, 04:17 AM
Yep, I'm watching it and thinking the same thing. They just showed this match a couple hours ago, and everyone knows the score. And I know Federer is on right now. Annoying.

WOW that sucks...

How strange these things are!!!... the tournament is being played in the US, but you can't watch it... while ESPN is showing it LIVE here... :confused:

3-3 Federer serving

:wavey:

ftd999
03-18-2005, 04:25 AM
True... but I think in the past year, the number of households that actually have ESPN Classic has decreased from a not-so-outstanding number previously, so that might not appease the same folks who are clamoring to see it.

And would it really be cost effective for them to do it (shuffling programming at the last minute, extra broadcasting/shooting, etc.)? Probably not.
.

Yeah, these are good points. They had a boxing match from 1967 on Espn Classic during the Federer / Kiefer match today :retard: I don't know how much more cost it would've been to show the top player in the world since they signed off about 10 minutes after he started play.

Just seems like a network that gave a shit about tennis might try and find a way to get the best player on the planet on somehow. They've somehow managed to squeeze bonus coverage of Sharapove in tommorow. I think baboons are running things over there.

This is all getting too negative though. I'm not going to post about ESPN's stupid decisions anymore until the next time they do something really atrocious :)

ftd999
03-18-2005, 04:30 AM
WOW that sucks...

How strange these things are!!!... the tournament is being played in the US, but you can't watch it... while ESPN is showing it LIVE here... :confused:

3-3 Federer serving

:wavey:

:haha:

Yeah, its a strange world. Well, at least someone is getting to watch it. Enjoy the match. I'll see if I can get into this classic 1967' Benvenuti / Griffith boxing match :woohoo: . Or perhaps a little NIT 1st round. Hmmm :scratch:

Hendu
03-18-2005, 04:40 AM
:haha:

Yeah, its a strange world. Well, at least someone is getting to watch it. Enjoy the match.

I will... watching Federer play is breath taking... :speakles:

I'll see if I can get into this classic 1967' Benvenuti / Griffith boxing match :woohoo: . Or perhaps a little NIT 1st round. Hmmm :scratch:

:boxing: :tape: :tape: :tape:

what about changing the channel?... boycott BSPN :ras:

Maxpowers
03-18-2005, 04:43 AM
I was really mad at espn during the Australian Open. They would only have a few hours scheduled for their matches, and every single match went over the scheduled time. The only way a 3 set match would fit would be if it was straight sets and very easy.

The reason this bothered me is cause I was recording the matches with my replay tv(a dvr). I missed the end of the 1st match I recorded, and ever since then I had to record these 1/2 hour shows at the end of the match for the next 2-3 hours.

The only good thing about espn is that they got rid of the ridiculous scoring system they had last year and their banner on the bottom isn't as big as the tennis channel. Still, I wish they'd get rid of that thing completely. If I want to see sports scores I'll look them up online or in the paper. I don't need to see them when I'm watching a tennis match.

ftd999
03-18-2005, 04:44 AM
I will... watching Federer play is breath taking... :speakles:



:boxing: :tape: :tape: :tape:

what about changing the channel?... boycott BSPN :ras:

I wish..I..had..the..strength. But no, I don't. Too many good matches tommorow. Besides, what'll they care?

Alright, no more ESPN bashing. At least they're showing the match somewhere, which means there is someone within the organization capable of making a good decision. So, there is hope :)

ftd999
03-18-2005, 04:51 AM
I was really mad at espn during the Australian Open. They would only have a few hours scheduled for their matches, and every single match went over the scheduled time. The only way a 3 set match would fit would be if it was straight sets and very easy.


Yeah, this type of stuff has been going on forever. A lot of times, when you know a match is on tape delay, you can tell who's going to win because you know when they're going off the air. Sometimes (especially the major networks) will skip entire sets to 'save time'.

For a long time, USA would routinely cut matches off at the end of their coverage, but they've gotten better about staying on later (hell, what else are they going to show, late night with Gilbert Gottfried?). And on and on, you get the idea. The magazing 'tennis week' used to do some particularly harsh criticism of tennis television coverage. But for all the whining, tennis coverage probably isn't changing anytime soon :sad: .

Hendu
03-18-2005, 04:56 AM
Alright, no more ESPN bashing. At least they're showing the match somewhere, which means there is someone within the organization capable of making a good decision. So, there is hope :)

I don't think they are going to have a better coverage unless the audience is interested in watching foreign players...

ESPN Latin America and ESPN+ show a lot of tennis because there are a lot of South American players having great results...

not many years ago, our best player was Hernan Gumy :tape: ... only the "real" tennis fans cared about watching tennis... and thats not enough for the sports channels...

mangoes
03-18-2005, 05:05 AM
Interesting. They're throwing in 'bonus' coverage of Sharapova's semi with Davenport tommorow, a rerun of her live match (which they're not showing) at midnight. But they wouldn't throw in bonus of Federer tonight against Kiefer or last night against Ljubicic. They'd rather show the NIT.

Not surprising, but disappointing.


When I heard them say that the match was added, I could have screamed............AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH. I guess here are the advantages to satellite.

sierra91
03-18-2005, 05:07 AM
Unless I'm reading both the TV schedule on the Pac. Life Open site and on ESPN's website wrong (which has been known to happen), it looks like only one of the men's semis will be broadcast. Please, someone, tell me I'm wrong?????

mangoes
03-18-2005, 05:09 AM
Unless I'm reading both the TV schedule on the Pac. Life Open site and on ESPN's website wrong (which has been known to happen), it looks like only one of the men's semis will be broadcast. Please, someone, tell me I'm wrong?????


I am choosing to believe that I read it wrong :angel: :angel: :angel: Someone just made a mistake in typing up the schedule.

oneandonlyhsn
03-18-2005, 05:11 AM
I am choosing to believe that I read it wrong :angel: :angel: :angel: Someone just made a mistake in typing up the schedule.

No you are absolutely right. I just dont get ESPN, even with womens tennis they are not showing the Davenport/Sharapova match which features an American and the hottest WTA player right now :confused:

sierra91
03-18-2005, 05:13 AM
I am choosing to believe that I read it wrong :angel: :angel: :angel: Someone just made a mistake in typing up the schedule. Who did you call about the Roger/Ivan match? I'd like to call over there tomorrow morning and find out what the deal is ... but I have a sinking feeling I already known the answer. :banghead:

mangoes
03-18-2005, 05:16 AM
No you are absolutely right. I just dont get ESPN, even with womens tennis they are not showing the Davenport/Sharapova match which features an American and the hottest WTA player right now :confused:

They just announced on ESPN that they are adding that match. :mad: :mad: :mad:

mangoes
03-18-2005, 05:17 AM
Who did you call about the Roger/Ivan match? I'd like to call over there tomorrow morning and find out what the deal is ... but I have a sinking feeling I already known the answer. :banghead:


Number is on the first or second page. But, no tournament cuts out the semifinal matches of the men :angel: :angel: :angel: So it is just a mistake.

ftd999
03-18-2005, 05:18 AM
Unless I'm reading both the TV schedule on the Pac. Life Open site and on ESPN's website wrong (which has been known to happen), it looks like only one of the men's semis will be broadcast. Please, someone, tell me I'm wrong?????

I'd like to tell you you're wrong. But to be honest, nothing would surprise me now. To not show the Federer - Canas match would be beyond ridiculous, but it would be even funnier if they put college putt putt golf on instead. We're so damn powerless to the idiots running ESPN :confused:

yonexforever
03-18-2005, 05:27 AM
Now im really really pissed off at ESPN, this match was probably the best we are going to see at this shit hole of a tournament in the god forsaken desert!!

Roger-No.1
03-18-2005, 05:32 AM
the ones that will always be prioritized here TV-wise, because they're a 'steady' choice for ratings (at least in comparison to the other players when they are shown).
Roger Federer is a steady choice for raitings.

But ESPN doesn't want to know this fact....

and they prefer to lose ratings and money

Blindness...

sierra91
03-18-2005, 05:46 AM
I'd like to tell you you're wrong. But to be honest, nothing would surprise me now. To not show the Federer - Canas match would be beyond ridiculous, but it would be even funnier if they put college putt putt golf on instead. We're so damn powerless to the idiots running ESPN :confused:Just when you think ESPN couldn't get any worse, they find a new way. The only glimmer of hope I have is that it looked like they added an extra women's match tomorrow (I wasn't paying real close attention). But adding the second men's semi is probably too much to hope for. This really sucks.

BiancaUL
03-18-2005, 04:54 PM
Roger Federer is a steady choice for raitings.

But ESPN doesn't want to know this fact....

Worldwide? Undoubtedly.

Here? Sometimes, but he's not as good a guarenteed draw as an American man or a leggy blonde teenage girl is.

*M*
03-18-2005, 10:58 PM
No you are absolutely right. I just dont get ESPN, even with womens tennis they are not showing the Davenport/Sharapova match which features an American and the hottest WTA player right now :confused:
They just announced on ESPN that they are adding that match. :mad: :mad: :mad:Do you think they will still show it, now that Lindsay double-bageled their darling? I didn't want to see the match before, but now I want to see it!

DHfan
03-18-2005, 11:02 PM
tut tut

Lee
03-18-2005, 11:08 PM
Do you think they will still show it, now that Lindsay double-bageled their darling? I didn't want to see the match before, but now I want to see it!

ESPN showed the match LIVE!!! :cool:

mangoes
03-18-2005, 11:08 PM
Do you think they will still show it, now that Lindsay double-bageled their darling? I didn't want to see the match before, but now I want to see it!


I'm wondering the same thing.

sierra91
03-19-2005, 12:32 AM
I am choosing to believe that I read it wrong :angel: :angel: :angel: Someone just made a mistake in typing up the schedule. I had a really long and exhausting day at work so please bear with me because I don't want to get excited over nothing: Just want to make sure you are saying that both men's semifinal matches will be broadcast in the U.S. on either ESPN or ESPN2? Do you know what time? THANK YOU!!!!

mangoes
03-19-2005, 12:54 AM
I had a really long and exhausting day at work so please bear with me because I don't want to get excited over nothing: Just want to make sure you are saying that both men's semifinal matches will be broadcast in the U.S. on either ESPN or ESPN2? Do you know what time? THANK YOU!!!!


Sorry to disappoint you. I was just choosing positive thoughts, hence the angels. No, ESPN isn't showing it.

buddyholly
03-19-2005, 03:29 AM
It still amuses me that all you posters out there still think ESPN should exist only to show what you personally want to see, when you want to see it.
If enough people subscribed to the Tennis Channel it could then afford to buy the rights to every ATP match played. So really, I am totally pissed at tennis fans who do not subscribe to the Tennis Channel. They are the reason we do not see enough tennis.

buddyholly
03-19-2005, 03:33 AM
Incidentally, I am watching Roddick-Moya live on ESPN at the moment. Thank you ESPNdeportes.

arcus
03-19-2005, 04:04 AM
It still amuses me that all you posters out there still think ESPN should exist only to show what you personally want to see, when you want to see it.

Please people....See the big picture.
For ESPN, tennis is a bit player but if they want to make money out of it, they should (get good advice and) promote it in a way that makes the audience grow.

And that means showcasing the greatest talent in the game , regardless of nationality and emphazising the variety of players, so fans can find a personality that they like.

Their effort to ram Roddick down our throats a few years ago was a disaster and came at the expense of americans seeing and enjoying the emergence of federer.

And now that Federer is on top, apparently the new marketing strategy is to push the "big 4". i.e. another way of getting Roddick in the mix.

I dont want to come off as a roddick-hater, cos ive grown to like him well enough, but TV coverage made me hate him in the past, and its still the same crap that they're producing.

i.e. TV execs with bad advice and no imagination....

ESPN are so blind about tennis they would F--K up a borg-mcenroe rivalry.

sierra91
03-19-2005, 05:09 AM
It still amuses me that all you posters out there still think ESPN should exist only to show what you personally want to see, when you want to see it.
If enough people subscribed to the Tennis Channel it could then afford to buy the rights to every ATP match played. So really, I am totally pissed at tennis fans who do not subscribe to the Tennis Channel. They are the reason we do not see enough tennis. I don't usually lose my temper but this is one of the most thoughtless and rude posts I've ever seen. I'm more than happy to pay for the Tennis Channel and have checked almost weekly with TTC and my cable station but it simply is not offered where I live, so I am stuck with ESPN. If it pisses you off so much, why don't you do something so I could get the tennis channel. I'm more than happy to subscribe to it and have been trying to ever since I found out about it. Unforutnately, I have a family to raise and job where I live so I can up and relocate merely because I can't get TTC here ... although ESPN is sorely tempting me to relocate to another country. And, yes, I would like to see the world no. 1 tennis player in at least one match beside the very early rounds. But the point here is not who I or other people personally want to watch. It's about our love for the game of tennis and wanting to see the best players and the best matches. The fact that ESPN is not showing both men's semi finals of a major tournament says more than I can about how pathetic their coverage is. And if you needed mroe proof, explain why, if ESPN chose not to show Federer/Lubi or Federer/Kiefer live, why those matches could not have been broadcast taped instead of reruns of matches that ESPN had already broadcast live of Roddick and Agassi and the American woman. I guess because I was born and live in the U.S., it means that I can't appreciate or won't want tennis unless an American is playing because tennis is all about what country the player is from and it wouldn't occur to me to watch a better match with non-American players because as an American, how could I possibly be interested in an athlete from another country? Yes, you are right ... those at ESPN are so much smarter and I am the idiot because I have the audacity to want to watch this guy who happens by accident to be no. 1 but isn't really as interesting as an American simply by virtue of where he was born. Give me a break. :devil:

smucav
03-19-2005, 05:19 AM
Do you think they will still show it, now that Lindsay double-bageled their darling? I didn't want to see the match before, but now I want to see it!It aired live on ESPN2 due to the Agassi walkover, but it's airing again on ESPN2 after the Roddick/Moya match (the first three games aired during the rain delay).

ftd999
03-19-2005, 05:30 AM
It still amuses me that all you posters out there still think ESPN should exist only to show what you personally want to see, when you want to see it.


Get real! For a network to actually claim to cover tennis and not show the top player in the world three straight times, including his semi-final in a master's series event is just absurd.

What we personally want to see? Considering there's only two semi-final matches tommorow, and one is not going to be shown (the top player in the world) and one is on at two fucking thirty in the morning, what else would you want to see? Wake up :(

ESPN's coverage is pathetic. It's really annoying to follow a tournament over the course of a week and then have the crucial matches at the end of the tournament not shown or shown on replay hours later (when we've likely heard the score unless we hide in our rooms with no internet or TV on). ESPN.. you make me want to quit watching tennis :(

heya
03-19-2005, 05:45 AM
There was no rude comment after the Federer match and half-hour repeat of 2004's Agassi/Federer semifinal, during which McEnroe/Drysdale salivated over every average ball strike. Sadly, these buffoons had a more subdued orgasm party this year.

sierra91
03-19-2005, 01:17 PM
There was no rude comment after the Federer match and half-hour repeat of 2004's Agassi/Federer semifinal, during which McEnroe/Drysdale salivated over every average ball strike. Sadly, these buffoons had a more subdued orgasm party this year.What Federer match did ESPN show?

smucav
03-19-2005, 03:36 PM
What Federer match did ESPN show?ESPN/ESPN2 has aired two Federer matches so far this year: 2nd round v. Fish & 3rd round v. Muller.

sierra91
03-19-2005, 04:34 PM
ESPN/ESPN2 has aired two Federer matches so far this year: 2nd round v. Fish & 3rd round v. Muller.That's what I thought. Doesn't it warm your heart when ESPN focuses on the important matches and doesn't bother us by showing the piddling little matches like his 4th round, quarterfinal, and most espeically, semifinal match? :banghead:

heya
03-19-2005, 07:34 PM
They showed Federer right before the Federer-Agassi repeat.
There were half hour Sharapova, Davenport, Agassi & Roddick repeats on ESPN2.
They don't care about the players' well-being. They just schedule matches early in the morning and late at 7:30 p.m for money.
McEnroe pathetically promoted himself and the stupid Davis Cup team every chance he got.
When Mc doesn't profess his undying love for Federer, he gets ridiculed in radio /TV interviews while he promoted himself. Pat McEnroe wouldn't be ESPN slut without his brother John. Drysdale, Washington, John McEnroe, Courier & Carillo are desperate hero worshippers. They don't care when they're wrong and being stupid.

Roger-No.1
03-21-2005, 10:03 AM
That's what I thought. Doesn't it warm your heart when ESPN focuses on the important matches and doesn't bother us by showing the piddling little matches like his 4th round, quarterfinal, and most espeically, semifinal match? :banghead:
:lol: :worship:

buddyholly
03-21-2005, 01:11 PM
Get real! For a network to actually claim to cover tennis and not show the top player in the world three straight times, including his semi-final in a master's series event is just absurd.

What we personally want to see? Considering there's only two semi-final matches tommorow, and one is not going to be shown (the top player in the world) and one is on at two fucking thirty in the morning, what else would you want to see? Wake up :(

ESPN's coverage is pathetic. It's really annoying to follow a tournament over the course of a week and then have the crucial matches at the end of the tournament not shown or shown on replay hours later (when we've likely heard the score unless we hide in our rooms with no internet or TV on). ESPN.. you make me want to quit watching tennis :(

My point is that I live in Costa Rica and saw all the matches that you did not, mostly live. I think the people at ESPN realize that showing the same matches live in the US would be a ratings disaster.
And you want me to lobby for the Tennis Channel on your behalf? The trouble with young people these days is that they think someone should come along and provide for them.

buddyholly
03-21-2005, 01:21 PM
And if you needed mroe proof, explain why, if ESPN chose not to show Federer/Lubi or Federer/Kiefer live, why those matches could not have been broadcast taped instead of reruns of matches that ESPN had already broadcast live of Roddick and Agassi and the American woman. I guess because I was born and live in the U.S., it means that I can't appreciate or won't want tennis unless an American is playing because tennis is all about what country the player is from and it wouldn't occur to me to watch a better match with non-American players because as an American, how could I possibly be interested in an athlete from another country? Yes, you are right ... those at ESPN are so much smarter and I am the idiot because I have the audacity to want to watch this guy who happens by accident to be no. 1 but isn't really as interesting as an American simply by virtue of where he was born. Give me a break. :devil:

I think you are confusing youself with the average American. The average American does not know who Federer is. But because you think you represent all Americans you think ESPN is not providing the coverage an average American wants. Think of your tennis interests as those of a very tiny minority in America and then maybe you will begin to understand why ESPN does not cater to your wishes.

buddyholly
03-21-2005, 01:29 PM
I don't usually lose my temper but this is one of the most thoughtless and rude posts I've ever seen. :devil:

Or maybe this will help you understand.
I love international rugby from Europe, but ESPN in Spanish only shows the international matches live in Chile and Argentina, not in Central America. Now why can this be? Why can ESPN not show rugby from Ireland to all the Costaricans, so that they can see the best in the game and come to appreciate it? Then ESPN will show the games in Cental America and I can get to see what I want.
I don't think so!

sierra91
03-21-2005, 01:44 PM
And, given that ESPN showed the final live, pardon me if I sound like a total princess for still complaining :shout: but is it me or are Patrick McEnroe and Cliff Drysdale complete idiots :retard:? I don't know about the rest of you but I can't stand the incessent yammering DURING points as though no tennis were being played. I guess I am weird, but I actually like to watch and listen to what is happening on the court. :banghead: Maybe it would be better if they had some incisive analysis but they yammer on and on about the same things over and over and over again. P.McE seems more interested in listening to himself talk than paying attention to the match and Cliff Drysdale is most interested in men's fashions. He really had a hard-on over Mardy Fish's no-sock look. At least Drysdale has something new to talk about instead of going on and on about Julliette all the time. :help:

sierra91
03-21-2005, 01:52 PM
Or maybe this will help you understand.
I love international rugby from Europe, but ESPN in Spanish only shows the international matches live in Chile and Argentina, not in Central America. Now why can this be? Why can ESPN not show rugby from Ireland to all the Costaricans, so that they can see the best in the game and come to appreciate it? Then ESPN will show the games in Cental America and I can get to see what I want.
I don't think so!I have no illusions that tennis has any chance of eclipsing the most popular sports in my country or that all the tournaments I'd like to see would be broadcast here. And, as I am not in the sports broadcasting business, I may be wrong but I do believe there is a decent-sized audience that remains untapped and which ESPN is ignoring. Given the spread (how much less expensive it is for them to broadcast tennis than, e.g., an NFL football game, the lower cost for sponsors as a result, which then lowers the ratings expectations/needs), there could be a financial incentive that the network might want to exploit by showing the good matches, regardless of the players' nationalities and also by showing more tournaments. But what do I know? I love tennis and I would prefer to watch the world's number 1 player weave his magic on the court than seeing Lindsay Davenport bagel Sharapova four or five times. :cuckoo:

buddyholly
03-21-2005, 11:42 PM
I understand you sierra91, but ESPN is a very successful network and I am sure they have done their homework on ratings, costs and profits.
Actually Davenport-Sharapova was not shown in Latin America and a double bagel being so rare, I am sorry I missed it.