LOL @ ESPN [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

LOL @ ESPN

Scotso
06-20-2005, 06:48 PM
Now only did they show the most pointless coverage all day of boring matches, but now they're going to show FEDERER AGAIN!

This with LIVE matches going on all over the place!

:rolleyes:

croat123
06-20-2005, 07:03 PM
espn sucks at life

first they started at 7am with "wake up wimbledon" and wasted a hour while you could see live action was going on all around the grounds. you could hear the crowd cheering and balls being struck but they just ignored it completely.

then they show dent vs. norman :o had dent faced someone who could actually get a return in play he would have lost
federer vs. phm was a blow-out and federer didn't even play that well.
davenport vs. jidkova was kind of pointless
safin vs. srichaphan just showed how pathetic a player paradorn has become
and then blake vs. hernych was just terrible (except for the third set tb, i have to admit that was nice)

we only saw part of the second set tb in the myskina match and only the last few points of the ancic match (which actually looked like a good match when compared with what they were showing).

and now it's federer vs. phm...again (i bet it's gonna be their 10 pm match tonigh too)

and tomorrow it's gonna be the williams sisters, roddick, sharapova, and nadal (nadal match could be good cause he's not all that good on grass...then again, he's facing spadea who is a complete moron :o )

RodLo
06-20-2005, 07:13 PM
:shrug: It's ESPN...what more do you expect? :tape:

heya
06-20-2005, 07:34 PM
Enberg & Rat McEnroe *fake laughs* loved saying the word genius a billion times. Such eloquence.

Mathieu broke serve! He was outaced 18 to 2! Wow, that sure entertains the trolls.

boliviana
06-20-2005, 08:36 PM
I am not a big ESPN fan but I think they deserve credit for the # of hours they are putting in this year . . . and face it . . . they are showing unexciting matches and just are not in high gear. If they don't get sharper by Thursday/Friday then we can state a case for pissing on'em some.

Honestly I don't expect them (or any sportscaster) to come up real insights covering professional sports. Generally speaking these people are idiots. Doesn't matter the sport . . . golf, football, tennis, soccer (they are a little better BUT only if they have a Brit or a European player as a commentator otherwise they really suck. Americans know nothing about soccer . . . "oh my god, she kicked the ball!!") Sorry I digress.

And I am really curious to see how NBC does this year considering they really screwed up last year.

LuckyAC
06-20-2005, 08:40 PM
It was annoying to see the score of the Federer match scroll across the bottom while I was watching the first set of that exact match, no use watching after that.

Tennis Fool
06-20-2005, 08:41 PM
:rolleyes: at this thread. Sorry. I'd love to see matches with Federer, Marat, etc. However I don't have cable. Just be grateful they showed the #1 players and featured others who were non-American. Sounds like it could have been worse :shrug:

Tennis Fool
06-20-2005, 08:44 PM
I am not a big ESPN fan but I think they deserve credit for the # of hours they are putting in this year . . . and face it . . . they are showing unexciting matches and just are not in high gear. If they don't get sharper by Thursday/Friday then we can state a case for pissing on'em some.

Honestly I don't expect them (or any sportscaster) to come up real insights covering professional sports. Generally speaking these people are idiots. Doesn't matter the sport . . . golf, football, tennis, soccer (they are a little better BUT only if they have a Brit or a European player as a commentator otherwise they really suck. Americans know nothing about soccer . . . "oh my god, she kicked the ball!!") Sorry I digress.

And I am really curious to see how NBC does this year considering they really screwed up last year.

It sounds like ESPN gets the schedule the night before and says, ok, we are going to feature the top players, Federer, Marat, and Americans Davenport and Dent. It's not ESPN's fault those matches turned into real dogs.

No one beats HBO's coverage from the early 1990s. HBO-come back!

Golfnduck
06-20-2005, 09:17 PM
Everyone knows that ESPN sucks at coverage. They only show the no-names for a short amount of time and only if there match is extremely close. I wish everyone had TTC. From what I've heard they have really good coverage.

croat123
06-20-2005, 09:28 PM
they couldn't even show montfils vs. okun in that amazing 4rth set tiebreak :o or myskina's comeback, or a set of philippoussis

heya
06-20-2005, 10:28 PM
Why can't Rod Laver commentate?
Brad Gilbert can't be as entertaining as a circus chimp. :tears:

Deboogle!.
06-20-2005, 10:33 PM
:rolleyes: at this thread. Sorry. I'd love to see matches with Federer, Marat, etc. However I don't have cable. Just be grateful they showed the #1 players and featured others who were non-American. Sounds like it could have been worse :shrug:Yes it really could have been worse. MUCH worse. At least it was live tennis for many hours. Last year at this time they showed all kinds of stuff from the can. Their coverage has vastly improved this year, starting with the AO.

Some people are just never happy and need to whine.

lucashg
06-20-2005, 10:36 PM
Thank God ESPN isn't showing Wimbledon here, but Sportv seems like won't do that much better as I've yet to see some their grade showing repeats of unseen/highlight matches of the day at night. They showed Federer, Davenport and Safin, and we got to see the 2nd set of Mauresmo's win and maybe another one (Clijsters?) but I didn't see it, and the MPs of the most important matches.

Well, tomorrow will be Sharapova, Henman and Nadal. If they have some free-time, they're probably gonna show tape-delayed of Justine or Roddick or the Williams, I'm not complaining.... yet. :p

smucav
06-20-2005, 10:53 PM
The Federer match originally aired on ESPN Classic. At the time of the replay of this match on ESPN2 (3:00 p.m. EDT), there were only 6 matches (2 women; 4 men) still in progress & none of them was on a t.v. court. Considering that 44% of the households with ESPN2 were not able to see the match live, airing it late in the day when nothing else was going on certainly seems reasonable to me.

heya
06-20-2005, 11:33 PM
They should've shown that brilliant match instead of the Dent match, then.
:yawn: Seeing Mathieu's match for the 2nd time...is soo nice. :o
Good for death row inmates, though.

-ernie-
06-20-2005, 11:44 PM
Yea waking up to that Sue Mott girl almost made me throw up :)

Deboogle!.
06-20-2005, 11:48 PM
Well, tomorrow will be Sharapova, Henman and Nadal. If they have some free-time, they're probably gonna show tape-delayed of Justine or Roddick or the Williams, I'm not complaining.... yet. :pNot on ESPN in the US, it won't be Sharapova, Henman, and Nadal. lol

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tvlistings/scheduleSport?date=20050621&network=99&sport=TN

-ernie-
06-20-2005, 11:50 PM
IM not surprised......of course they HAVE to show serena, if they dont it would be a crime :o

NYCtennisfan
06-20-2005, 11:57 PM
Coverage wasn't that bad really. True, it wuld've been nice to see some bits of matches here and there but I don't expect it anymore. Also, they have cut down on their "features" once they do start showing tennis. By the time they started repeating coverage i.e. showing the Federer match again, there wasn't that much tennis left. There was Flip beating up and slapping around a Karol Beck but taht was about it.

oneandonlyhsn
06-21-2005, 12:18 AM
Damn pathetic ESPN :banghead: , I really wante to watch Justien tomorrow. She is playing a tough cookie on grass, but no ESPN has to show their dream girl ChunkeSerena

Lee
06-21-2005, 12:30 AM
Not on ESPN in the US, it won't be Sharapova, Henman, and Nadal. lol

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tvlistings/scheduleSport?date=20050621&network=99&sport=TN

It's announced during the broadcast today that Sharapova, Henman and Nadal are the feature matches for tomorrow.

naiwen
06-21-2005, 12:37 AM
So what are they gonna show at 10pm tonight?

Lee
06-21-2005, 12:38 AM
No idea :shrug:

euroka1
06-21-2005, 12:49 AM
Now only did they show the most pointless coverage all day of boring matches, but now they're going to show FEDERER AGAIN!

This with LIVE matches going on all over the place!

:rolleyes:

I LIKE watching Federer. :D But I could do without the inane commentary. :o

tennischick
06-21-2005, 01:10 AM
:rolleyes: at this thread. Sorry. I'd love to see matches with Federer, Marat, etc. However I don't have cable. Just be grateful they showed the #1 players and featured others who were non-American. Sounds like it could have been worse :shrug:
mi amor :kiss: :smooch:

Scotso
06-21-2005, 01:26 AM
I LIKE watching Federer. :D But I could do without the inane commentary. :o

Well then watch/tape it the first time they show it?

Scotso
06-21-2005, 01:27 AM
Some people are just never happy and need to whine.

I was thrilled with HBO's coverage.

Some people are just complacent and will take whatever you give them, which is worse?

Lee
06-21-2005, 01:45 AM
Well then watch/tape it the first time they show it?

Not everybody have both ESPN and ESPN Classic.

Blaze
06-21-2005, 01:48 AM
Maybe some people will be happen if ESPN were to split the screen and so all live matches at the same time.

euroka1
06-21-2005, 02:02 AM
Well then watch/tape it the first time they show it?

I have no objections to Federer reruns! Besides, I never have bothered to learn how to record on my VCR. Only use it for playbacks.

Hoping for some more of it on ESPN shortly but this time I'll be using the mute button. :D

deliveryman
06-21-2005, 03:21 AM
I would rather watch the world #1 or #2 smash some no name in the first round rather than watching two no namers fight it out in the first round only to know they'll lose in the second.

Scotso
06-21-2005, 03:26 AM
I would rather watch the world #1 or #2 smash some no name in the first round rather than watching two no namers fight it out in the first round only to know they'll lose in the second.

Why?

Leo
06-21-2005, 03:30 AM
Yes it really could have been worse. MUCH worse. At least it was live tennis for many hours. Last year at this time they showed all kinds of stuff from the can. Their coverage has vastly improved this year, starting with the AO.

Some people are just never happy and need to whine.

I wouldn't say it's improved from last year. In many ways, it's worsened. ESPN carelessly plays commercial breaks that are way too long and they return to the "feature match" after missing several points, sometimes even whole games. By the time they've shown about a minute of actual tennis, it's another elongated commercial. Furthermore, they absolutely refuse to play any exciting or intriguing matches involving non-Americans or lesser known players, even when the main matches are boring as hell and the commentators are whinnig about how awful they are to watch. :rolleyes: And of course, this new coverage on ESPN Classic sucks because most people don't get that channel! In the highlight shows at night, they show the same matches for the second or third time that day, when they could be playing something new and exciting.

Fact is, there is still plenty of reason to complain about ESPN coverage and so much improvement to be made before any real viewer is satisfied.

Leo
06-21-2005, 03:31 AM
Why?

I second that.

Leo
06-21-2005, 03:34 AM
The only good thing about how the draw was made this year was that it puts all of ESPN's favorites playing on the same day. Tomorrow, they'll be scrambling to include all of Sharapova, Roddick, Serena, and Venus. The other half is "empty" in their minds (only Federer and Davenport, and they get less priority, anyway). They must be squirming with displeasure. :devil:

LaTenista
06-21-2005, 03:38 AM
TTC is decent, but they do repeat a lot and for most tournaments they carry the Semis and finals (singles only), every once in awhile QFs. I was a bit annoyed there was no coverage of Nottingham last week, but I guess I was spoiled because in 2003 the Nottingham final (Rusedski vs Fish) was shown on Fox Sports World, which conveniently has been renamed and now shows soccer/European football only....

I won't harp too much about ESPN/ESPN2/ESPN Classic since I've got all those channels and on Classic they reaired the FO final twice yesterday but that woman with a drawl is too much for me, especially at 7 am before I've had any coffee :smash:

i love paradorn
06-21-2005, 04:13 AM
The topic of this thread is way too trite. We all know ESPN sucks, so why do we even bother making another thread about it? Plus, there's not a friggin' camera on every single court, so that's why they can't show your precious 5-setters between your non-household names. It's all about marketing and revenues when it comes to the business, and obviously you do that by attracting viewers. I am positive that the average American will not know who Feliciano Lopez or Tomas Berdych is. So what do they do? Well, they show the household names like Federer (I can't believe those of you who would rather watch other matches; it's not like you guys foresaw that Lopez and Kiefer were going to go to 5 sets beforehand, of course it's easy as hell for you guys to say after their matches were over that you were pissed off that ESPN didn't show them. You guys are making it sound as if any match not involving federer/roddick/hewitt/_____ will be exciting. Nahh...Gonzo went through in straights. Others did too, and guess what, they're not household names.) And they show the Americans on ESPN in America because that's what the average American will root for. So Croat, would u rather watch a match involving Ancic or one involving Federer and a qualifier? Well, sure, you would pick Ancic, cuz you're a Croat, and Ancic is a Croat, and it only makes sense for you to have the desire to watch him play. Most people do exhibit ethnocentrism, and it's definitely not uncommon for nations like America to do so too with their tennis converage.

liptea
06-21-2005, 05:06 AM
I think I will start complaining when I see Sharapova on TV tomorrow and hear the story of her success-"from Siberia to Florida, she left her mother behind!"-for the zillionth time.

LuckyAC
06-21-2005, 08:46 AM
I don't have ESPN classic, nor do many(most I would assume?), so that's not really that bad. They were repeating a lot of things on the same channel though.

heya
06-21-2005, 10:09 AM
espn classic had this embarrassing gossip segment with a British woman.
She drooled about how gorgeous Fed was.
She repeated the same thing she said last year, "Henman's so boring!!! His fist pump's the only exciting thing he does. *gestures fist in the air "

Ferrero Forever
06-21-2005, 10:25 AM
Well I aint complaining about the Australian coverage yet. We didn't get Ferrero-Delgado, but I really wasnt expecting that. But what did get me was that we got Hewitt (and I don't care that he's an aussie, his match was BORING) and not Federer, well we got 4 games, but that ain't enough. I'm pretty sure we got Phillippoussis (and I don't care if he's an aussie too.) I didn't watch it live because I had work today, so I'm not sure if we got that because my mum won't let me watch the tape yet because she'd rather watch her 'Days of Our Lives'*shudders.* Even though it seems like one big complaint, i don't mean it in that way, it's been so long since i've seen tennis on TV (Australian Open this year) that anything is good. But I will be FURIOUS when they choose to show Hewitt instead of Ferrero-Federer, but to any casual tennis fan, I know Hewitt's an aussie, but I would rather see Federer who is a better player than Hewitt, look at the seedings, 1 VS 3, i'd pick 1.

Nimomunz
06-21-2005, 12:21 PM
I would rather watch the world #1 or #2 smash some no name in the first round rather than watching two no namers fight it out in the first round only to know they'll lose in the second.
i think thats the mentality of a fan of specific popular players and not of the game itself. :rolleyes: When Federer wins 6-1, 6-2, 6-1 its boring! :yawn: but when so called no-namers duke it out in a 5-setter with a couple of tiebreaks thats interesting regardless of the fact that they might lose later on!!

Nimomunz
06-21-2005, 12:22 PM
The topic of this thread is way too trite. We all know ESPN sucks, so why do we even bother making another thread about it? Plus, there's not a friggin' camera on every single court, so that's why they can't show your precious 5-setters between your non-household names. It's all about marketing and revenues when it comes to the business, and obviously you do that by attracting viewers. I am positive that the average American will not know who Feliciano Lopez or Tomas Berdych is. So what do they do? Well, they show the household names like Federer (I can't believe those of you who would rather watch other matches; it's not like you guys foresaw that Lopez and Kiefer were going to go to 5 sets beforehand, of course it's easy as hell for you guys to say after their matches were over that you were pissed off that ESPN didn't show them. You guys are making it sound as if any match not involving federer/roddick/hewitt/_____ will be exciting. Nahh...Gonzo went through in straights. Others did too, and guess what, they're not household names.) And they show the Americans on ESPN in America because that's what the average American will root for. So Croat, would u rather watch a match involving Ancic or one involving Federer and a qualifier? Well, sure, you would pick Ancic, cuz you're a Croat, and Ancic is a Croat, and it only makes sense for you to have the desire to watch him play. Most people do exhibit ethnocentrism, and it's definitely not uncommon for nations like America to do so too with their tennis converage.
well in south africa theres a channel called supersport that shows almost every match and yep i have seen a match on court9!!

Poljud
06-21-2005, 01:05 PM
I get Fox tennis coverage, not ESPN. You would like it KBF, they showed Flip thrashing Beck in the first round :p

liptea
06-21-2005, 01:23 PM
I'm not sure if we got that because my mum won't let me watch the tape yet because she'd rather watch her 'Days of Our Lives'*shudders.*

I love that your mother is depriving you of tennis to watch her soaps. That is so funny.

Seleshfan
06-21-2005, 06:17 PM
It sounds like ESPN gets the schedule the night before and says, ok, we are going to feature the top players, Federer, Marat, and Americans Davenport and Dent. It's not ESPN's fault those matches turned into real dogs.

No one beats HBO's coverage from the early 1990s. HBO-come back!

I thought you didn't have cable? :devil:

No seriously, I agree, I loved the commercial free tennis coverage of HBO. Couldn't stand Jim Lampley though.

joeb_uk
06-21-2005, 06:22 PM
Federer? :eek: thought it would be the roddick match that they would show over and over.

Turkeyballs Paco
06-21-2005, 07:30 PM
I don't mind the tennis channel, although they will replay matches a lot and will sometimes only show semi-finals and finals.

The commentating is much better too usually. I'm so bored with ESPN's usual group.

ugotlobbed
06-21-2005, 07:38 PM
well just give it another week and a half, the americans will be gone by then

Scotso
06-22-2005, 12:20 AM
I get Fox tennis coverage, not ESPN. You would like it KBF, they showed Flip thrashing Beck in the first round :p

did they show Ljubo getting spanked?

oneandonlyhsn
06-22-2005, 01:35 AM
Federer? :eek: thought it would be the roddick match that they would show over and over.

They did today, Roddicks match was on over and over lol

Poljud
06-22-2005, 07:12 AM
did they show Ljubo getting spanked?

No they didnt, but they most certainly did show Karol Beck losing to a fat washed up Aussie ranked in the 180s :p

Ljubicic>Beck, want to argue go look at results.

Scotso
06-22-2005, 11:39 AM
:yawn:

Leo
06-22-2005, 11:55 AM
The topic of this thread is way too trite. We all know ESPN sucks, so why do we even bother making another thread about it? Plus, there's not a friggin' camera on every single court, so that's why they can't show your precious 5-setters between your non-household names. It's all about marketing and revenues when it comes to the business, and obviously you do that by attracting viewers. I am positive that the average American will not know who Feliciano Lopez or Tomas Berdych is.

Of course people don't know them. ESPN never even considers showing them, so what chance do they have of becoming household names? Other players on the tour besides the top crop are marketable; there is just not enough effort.

So what do they do? Well, they show the household names like Federer (I can't believe those of you who would rather watch other matches; it's not like you guys foresaw that Lopez and Kiefer were going to go to 5 sets beforehand, of course it's easy as hell for you guys to say after their matches were over that you were pissed off that ESPN didn't show them. You guys are making it sound as if any match not involving federer/roddick/hewitt/_____ will be exciting. Nahh...Gonzo went through in straights. Others did too, and guess what, they're not household names.)

All I am saying is that if there is an entertaining 5-set match happening on a court with feed, no matter who is on the court, it should take precedent over a boring straight-set affair with one of the top players. Show some of both, that's not very demanding. Who wants to just see the top few players over and over if they merely steamroll their opponents when there are closer and more intriguing matches on the grounds?!

And they show the Americans on ESPN in America because that's what the average American will root for. So Croat, would u rather watch a match involving Ancic or one involving Federer and a qualifier? Well, sure, you would pick Ancic, cuz you're a Croat, and Ancic is a Croat, and it only makes sense for you to have the desire to watch him play.

I don't want to see Roddick or Dent.

Leo
06-22-2005, 11:58 AM
Something else I have to rant about.

Two years ago, they used to play side court matches during the first hour. Now Breakfast at Wimbledon comes along and its the same constant chatter and blabbing every morning by idioitic commentators who know very little. And the same video clips. I have seen that Sharapova bit played at least six times on ESPN2 during the past 2 days! That's beyond ridiculous. I remember 2003 when they showed matches like Pierce vs. Daniilidou and Schuettler vs. T. Martin before going to the show courts. And the commercials were the right length back then, too. Now we don't see much tennis during the first week of Slams with ESPN. Another sign that there actually is no improvement.

myggen
06-22-2005, 01:10 PM
I cannot believe what they are doing today!! Chosing Gimelstob vs Massu over Safin vs Philippoussis?!?!?!?!?! What is going on in their shrinking brains???

Deboogle!.
06-22-2005, 03:11 PM
I cannot believe what they are doing today!! Chosing Gimelstob vs Massu over Safin vs Philippoussis?!?!?!?!?! What is going on in their shrinking brains???Did you pay attention to the TENNIS? The Massu/Gimelstob tiebreakers that they showed were actually pretty entertaining.

I am not going to sit here and complain about them jumping around and showing all kinds of live tennis in the tiebreaks and stuff.

croat123
06-22-2005, 03:26 PM
lol @ i love paradorn

i never said they should show ancic, i just said that they should show some competetive tennis. if you think that safin vs. srchiphan was a good match, your in denial. it just showed how pathetic a player paradorn has become. he used to at least be able to serve and hit forehands, now he can't even do that :o

tangerine_dream
06-22-2005, 04:43 PM
LOL @ ESPN crybabies and whiners. Do you people ever stop?

Shut up already and go watch the 10-hour coverage of live matches.

HappyAndie
06-22-2005, 04:48 PM
lol @ i love paradorn

. if you think that safin vs. srchiphan was a good match, your in denial. it just showed how pathetic a player paradorn has become. he used to at least be able to serve and hit forehands, now he can't even do that :o

That match was worth showing--Marat was in it! :)

I think ESPN has done a pretty good job selecting matches to show. Sure, showing Federer's first match was stupid, and sometimes they pick really bad times to switch matches, but at least they are giving some coverage. I mean, 10 hours is a lot. They are giving us a block of time that they cannot even fill without showing us something we have already seen. That is pretty generous.

The only complaint about ESPN's coverage is the overflow of repetitious commercials. But, you are going to get those no matter what!

Lee
06-22-2005, 05:16 PM
The production team of ESPN had a big party last night and most are still drunk? They keep broadcasting the wrong audio that pick up the jibbish between different teams of commentators when they're supposed to be offair.

Scotso
06-22-2005, 07:46 PM
Now Breakfast at Wimbledon comes along and its the same constant chatter and blabbing every morning by idioitic commentators who know very little.

For the most part I agree, but I would pay money for Sue Mott's little segments. Nothing better than a refined older British woman drooling over a little Spanish hottie.

Leo
06-23-2005, 02:32 AM
LOL @ ESPN crybabies and whiners. Do you people ever stop?

Shut up already and go watch the 10-hour coverage of live matches.

Of course you wouldn't complain. You worship Roddick, Agassi, and Federer just like PMac, Cliffy, and the whole gang.

The tennis coverage is not satisfactory. No true fan should be pleased with what we're getting. An unbelievable amount of improvement is possible but it won't ever happen.

Leo
06-23-2005, 02:35 AM
The production team of ESPN had a big party last night and most are still drunk? They keep broadcasting the wrong audio that pick up the jibbish between different teams of commentators when they're supposed to be offair.

:lol: I love their audio flubs. Although the greatest mistake had to be Fowler at the French Open when he and Brad were yappnig away and then Fowler says into his earpiece to one of the directors, "Wait, I thought we were one live?" (or something like that) before realizing that he was indeed on air. Turned a nice shade of red right then and tried to laugh it off.

Fedex
06-23-2005, 02:43 AM
Ah, isn't it lovely to see ESPN showing repeats, or what they like to call 'encores', of Sharapova blowing out some bitch that cant beat anybody, when there happened to be some good matches out there.(Like Henman coming back from down 2 sets to love; That match was never shown on ESPN to my knowledge.

NATAS81
06-23-2005, 02:47 AM
Ah, isn't it lovely to see ESPN showing repeats, or what they like to call 'encores', of Sharapova blowing out some bitch that cant beat anybody, when there happened to be some good matches out there.(Like Henman coming back from down 2 sets to love; That match was never shown on ESPN to my knowledge.
I'm pretty sure the final set was squeezed into the coverage.

If I'm not mistaken, it was one of the later matches that day and shown in between a repeat as you mentioned.

Sort of how the live Monfils/Hrbaty, Johansson/Rusedski matches were shown broadcast today.

I'm really liking the odd days at Wimby. Finally get to see non-American's playing tennis.

Leo
06-23-2005, 02:49 AM
They only showed some bits of Henman, but not much. And of course instead of immediately going to that match at 5-5 in the 4th (drama!) they pull a super long commercial break first, so we missed many points of that crucial game. Then more commercials. Yay!

I agree abolut the Sharapova repeats, but, FYI, Nuria Llagsotera Vives is awesome. ;) Several good results on clay, including a win over Pierce and a 4th round at RG.

Fedex
06-23-2005, 02:55 AM
I agree abolut the Sharapova repeats, but, FYI, Nuria Llagsotera Vives is awesome. ;) Several good results on clay, including a win over Pierce and a 4th round at RG.
Sorry :sad: Actually, I'm taking out much of my frustration with Sharapova; I cant stand watching her.

Billabong
06-23-2005, 02:59 AM
:lol: I love their audio flubs. Although the greatest mistake had to be Fowler at the French Open when he and Brad were yappnig away and then Fowler says into his earpiece to one of the directors, "Wait, I thought we were one live?" (or something like that) before realizing that he was indeed on air. Turned a nice shade of red right then and tried to laugh it off.

lol I remember that:lol: He looked so ridiculous out there:lol: and Brad was laughing:lol:

Billabong
06-23-2005, 03:01 AM
lol I remember at last year's FO, they showed about 3 times encore presentations of Capriati-Serena, and many many encore presentations of Venus-Serena in Miami this year:lol:

Fedex
06-23-2005, 03:31 AM
Shut up already and go watch the 10-hour coverage of live matches.
Of course only about half of that is actually 'live' coverage; after ESPN is done showing the encore matches. :)

Billabong
06-23-2005, 03:33 AM
Of course only about half of that is actually 'live' coverage; after ESPN is done showing the encore matches. :)

exactly!!

tangerine_dream
06-23-2005, 03:40 AM
The tennis coverage is not satisfactory. No true fan should be pleased with what we're getting. An unbelievable amount of improvement is possible but it won't ever happen.
Waa! "No REAL tennis fan would be satisfied by ten hours of tennis coverage. Therefore, I am a REAL tennis fan" Waa! What country do you live in that shows ten hours of a not-very-popular sport in a country where there are dozens of sports far more popular and actually gets less TV coverage? Buy a clue already.

Of course only about half of that is actually 'live' coverage; after ESPN is done showing the encore matches. :)
Funny how you never bitch about the encore matches of Roger crushing another hapless victim in the first round. :)

Fedex
06-23-2005, 03:50 AM
Funny how you never bitch about the encore matches of Roger crushing another hapless victim in the first round. :)
Who said I don't? I dont think they should be showing encore matches at all, be it Federer or Roddick or whoever.

mitalidas
06-23-2005, 03:54 AM
Why arent they showing replay of last year's men's final? Now thats one that might herald a real encore next Sunday

Nimomunz
06-23-2005, 12:50 PM
Waa! "No REAL tennis fan would be satisfied by ten hours of tennis coverage. Therefore, I am a REAL tennis fan" Waa! What country do you live in that shows ten hours of a not-very-popular sport in a country where there are dozens of sports far more popular and actually gets less TV coverage? Buy a clue already.


Funny how you never bitch about the encore matches of Roger crushing another hapless victim in the first round. :)
listen they bounce around from match to match you never get into a rhythm in a match the wake up show is RIDICULOUS :mad: and i'm totally infuriated by their hero worship of sharapova and................(wait for it)...her golden shoes :rolleyes: They play innocous american players when other slamming matches are going on!
Ten hours of coverage=5hours of coverage with 5 hours of Agassi, Graf, Dent and that kid(granted i like the ad but pls!!!!)
p.s. the guy who does the interview is soo hero-worship-y that i wanna show his face down his neck.....................it should be pure tennis with an adequate number of commercials!!
i've seen better when i was on a trip to South Africa so dont tell me 10 hours of coverage coz their sports channel devotes 2 entire channels to LIVE play and ONLY PLAY ENCORE MATCHES DURING RAIN DELAYS!! OK???

PamV
06-23-2005, 12:56 PM
Now only did they show the most pointless coverage all day of boring matches, but now they're going to show FEDERER AGAIN!

This with LIVE matches going on all over the place!

:rolleyes:

I hate it when they show those one sided women's matches with Sharapova or Davenport.

I don't mind seeing Federer 3 times in one day because he's HOT! :worship:

Deboogle!.
06-23-2005, 02:04 PM
listen they bounce around from match to match you never get into a rhythm in a match the wake up show is RIDICULOUS :mad: and i'm totally infuriated by their hero worship of sharapova and................(wait for it)...her golden shoes :rolleyes: They play innocous american players when other slamming matches are going on!
Ten hours of coverage=5hours of coverage with 5 hours of Agassi, Graf, Dent and that kid(granted i like the ad but pls!!!!)
p.s. the guy who does the interview is soo hero-worship-y that i wanna show his face down his neck.....................it should be pure tennis with an adequate number of commercials!!
i've seen better when i was on a trip to South Africa so dont tell me 10 hours of coverage coz their sports channel devotes 2 entire channels to LIVE play and ONLY PLAY ENCORE MATCHES DURING RAIN DELAYS!! OK???I completely understand what you are saying and I agree. One of the most frustrating things about their coverage is that they cut off 1-2 points after almost every changeover. Some player will be serving for a match or something and they'll come back and it's already 30-0, or 0-30, or whatever.

But the biggest thing is that their coverage is SO much better. Even just last year, they didn't jump around and show different matches in progress! So I'll take this big improvement without complaints. Can the coverage still improve? Sure, a LOT. But I don't expect anything to be perfect in one year, so I'll take the improvements as they come, and keep complaining to them about the stuff that still bothers me. :)

savesthedizzle
06-23-2005, 02:10 PM
I completely understand what you are saying and I agree. One of the most frustrating things about their coverage is that they cut off 1-2 points after almost every changeover. Some player will be serving for a match or something and they'll come back and it's already 30-0, or 0-30, or whatever.

But the biggest thing is that their coverage is SO much better. Even just last year, they didn't jump around and show different matches in progress! So I'll take this big improvement without complaints. Can the coverage still improve? Sure, a LOT. But I don't expect anything to be perfect in one year, so I'll take the improvements as they come, and keep complaining to them about the stuff that still bothers me. :)

I think the main thing that would make a lot more people happy would be a complete overhaul of the US cable system to include something similar to the Interactive button in the UK... and it would involved changes beyond sports coverage... I mean... the UK uses the interactive button in everything... news, shows, sports... seriously every show, but as far as sports coverage goes, being able to choose which match you want to watch would be great. I mean even just limited to show courts... I'd rather be watching Nadal right now rather than Venus Williams or Henman and if the US had the interactive button I'd be able to. The US likes to say they are on the cutting edge of technology, but I think the UK has us beat as far as this goes. If the US cable companies were to do this, I think a lot more of us would be happy and other sports fans too. I know my dad would LOVE to be able to watch baseball that is not the Mets or the Yankees.

Fedex
06-23-2005, 02:15 PM
One of the most frustrating things about their coverage is that they cut off 1-2 points after almost every changeover. Some player will be serving for a match or something and they'll come back and it's already 30-0, or 0-30, or whatever.
)
Yes, that does happen alot.

mangoes
06-23-2005, 02:17 PM
I completely understand what you are saying and I agree. One of the most frustrating things about their coverage is that they cut off 1-2 points after almost every changeover. Some player will be serving for a match or something and they'll come back and it's already 30-0, or 0-30, or whatever.

But the biggest thing is that their coverage is SO much better. Even just last year, they didn't jump around and show different matches in progress! So I'll take this big improvement without complaints. Can the coverage still improve? Sure, a LOT. But I don't expect anything to be perfect in one year, so I'll take the improvements as they come, and keep complaining to them about the stuff that still bothers me. :)


I must agree. The coverage isn't perfect, but so, so, SO, SO much better than in previous years. I am happy that I get to see pieces of different matches instead of just seeing the American matches. It isn't perfect, and sometimes I do get annoyed when they move from a match I happen to be enjoying. However, as I said, this coverage is better, so I try not to complain when they switch away from a match I was enjoying.

mangoes
06-23-2005, 02:19 PM
listen they bounce around from match to match you never get into a rhythm in a match the wake up show is RIDICULOUS :mad: and i'm totally infuriated by their hero worship of sharapova and................(wait for it)...her golden shoes :rolleyes: They play innocous american players when other slamming matches are going on!
Ten hours of coverage=5hours of coverage with 5 hours of Agassi, Graf, Dent and that kid(granted i like the ad but pls!!!!)
p.s. the guy who does the interview is soo hero-worship-y that i wanna show his face down his neck.....................it should be pure tennis with an adequate number of commercials!!
i've seen better when i was on a trip to South Africa so dont tell me 10 hours of coverage coz their sports channel devotes 2 entire channels to LIVE play and ONLY PLAY ENCORE MATCHES DURING RAIN DELAYS!! OK???


OH MY GOODNESS, Everytime I see her face, I just mute or turn the tv off for her matches. I have had enough of her. This girl has just won one grand slam, yet you would think she were a male version of Sampras. And the golden sneakers??? GIVE ME A BREAK.

Deboogle!.
06-23-2005, 02:28 PM
I think the main thing that would make a lot more people happy would be a complete overhaul of the US cable system to include something similar to the Interactive button in the UK... and it would involved changes beyond sports coverage... I mean... the UK uses the interactive button in everything... news, shows, sports... seriously every show, but as far as sports coverage goes, being able to choose which match you want to watch would be great. I mean even just limited to show courts... I'd rather be watching Nadal right now rather than Venus Williams or Henman and if the US had the interactive button I'd be able to. The US likes to say they are on the cutting edge of technology, but I think the UK has us beat as far as this goes. If the US cable companies were to do this, I think a lot more of us would be happy and other sports fans too. I know my dad would LOVE to be able to watch baseball that is not the Mets or the Yankees.Oh Jess, I totally agree with you. I'm sure we'd all like nothing more than to be able to have the interactive options and stuff - for tennis, and everything else for that matter. and the few types of things we do have here like the MLB and NBA packages on digital cable are RIDICULOUSLY expensive. It's too bad. But we can only go by relative terms and compared to last year it's like a BAZILLION times better. That's all I was trying to say :)

savesthedizzle
06-23-2005, 02:32 PM
Oh Jess, I totally agree with you. I'm sure we'd all like nothing more than to be able to have the interactive options and stuff - for tennis, and everything else for that matter. and the few types of things we do have here like the MLB and NBA packages on digital cable are RIDICULOUSLY expensive. It's too bad. But we can only go by relative terms and compared to last year it's like a BAZILLION times better. That's all I was trying to say :)

Oh def. I agree. :yeah:

tangerine_dream
06-23-2005, 03:50 PM
I'm not saying that ESPN is fabulous but I certainly don't think it's nearly as bad and evil as some people here make it out to be. It's gotten so that people jump on the bash-ESPN wagon before any dubious broadcasting snafus happen (like the time someone jumped the gun and freaked out about ESPN allegedly not showing the Federer-Nadal semifinal at Roland Garros).

I know some of the matches are choppy but it seems that they are trying to show as many players as they can. Remember, they have to contend with 128 players on both the men's and women's side, with approximately 62 matches going on per day in the early rounds. No other sport has so many players and matches to keep track of on a single day. It's a logistical nightmare for networks. They only way to properly cover so many matches going on at once is a 24-hour channel (hence, The Tennis Channel which only a select few still have :( )

Henman's match went four hours the other day. If they had shown the entire match, that means they'd only have room left for maybe another men's match and two women's matches. That's only four players' matches they'd show per day and I'm sure there would be a huge outcry here over that as well.

Nobody's completely satisfied but so far it appears that ESPN must be doing something right:

ESPN2 Reports Ratings Rise For Wimbledon
06/23/2005

Wimbledon has been a ratings winner for ESPN2 through the first two days of the fortnight.

After two days of all-day coverage, ESPN2 has averaged 417,000 households for the nine hours of live coverage (8 a.m. – 5 p.m.). That represents an increase of 18 percent over last year (355,000).

In addition, Wake Up to Wimbledon, the one-hour studio show that starts each day at 7 a.m. has seen an increase of 61 percent, from 44,000 homes in 2004 to 71,000 this year.

heya
06-23-2005, 04:28 PM
Mary Carillo moaned because she hated baseliners with abbreviated serve motions. Henman messed her up.

Gilbert acted like a bright chimp with a crystal ball.
After his predictions were proven wrong for the thousandth time,
he looked like he drank too much whiskey (with John McEnroe).

gvhvhg
06-23-2005, 05:12 PM
Why dont they show Arthurs-Popp? Its on the court right outside their studio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tennischick
06-23-2005, 05:17 PM
i think that ESPN is responding well to the competition from TTC. we are seeing a better variety of matches then ever before. :cool:

gvhvhg
06-23-2005, 05:20 PM
not really....Arthurs and Popp are two of the best grass courters around---obviously that is not enough but what should be enough is the fact thats its 12-12 in the fifth!!!!!

gvhvhg
06-23-2005, 05:36 PM
chill azza!!!

savesthedizzle
06-23-2005, 05:42 PM
i think that ESPN is responding well to the competition from TTC. we are seeing a better variety of matches then ever before. :cool:


ESPN doesn't really have any pressure from TTC. TTC doesnt have the rights to air any of the grand slams... they only really air the small tournaments that ESPN doesn't. It's not as if they are both showing Wimbledon and we get to choose whose coverage we like better.

mangoes
06-23-2005, 05:47 PM
i think that ESPN is responding well to the competition from TTC. we are seeing a better variety of matches then ever before. :cool:


Agree tennischick

tennischick
06-23-2005, 06:24 PM
ESPN doesn't really have any pressure from TTC. TTC doesnt have the rights to air any of the grand slams... they only really air the small tournaments that ESPN doesn't. It's not as if they are both showing Wimbledon and we get to choose whose coverage we like better.
competition is competition. period. and ESPN has risen well to the challenge IMO. ;)

savesthedizzle
06-23-2005, 06:28 PM
competition is competition. period. and ESPN has risen well to the challenge IMO. ;)


I guess I just don't really see how it's competition if they aren't airing any of the same tournaments... ever.

Lee
06-23-2005, 06:31 PM
I guess I just don't really see how it's competition if they aren't airing any of the same tournaments... ever.

TTC provides good tennis coverage, if ESPN doesn't improve, there'll be more people want TTC. Once TTC reaches more households, it will be in a better position to get the rights to more tournaments.

tennischick
06-23-2005, 06:38 PM
I guess I just don't really see how it's competition if they aren't airing any of the same tournaments... ever.
because they're operating in the same market. and if TTC keeps growing and building that market, they will remain a solid threat to ESPN. thank goodness the folks at ESPN understand this, hence the improved coverage. ;)

Nimomunz
06-23-2005, 07:19 PM
TTC provides good tennis coverage, if ESPN doesn't improve, there'll be more people want TTC. Once TTC reaches more households, it will be in a better position to get the rights to more tournaments.
ttc will never compete with espn! espn is huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!

eva419
06-23-2005, 07:36 PM
which matches is ESPN televising friday, does anyone know? thanks

tennischick
06-23-2005, 07:42 PM
ttc will never compete with espn! espn is huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by its mere existence TTC is forcing ESPN to improve its coverage of tennis. i am appreciating that as a fan. ;)

Lee
06-23-2005, 08:29 PM
ttc will never compete with espn! espn is huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course TTC will never compete with ESPN. TTC only focus on tennis while ESPN is busy with all other sports. But TTC has the ability to force ESPN to do a better job in tennis coverage or call it quits.

Just like the big 3 networks still have the best choices on sports programs together with other programming while ESPN show whatever left behind in sports.