Link
By Lawrence Jeziak
02/01/2003
As the self-proclaimed “world-wide leader in sports,” with three 24-hour-a-day stations, ESPN should be expected to set a standard for excellence with its Australian Open coverage. While its 75 hours of coverage from Melbourne Park in 2003 began with great promise, the result was far less than a broadcasting masterpiece.
Inexplicable programming changes, a preponderance of taped matches during the second week and unprecedented waves of irrelevant commentary dulled spectacular moments of on-court drama.
The pattern of inattention and indifference emerged on the tournament’s second day with live coverage beginning at 9:30 p.m. (EST) and the promise to feature Lleyton Hewitt. Serena Williams’s first-rounder with Emilie Loit preceded it. When the top women’s seed needed two hours to win a surprisingly competitive three-set match delivered in its entirety, ESPN cited “time constraints” preventing it from continuing and returned to regular programming. Hewitt won in five sets.
The most dramatic TV tennis people saw, before Serena Williams’s resurgent semifinal with Kim Clijsters, occurred on day seven. Live coverage began at 10 p.m. with Justine Henin-Hardenne leading Lindsay Davenport 7-5, 4-1 in a fourth-round match-up that preceded the featured Andre Agassi match. The women’s encounter seemed to be decided. But Davenport ran off 10 of the next 12 games and was serving at 4-1 in the third when momentum shifted again. Henin-Hardenne leveled the set, but at 7-7 collapsed with cramps. Still, she recovered to win 9-7 in a three-hour battle.
In contrast to day two, ESPN stayed on the air for the featured match. But this was Andre Agassi, whose fans were consistently rewarded. All seven of the champion’s matches were presented in their entirety; six were shown live. ESPN’s large ever-present logo could have read, “Agassi Open 2003.”
Andy Roddick’s 21-19 five-set, five-hour quarterfinal victory over Younes El Aynaoui – declared to be a “match for the ages” – was shown to its finale and almost immediately scheduled for rebroadcast as an “instant classic.” But the nine-hour delay of the initial presentation diluted much of the drama, characteristic of ESPN’s second week of coverage.
ESPN’s schedule promised live coverage on all broadcasts beginning between 9:30 and 11 p.m. That promise was repeatedly broken. Without explanation, taped presentations replaced live coverage. Of eight quarterfinal matches, only Agassi’s was presented live. ESPN ignored Rainer Schuettler’s upset of Wimbledon runner-up David Nalbandian – in the second set when ESPN’s coverage began at 10:30 p.m. – in favor of two earlier women’s matches, delivering them as if they were live.
Since other logos cluttered the screen throughout the tournament, this TV tennis junkie asked why viewers weren’t advised they were watching taped tennis. The initial response from an ESPN spokesperson was, “Announcements at the beginning of the coverage, as well as coming back from commercial breaks, let viewers know it is taped programming.” Informed that the Clijsters and Serena Williams quarterfinal contained no such announcements, ESPN’s response shifted to “programming that is not labeled as ‘live’ is taped.”
The larger question, of course, is why taped tennis? In the 21st century it is ridiculous to present matches after the fact. Venus Williams’s fourth-round match was shown on 19-hour delay. And the men’s semifinals, presented live in 2001 and 2002 and initially scheduled for live coverage in 2003, were delivered on a 12-hour delay.
While trimming live tennis from its schedule, ESPN’s commentary crew approached the size of the candidate pool for the Democratic presidential nomination. ESPN employed eight commentators and used six for each match: three in the booth, one at courtside, two more on the terrace. The troupe established new levels of verbal assault with few contributions of wisdom or insight.
Mary Carillo, for example, while noted for a refreshing sense of humor, showcased a collection of predictable puns and worn references to “Big Babe Tennis.” Her commentary was particularly ragged during the women’s semifinal when she was reduced to babbling that Serena Williams’s game had lost its “gregarious” quality and looked “constipated.”
Mary Joe Fernandez, with a stoicism suggesting an oncoming root canal appointment, talked faster as the tournament progressed – as if a crew member was playing practical jokes with her teleprompter.
Cliff Drysdale continued in his role as the most opinionated and inattentive commentator in tennis by repeatedly misstating information about matches and scores. Upon going to commercial at 6-5 in the third set of Serena Williams’s opening match, Drysdale asked, “There was a tiebreak in the second set. Are we headed for one in the third?” On returning, Drysdale corrected himself, saying that the U.S. Open is the only Slam where tiebreaks are played in ultimate sets.
An exchange between Chris Fowler and Pam Shriver during the women’s doubles final quickly deteriorated into a low-brow reinvention of Who’s-on-First. Following up on Shriver’s comment regarding a doubles strategy where one player squats at net in the center of the court as her partner serves, Fowler asked the six-foot-plus former Grand Slam doubles champ, “How was your crouch?” “My what?” replied Shriver. “Your crouch.” “My what?” Shriver asked louder. And so it went.
Fowler, a host from other ESPN shows and the one member of the corps who is not retired from the pro tennis tour, distinguished himself by providing some fresh information about the telecast. He took the time to explain the ESPN “shot spot” uses a combination of four cameras and animated graphics to provide a definitive view of balls hit close to a line.
ESPN’s progress in covering the Australian Open – significant between 1998 and 2002 – has been reversed. Once, the network at least talked a good game. But after talking over a player’s comment to the chair umpire, Patrick McEnroe asked the question of the tournament: “Why can’t I shut up?”
Indeed.
Television correspondent Lawrence Jeziak also reviews films, writes poetry and teaches courses in film and writing. He reviewed the year on television in Tennis Week’s Dec. 2002/Jan. 2003 issue.
Thank you Eurosport
By Lawrence Jeziak
02/01/2003
As the self-proclaimed “world-wide leader in sports,” with three 24-hour-a-day stations, ESPN should be expected to set a standard for excellence with its Australian Open coverage. While its 75 hours of coverage from Melbourne Park in 2003 began with great promise, the result was far less than a broadcasting masterpiece.
Inexplicable programming changes, a preponderance of taped matches during the second week and unprecedented waves of irrelevant commentary dulled spectacular moments of on-court drama.
The pattern of inattention and indifference emerged on the tournament’s second day with live coverage beginning at 9:30 p.m. (EST) and the promise to feature Lleyton Hewitt. Serena Williams’s first-rounder with Emilie Loit preceded it. When the top women’s seed needed two hours to win a surprisingly competitive three-set match delivered in its entirety, ESPN cited “time constraints” preventing it from continuing and returned to regular programming. Hewitt won in five sets.
The most dramatic TV tennis people saw, before Serena Williams’s resurgent semifinal with Kim Clijsters, occurred on day seven. Live coverage began at 10 p.m. with Justine Henin-Hardenne leading Lindsay Davenport 7-5, 4-1 in a fourth-round match-up that preceded the featured Andre Agassi match. The women’s encounter seemed to be decided. But Davenport ran off 10 of the next 12 games and was serving at 4-1 in the third when momentum shifted again. Henin-Hardenne leveled the set, but at 7-7 collapsed with cramps. Still, she recovered to win 9-7 in a three-hour battle.
In contrast to day two, ESPN stayed on the air for the featured match. But this was Andre Agassi, whose fans were consistently rewarded. All seven of the champion’s matches were presented in their entirety; six were shown live. ESPN’s large ever-present logo could have read, “Agassi Open 2003.”
Andy Roddick’s 21-19 five-set, five-hour quarterfinal victory over Younes El Aynaoui – declared to be a “match for the ages” – was shown to its finale and almost immediately scheduled for rebroadcast as an “instant classic.” But the nine-hour delay of the initial presentation diluted much of the drama, characteristic of ESPN’s second week of coverage.
ESPN’s schedule promised live coverage on all broadcasts beginning between 9:30 and 11 p.m. That promise was repeatedly broken. Without explanation, taped presentations replaced live coverage. Of eight quarterfinal matches, only Agassi’s was presented live. ESPN ignored Rainer Schuettler’s upset of Wimbledon runner-up David Nalbandian – in the second set when ESPN’s coverage began at 10:30 p.m. – in favor of two earlier women’s matches, delivering them as if they were live.
Since other logos cluttered the screen throughout the tournament, this TV tennis junkie asked why viewers weren’t advised they were watching taped tennis. The initial response from an ESPN spokesperson was, “Announcements at the beginning of the coverage, as well as coming back from commercial breaks, let viewers know it is taped programming.” Informed that the Clijsters and Serena Williams quarterfinal contained no such announcements, ESPN’s response shifted to “programming that is not labeled as ‘live’ is taped.”
The larger question, of course, is why taped tennis? In the 21st century it is ridiculous to present matches after the fact. Venus Williams’s fourth-round match was shown on 19-hour delay. And the men’s semifinals, presented live in 2001 and 2002 and initially scheduled for live coverage in 2003, were delivered on a 12-hour delay.
While trimming live tennis from its schedule, ESPN’s commentary crew approached the size of the candidate pool for the Democratic presidential nomination. ESPN employed eight commentators and used six for each match: three in the booth, one at courtside, two more on the terrace. The troupe established new levels of verbal assault with few contributions of wisdom or insight.
Mary Carillo, for example, while noted for a refreshing sense of humor, showcased a collection of predictable puns and worn references to “Big Babe Tennis.” Her commentary was particularly ragged during the women’s semifinal when she was reduced to babbling that Serena Williams’s game had lost its “gregarious” quality and looked “constipated.”
Mary Joe Fernandez, with a stoicism suggesting an oncoming root canal appointment, talked faster as the tournament progressed – as if a crew member was playing practical jokes with her teleprompter.
Cliff Drysdale continued in his role as the most opinionated and inattentive commentator in tennis by repeatedly misstating information about matches and scores. Upon going to commercial at 6-5 in the third set of Serena Williams’s opening match, Drysdale asked, “There was a tiebreak in the second set. Are we headed for one in the third?” On returning, Drysdale corrected himself, saying that the U.S. Open is the only Slam where tiebreaks are played in ultimate sets.
An exchange between Chris Fowler and Pam Shriver during the women’s doubles final quickly deteriorated into a low-brow reinvention of Who’s-on-First. Following up on Shriver’s comment regarding a doubles strategy where one player squats at net in the center of the court as her partner serves, Fowler asked the six-foot-plus former Grand Slam doubles champ, “How was your crouch?” “My what?” replied Shriver. “Your crouch.” “My what?” Shriver asked louder. And so it went.
Fowler, a host from other ESPN shows and the one member of the corps who is not retired from the pro tennis tour, distinguished himself by providing some fresh information about the telecast. He took the time to explain the ESPN “shot spot” uses a combination of four cameras and animated graphics to provide a definitive view of balls hit close to a line.
ESPN’s progress in covering the Australian Open – significant between 1998 and 2002 – has been reversed. Once, the network at least talked a good game. But after talking over a player’s comment to the chair umpire, Patrick McEnroe asked the question of the tournament: “Why can’t I shut up?”
Indeed.
Television correspondent Lawrence Jeziak also reviews films, writes poetry and teaches courses in film and writing. He reviewed the year on television in Tennis Week’s Dec. 2002/Jan. 2003 issue.
Thank you Eurosport
