[Henrik]

Usually, at slams, the fairness of the scheduling is an issue here at MTF. In the case of the USO, the question often asked is "who is the bigger name that deserves to play on Ashe"? Do the big favorites, sharing the same half of the draw, get equal treatment, and so on.

Typically the people responsible for the scheduling can be defended for their choices. The feeling I have had is that players that get favored, are the ones who are more popular with the crowd. In that light, it is not a surprise if a player that has a home crowd gets the big stage more often than the ranking would otherwise motivate.

However, with no crowd, the reason to put players assumed to be crowd favorites on Ashe is much diminished. It is more about, who gets the advantage to play on the same court where the final and the other late-round matches will be played. On the first day, the organizers seemed to think the same, putting only highly seeded players on Ashe. On the next day (Tuesday), though, they seemed to pick crowd favorites over highly seeded players.

Having an unseeded player like Murray on Ashe would not be surprising normally. He is a former world number one and a former champion, so the crowd likely wants to see him play (I know I do). Similarly, putting a home player and former champion like Venus on the night session at Ashe, would have been natural in normal circumstances. However, the circumstances are anything but normal.

So, my question to MTF: Is it really right to follow the same scheduling principles as normal, even if the crowd is missing?

 

[Nole Fan #1]

The other half of it is TV viewers. They want to put names that will get the most viewership in prime time spots. That typically lines up with the favorites of the tournament, but in some circumstances like Venus it still makes sense.

 

[Supercell]

TV viewers constitute over 99.9% of all people watching the match. In this case maybe they should make it a bit easier for the Europeans to watch.

 

[chilazon]

TV viewers constitute over 99.9% of all people watching the match. In this case maybe they should make it a bit easier for the Europeans to watch.

People in Asia/Oceania like to watch too and it's impossible to please everyone.

 

[BodyServe]

Why should it change? Night/day sessions were always for TV purposes and viewing experiences are still better on the bigger courts (more cameras with better angle, bigger courts behind baseline, TV commentators boxes etc...)

 

[Henrik]

Granted, TV viewers are by far the majority (99.9. % seems like a fair guess), also in normal circumstances. My reason for raising the question was based on an implicit assumption: No matter what players are scheduled on Ashe - Eurosport, ESPN, and any other broadcaster are free to follow whichever match they like in their main slots.

To make my question a bit more explicit. In case we have no reason to please ticket holders on Ashe (and given that my assumption above is true, such that TV viewers can get the matches they like in any case), should organizers mainly try to be fair to all top players? That is, give them all as equal chances as possible to get used to the conditions on Ashe, in good time for the late rounds when all matches will be played on the main stadium.

 

[Henrik]

Why should it change? Night/day sessions were always for TV purposes and viewing experiences are still better on the bigger courts (more cameras with better angle, bigger courts behind baseline, TV commentators boxes etc...)

I did not see this argument before I wrote my previous reply. Sure, the bigger courts may have a bit better conditions from a TV experience point of view. Maybe that trumps my fairness argument, but I'm not totally convinced.

 

[Fargif]

Tv money. But in all fairness Zvere vs Kandy should of been a nightseasion. Not Nole dzumbur.
But doesnt matter anyway.

 

[Servebots=GOAT]

The tv networks always show American women playing even if they are bad or their match puts people to sleep. If there’s no American women, then they show top players or American men.