RANT: USA network coverage

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by James Bond 0 » Sat, 04 Sep 1999 04:00:00


WARNING:

IF YOU LIKE THE COVERAGE OF THE US OPEN ON THE USA NETWORK,
OR ABSOLUTELY ADORE JOHN McENROE,
THEN YOU BETTER IGNORE THIS POSTING.

================================================================

The US Open is being shown on the American "USA" cable network.

This has been the WORST coverage I have seen in years,
on ANY cable or broacast station, with today being the absolute PITS.

Throughout the tournament,
they have shown only snippets of upsets (Novotna),
and over-covered incidental or otherwise dull matches
with unknowns or "don't-care-abouts".

Worse, they have taken the time to hawk
all the wonderful souvenirs and gimmicks
one could get from either the grounds or via their website.

They also went on and on about a signed tennis ball
that was being auctioned on their website,
which, though meant for a good cause,
quickly fell out of reach of 95% of the viewing audience
at over $1300 US.

At one point, on Friday,
I turned the TV on and heard John McEnroe
seemingly speaking into an accidentally left open microphone,
going on about how expensive something was.

One of the announcers later explained that John
was on an "Excellent Adventure" through the grounds
of the US Open.  "Excellent?"  How about BORING?

We were "treated" to John hamming it up,
showing off his tennis knowledge, getting people into
the stadium (without even checking if they had tickets),
telling viewers how great the place is, and on and on and on.

In between the useless tour,
he managed to visit and talk about one particular game
for a few minutes by taking someone's seat
(if I were in the stands, I would have said,
"BUZZ OFF! I'm trying to watch the game!"
Instead, I just turned off the sound).

-----------------------------------------

ATTENTION "USA" MEDIA MOGULS:
Save the tours and monologues when there is a lull in the action,
and NOT when we're trying to watch the tennis,
and then show it ALL at once for NO MORE than FIVE minutes.

And get rid of that ridiculous C/NET camera;
every time I see it, it gets me nauseous from the seemingly
random movement.

-----------------------------------------

ATTENTION JOHN McENBRAT:
Your 15 minutes of fame ended a LONG time ago.
We're tired of listening to your pointless prattling
(didn't you have enough to say at Newport where you
bragged about yourself well beyond your slotted time?
I'm surprised nobody said, "Game cancelled on account
of boredom!").

----
Do NOT respond via e-mail;
the e-mail address is phony to prevent spam.
Thanks for understanding.

 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by Amy Cottrel » Sat, 04 Sep 1999 04:00:00


the coverage all we want on this newsgroup, but i doubt the network execs or
webmasters frequent this newsgroup. if we don't put a stop to this, tennis
will turn into something like pro wrestling.

amy

 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by Naomi Lloy » Sun, 05 Sep 1999 04:00:00

And how about their cutting back to Goran's match towards the end of the
Snyder-Mauresmo match on Friday night.  Incredibly sexist to upstage the
"mainstage" event, and stupid too considering the level of interest in
the women's game,

Naomi

Quote:


> the coverage all we want on this newsgroup, but i doubt the network execs or
> webmasters frequent this newsgroup. if we don't put a stop to this, tennis
> will turn into something like pro wrestling.

> amy


 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by Dina del Vall » Sun, 05 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Did you watch the Snyder/Mauresmo match?  It came painfully close to the
Coetzer/Martinez match in watchability.  A higher interest in the
women's game does not mean sticking with a poorly played match until the
bitter end.  Like it or not, Ivanisevic is a big draw in NY.  His
erratic play only makes him that much more interesting.  Any shot could
be a tank or a winner.  With the two options laid out before them, stick
with a mind-numbing women's match, or cut to a potentially exciting
men's match, you should commend USA for sticking with Snyder/Mauresmo as
long as they did.

Had the level of tennis been anywhere near the S. Williams/Clijsters
match from today, and they cut away, then you'd have a leg to stand on,
but it didn't.  I like a competitive, well-played women's match as much
as the next person, but we weren't getting that last night.

Dina

Quote:

> And how about their cutting back to Goran's match towards the end of the
> Snyder-Mauresmo match on Friday night.  Incredibly sexist to upstage the
> "mainstage" event, and stupid too considering the level of interest in
> the women's game,

> Naomi



> > the coverage all we want on this newsgroup, but i doubt the network execs or
> > webmasters frequent this newsgroup. if we don't put a stop to this, tennis
> > will turn into something like pro wrestling.

> > amy

 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by James Bond 0 » Sun, 05 Sep 1999 04:00:00

On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 22:52:58 GMT, "Amy Cottrell"

Quote:


>the coverage all we want on this newsgroup, but i doubt the network execs or
>webmasters frequent this newsgroup. if we don't put a stop to this, tennis
>will turn into something like pro wrestling.

>amy

        Believe it or not,
        some media types and even some tennis stars
        *do* read the tennis newsgroups,
        just to keep tabs on viewers!

        And, though I doubt that anything will come of it,
        I forwarded my e-mail to your suggested address
        (I've found that although the media reads
        their e-mails, they rarely, if ever, respond to them).

        BTW, I found it interesting that, so far,
        only 4 people responded to my "RANT",
        and that they were all (allegedly) women!
        I expected a pro-McEnbrat response
        (which, so far, hasn't even been noted),
        and I was surprised that it took a slant
        about the women's game, with both
        pro- and anti-women's game point-of-views!

----
Do NOT respond via e-mail;
the e-mail address is phony to prevent spam.
Thanks for understanding.

 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by Naomi Lloy » Sun, 05 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

> Did you watch the Snyder/Mauresmo match?  It came painfully close to the
> Coetzer/Martinez match in watchability.  A higher interest in the
> women's game does not mean sticking with a poorly played match until the
> bitter end.  

Who played poorly in this match up? Sure, Mauresmo got off to a slow
start, but she played well after the first few games.  Snyder came out
all fired up with iron determination was great to see.

Like it or not, Ivanisevic is a big draw in NY.  His

Quote:
> erratic play only makes him that much more interesting.  Any shot could
> be a tank or a winner.  With the two options laid out before them, stick
> with a mind-numbing women's match, or cut to a potentially exciting
> men's match, you should commend USA for sticking with Snyder/Mauresmo as
> long as they did.

> Had the level of tennis been anywhere near the S. Williams/Clijsters
> match from today, and they cut away, then you'd have a leg to stand on,
> but it didn't.  

Well you and I see this very differently.  I thought Serena Williams
played appallingly for much of the match - way too many unforced errors,
and her serve very nearly fell apart completely.  Clijsters seemed more
consistent, but was also patchy towards the end. Match statistics have
them at 46 and 56 unforced errors respectively, and 26 to 18 winners.
Average first serving was 89 to 78 mph. Clijster's won 91 points to S.
Williams 107.

I found the Snyder-Mauresmo match FAR more interesting.  Snyder came out
really fired up and took a healthy lead fairly early on.  Mauresmo is
still a a dark horse - it was interesting to see whether she is for real
and how she would perform after her absence. They only played two sets,
but there were 24 and 33 ue's, 21 to 15 winners. Average serving speed
was 95 and 85 mph. Mauresmo won 70 points altogether to Snyder's 54.
Almost all the statistics are better than the above match - and also the
players appear to be more closely matched in the latter.

Are you sure you're thinking of the right match?

Naomi

I like a competitive, well-played women's match as much

Quote:
> as the next person, but we weren't getting that last night.

> Dina


> > And how about their cutting back to Goran's match towards the end of the
> > Snyder-Mauresmo match on Friday night.  Incredibly sexist to upstage the
> > "mainstage" event, and stupid too considering the level of interest in
> > the women's game,

> > Naomi



> > > the coverage all we want on this newsgroup, but i doubt the network execs or
> > > webmasters frequent this newsgroup. if we don't put a stop to this, tennis
> > > will turn into something like pro wrestling.

> > > amy

 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by Dina del Vall » Mon, 06 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:


> > Did you watch the Snyder/Mauresmo match?  It came painfully close to the
> > Coetzer/Martinez match in watchability.  A higher interest in the
> > women's game does not mean sticking with a poorly played match until the
> > bitter end.

> Who played poorly in this match up? Sure, Mauresmo got off to a slow
> start, but she played well after the first few games.  Snyder came out
> all fired up with iron determination was great to see.

Mauresmo was slow, and Snyder may have been "all fired up" but the match
looked like a high level juniors match to me.  No energy to any of the
shots, no strategy other than to sit on the baseline and wait for the
other player to make a mistake, dumping approach shots into the net.  I
feared death by boredom watching it.

Quote:

> Like it or not, Ivanisevic is a big draw in NY.  His
> > erratic play only makes him that much more interesting.  Any shot could
> > be a tank or a winner.  With the two options laid out before them, stick
> > with a mind-numbing women's match, or cut to a potentially exciting
> > men's match, you should commend USA for sticking with Snyder/Mauresmo as
> > long as they did.

> > Had the level of tennis been anywhere near the S. Williams/Clijsters
> > match from today, and they cut away, then you'd have a leg to stand on,
> > but it didn't.

> Well you and I see this very differently.  I thought Serena Williams
> played appallingly for much of the match - way too many unforced errors,
> and her serve very nearly fell apart completely.  Clijsters seemed more
> consistent, but was also patchy towards the end. Match statistics have
> them at 46 and 56 unforced errors respectively, and 26 to 18 winners.
> Average first serving was 89 to 78 mph. Clijster's won 91 points to S.
> Williams 107.

> I found the Snyder-Mauresmo match FAR more interesting.  Snyder came out
> really fired up and took a healthy lead fairly early on.  Mauresmo is
> still a a dark horse - it was interesting to see whether she is for real
> and how she would perform after her absence. They only played two sets,
> but there were 24 and 33 ue's, 21 to 15 winners. Average serving speed
> was 95 and 85 mph. Mauresmo won 70 points altogether to Snyder's 54.
> Almost all the statistics are better than the above match - and also the
> players appear to be more closely matched in the latter.

> Are you sure you're thinking of the right match?

There in lies the difference, I was watching the match, and you were
tracking stats.

Dina

 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by Naomi Lloy » Mon, 06 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



> > > Did you watch the Snyder/Mauresmo match?  It came painfully close to the
> > > Coetzer/Martinez match in watchability.  A higher interest in the
> > > women's game does not mean sticking with a poorly played match until the
> > > bitter end.

> > Who played poorly in this match up? Sure, Mauresmo got off to a slow
> > start, but she played well after the first few games.  Snyder came out
> > all fired up with iron determination was great to see.

> Mauresmo was slow, and Snyder may have been "all fired up" but the match
> looked like a high level juniors match to me.  No energy to any of the
> shots, no strategy other than to sit on the baseline and wait for the
> other player to make a mistake, dumping approach shots into the net.  I
> feared death by boredom watching it.

> > Like it or not, Ivanisevic is a big draw in NY.  His
> > > erratic play only makes him that much more interesting.  Any shot could
> > > be a tank or a winner.  With the two options laid out before them, stick
> > > with a mind-numbing women's match, or cut to a potentially exciting
> > > men's match, you should commend USA for sticking with Snyder/Mauresmo as
> > > long as they did.

> > > Had the level of tennis been anywhere near the S. Williams/Clijsters
> > > match from today, and they cut away, then you'd have a leg to stand on,
> > > but it didn't.

> > Well you and I see this very differently.  I thought Serena Williams
> > played appallingly for much of the match - way too many unforced errors,
> > and her serve very nearly fell apart completely.  Clijsters seemed more
> > consistent, but was also patchy towards the end. Match statistics have
> > them at 46 and 56 unforced errors respectively, and 26 to 18 winners.
> > Average first serving was 89 to 78 mph. Clijster's won 91 points to S.
> > Williams 107.

> > I found the Snyder-Mauresmo match FAR more interesting.  Snyder came out
> > really fired up and took a healthy lead fairly early on.  Mauresmo is
> > still a a dark horse - it was interesting to see whether she is for real
> > and how she would perform after her absence. They only played two sets,
> > but there were 24 and 33 ue's, 21 to 15 winners. Average serving speed
> > was 95 and 85 mph. Mauresmo won 70 points altogether to Snyder's 54.
> > Almost all the statistics are better than the above match - and also the
> > players appear to be more closely matched in the latter.

> > Are you sure you're thinking of the right match?

> There in lies the difference, I was watching the match, and you were
> tracking stats.

> Dina

But you're an avid Goran fan, right.  Perhaps you should rely more on
the stats for a more objective perspective,

Naomi

 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by Dina del Vall » Mon, 06 Sep 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

>But you're an avid Goran fan, right.  Perhaps you should
rely more on
>the stats for a more objective perspective,

What does one have to do with the other?  I'm more of a
Sampras fan than Ivanisevic (but give a girl a break,
Goran's hot) but how does that make the Snyder/Mauresmo
match enjoyable to watch?  We're talking WATCHABILITY of a
match, not READABILITY of statistics.

For a tennis match to be WATCHABLE it must have some kind of
tension, or e***ment to it. (That's what's called "good
television") Often this is counter to what the stats say.  
Snyder/Mauresmo made fewer unforced errors, because they
were both, for the most part, playing defensively.  That
leads to a slow and boring match.  Clijsters/Williams, on
the other hand, were swinging away, and trying for winners.
And for sheer WATCHABILITY (which, again in case you
forgot, doesn't always rely on stats) there are few players
on either tour who can match up with Ivanisevic.  It's
called emotion, and passion, and, quite honestly,
instability.  I'm human and I want to see more than ten-bots
hitting high-percentage shots.

I'm not adverse to the beauty of the sport played well, and
that's why I enjoy watching Sampras play.  But, I saw
neither drama, nor brilliance in the Snyder/Mauresmo match.

You may be more of women's tennis fan than I am, and that's
you're right, but as far as watching a match, I'd rather see
Hingis roll over an opponent 6-0, 6-0 and hit some beautiful
winners than see Snyder/Mauresmo dink balls back and forth
for 20, 30 shots, only for the point to end in a workmanlike
passing shot that either dumps into the net, or sails just
long.

Dina

* Sent from RemarQ http://SportToday.org/ The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by Naomi Lloy » Mon, 06 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:



> >But you're an avid Goran fan, right.  Perhaps you should
> rely more on
> >the stats for a more objective perspective,

> What does one have to do with the other?  I'm more of a
> Sampras fan than Ivanisevic (but give a girl a break,
> Goran's hot) but how does that make the Snyder/Mauresmo
> match enjoyable to watch?  We're talking WATCHABILITY of a
> match, not READABILITY of statistics.

I looked up and raised the issue of statistics because I felt that your
desire to see Goran had overshadowed your judgment and caused you to put
far too negative a slant on the Snyder/Mauresmo match.

Quote:
> For a tennis match to be WATCHABLE it must have some kind of
> tension, or e***ment to it. (That's what's called "good
> television") Often this is counter to what the stats say.
> Snyder/Mauresmo made fewer unforced errors, because they
> were both, for the most part, playing defensively.  That
> leads to a slow and boring match.  Clijsters/Williams, on
> the other hand, were swinging away, and trying for winners.

 Clijsters/Williams hit fewer winners per set than Snyder/Mauresmo.  It
also gets boring just to watch the swinging if the balls don't go in.

And even the network's cutting back to Clijsters/Williams match was long
after the second set had started.  I would have cut back when Serena was
3-4 down. After all there was a fairly pedestrian men's match going on
on the Arthur Ashe stadium.

Quote:
> And for sheer WATCHABILITY (which, again in case you
> forgot, doesn't always rely on stats) there are few players
> on either tour who can match up with Ivanisevic.  It's
> called emotion, and passion, and, quite honestly,
> instability.  

And you're primarily a Sampras fan ?????

Both Mauresmo and Snyder brought emotion and passion into the match.
Snyder played her guts out.  She is a player who venerates intensity -
and her intensity was clear in that match.  Mauresmo is such an
up-and-comer (a future top 10 player), and has dealt with controversy so
calmly that there is an automatic interest in her game.

Quote:
> I'm not adverse to the beauty of the sport played well, and
> that's why I enjoy watching Sampras play.  But, I saw
> neither drama, nor brilliance in the Snyder/Mauresmo match.

> You may be more of women's tennis fan than I am, and that's
> you're right, but as far as watching a match, I'd rather see
> Hingis roll over an opponent 6-0, 6-0 and hit some beautiful
> winners

Well then you must have been annoyed to see the network cut away from
Seles' match last night to focus on the Spadea/Tielleman match, which I
thought was quite warranted.

Quote:
>than see Snyder/Mauresmo dink balls back and forth
> for 20, 30 shots, only for the point to end in a workmanlike
> passing shot that either dumps into the net, or sails just
> long.

This is not what I saw. The ralleys were not long. Mauresmo has the
makings of a serve-volleyer and was doing some of this.  It's
interesting to watch this emerging. Snyders' angles on the court
approximated Seles'. I guess I enjoy seeing emerging talent - how their
game will evolve, what their strengths and weaknesses are. The slam,
bang, haram of the men's game doesn't do much for me. To me tennis is
like a chess game - those points that finish as quickly as the men's are
the less interesting ones.

Naomi

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> Dina

> * Sent from RemarQ http://SportToday.org/ The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

RANT: USA network coverage

Post by James Bond 0 » Fri, 10 Sep 1999 04:00:00

WARNING:

IF YOU LIKE THE COVERAGE OF THE US OPEN ON THE USA NETWORK,
OR ABSOLUTELY ADORE JOHN McENROE,
THEN YOU BETTER IGNORE THIS POSTING.

================================================================

The US Open is being shown on the American "USA" cable network.

This has been the WORST coverage I have seen in years,
on ANY cable or broacast station, with today being the absolute PITS.

Did you see Wednesday night's USA coverage of the US Open?

They spent nearly ONE AND A HALF HOURS
watching a live broadcast of McEnbrat being
cast as US Davis Cup Captain.  I have nothing against that,
and I'm sure that he will be good for Davis Cup
(if you were a US Davis Cup player playing under him,
would YOU question his ability as Captain???).

Thank goodness that I now tape the entire US Open coverage,
so that I can fast forward through such never-ending nonsense.

Here's a "clue" USA network:

    Let the viewers watch the LIVE tennis
    (or past decent matches during rain delays),
    while you record such tripe,
    then you should whittle it down to UNDER FIVE MINUTES,
    and THEN show it to us during a LULL in the matches.

When the Davenport-Pierce match was halted at 5-5 in the
third set due to rain, we were treated to tons of commercials,
including the various self-serving hawking of goods by the USA network,
and some boring tape-delayed matches.

Out of nearly ELEVEN taped hours (11am-6pm, and 7:30pm-11pm),
I found only TWO hours to be watchable!

As I said, thank goodness for "fast forward"
(but, BOY, my remote control fingers are cramping something awful!).  ; )

-----
Bond . . . James Bond

(Did you know that James Bond plays tennis?
  Check out "http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Villa/1855")