atp preference

[tennissavy]

The espn coverage has given too much attention to atp matches, as usual.
We missed the entire 2nd set of the Sharapova match and at least the first 5 games of Mauresmo's match, if they even show any of it as promised- for whom- James Blake of all people. He has almost no shot of winning this tournament. Sharapova and Mauresmo do have a chance and are ranked#2 & 3 respectively!!! Truly unfair. Showing any of Spadea earlier was a waste too. It is almost guaranteed that we will miss not one point of Roddick later, though.

 

[barry]

Even worse is if Roddick wins we will see the match 4 or 5 times. ESPN sucks!

 

[tykrum]

What are you talking about? I remember when ESPN showed nothing but terrible, non-competitive women's matches featuring the Williams sisters and Capriati among others. The Sharapova match wasn't well played and wasn't competitive to boot, even Maria said so. The Mauresmo match was a complete blowout from the start, the little girl she was playing really couldn't beat most club pros with all her nervousness. The James Blake match was very competitive during the first two sets when we were watching, and he is a huge draw in America, not to mention a great guy. Watching him coming back on tour after a huge number of setbacks is entertaining.

 

[tennissavy]

What are you talking about? I remember when ESPN showed nothing but terrible, non-competitive women's matches featuring the Williams sisters and Capriati among others. The Sharapova match wasn't well played and wasn't competitive to boot, even Maria said so. The Mauresmo match was a complete blowout from the start, the little girl she was playing really couldn't beat most club pros with all her nervousness. The James Blake match was very competitive during the first two sets when we were watching, and he is a huge draw in America, not to mention a great guy. Watching him coming back on tour after a huge number of setbacks is entertaining.

Blake had no shot to win the tournament and seldom advances past early rounds. The women playing today are highly ranked and are in contention for the French Open title so we should have seen their matches without any more than brief interruption for updates on Blake or Spadea. We were exposed to way too much atp tennis featuring players who are "non factors" in the tournament. That is absurd and it never, never happens that title contenders in the atp are shunned for non factor wta players- NEVER. No one said the Sharapova or mauresmo matches were the most competitive. The point is that blowout, non-competitive men's matches are usually shown in place of wta thrillers. It is a comment on espn's bad coverage. No respect was shown to the wta matches featuring top name title contenders.

 

[tykrum]

If there is a competitive men's match featuring a large draw personality like James Blake, ESPN will show it these days over a terrible match featuring big names on the women's side. This is how it should be, tennis is meant to be entertaining, not just a show where we can only watch the top five players on each side. Your point about 'non-factor' WTA players is a non-point because there really aren't any big draw 'non-factor' WTA players that play interesting well-played matches. Your unsupported claim about blowout men's matches being showed over WTA "thrillers" is interesting, because I have never seen it happen before. WTA "thrillers" are so few and far in-between, and they are almost always in the final rounds, and hence, on TV. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but there aren't many blowouts on the men's side because men's players find more ways to win games, and there is less disparity in talent on the men's side. This makes almost every match at least slightly entertaining, like the Roddick match on right now. I personally think ESPN is doing their best job ever at covering tennis this year at the French.

 

[tennissavy]

If there is a competitive men's match featuring a large draw personality like James Blake, ESPN will show it these days over a terrible match featuring big names on the women's side. This is how it should be, tennis is meant to be entertaining, not just a show where we can only watch the top five players on each side. Your point about 'non-factor' WTA players is a non-point because there really aren't any big draw 'non-factor' WTA players that play interesting well-played matches. Your unsupported claim about blowout men's matches being showed over WTA "thrillers" is interesting, because I have never seen it happen before. WTA "thrillers" are so few and far in-between, and they are almost always in the final rounds, and hence, on TV. Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but there aren't many blowouts on the men's side because men's players find more ways to win games, and there is less disparity in talent on the men's side. This makes almost every match at least slightly entertaining, like the Roddick match on right now. I personally think ESPN is doing their best job ever at covering tennis this year at the French.

Lisa Raymond was down a set and 0-5 and found a way to win at a grand slam even last year but we were seeing a match of no name players. I don't even remember who was in that atp match- horrible match by the way. There is so much depth in the women's game these days that no one can predict who win. It is wide open. The men's side has 2 picks federer and nadal. It's not wide open. If anyone else wins the title for the men, it would be a complete surprise. This just speaks of the depth on the women's side these days. I like both atp and wta matches but I don't like unfair coverage by espn. That is the point of this whole post NOT your preference of wta or atp.