Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by prostaff18, Jan 20, 2007.
she's hot too. And that' s a fact
haha. For a second there I thought you were talking about Mary Carillo and not Mary Joe Fernandez.
They both sound like men. I don't like Mary joe Fernandez at all. What a bore to watch on the court.
Anyone catch Carillo (or was it Shriver?) and Drysdale talking about Federer being the best Drysdale had seen (he had played, and had a couple of wins over Laver I think)
Carillo said something like 'That sure says a lot since you're elderly!!' I was laughing at that for a while - Drysdale was just left speechless.
Who let her talk during the final? She talks SO much. Shut up please, let me enjoy the points.
Yea, I cannot believe ESPN let her do the final. I'm watching it on mute because i'm tired of hearing her ramble.
AngeloDS and LH,
I want to call over to ESPN and scream... tell both of them to just SHUT THE HELL UP!!!! They talked over the entire 3-3 game in the 2nd set. It is like listening to a couple of Middle School students after they have been in school all day and have to get their 1,000,000 words out...
Sorry...but it is crazy.
Yeah, I had to put it on mute as well. It's annoying to have to do that, because I like to hear the sounds on the court, but I don't like hearing them enough to justify listening to the sound of Carillo's voice. The intolerability of the sound of her voice is exceeded only by the volume with which she insists on using it.
Mary Carillo's Poor Logic
I have seen a few arguments from her to feel that her logical ability is questionable.
(1) She once challenged Gilbert with a bad question to reinforce a good point: "Have you ever seen a no. 1 player that is not extremely fast?"
Gilbert: "I guest that would be Lindsay Davenport."
Not willing to concede, she came back to Gilbert several times for this losing cause. Sounded very silly on the air.
(2) During this tournament, she tried to argue that allowing electronic line calling is unfair to the players, "Oh, don't get me started…." Various people are against the technology for various reasons, but not for this reason. How can allowing the players an option is unfair to them?
(3) Last night, she used Federer as an example to explain that coaches are important. Coaches may be important, but Fed is not the right example. He is the example, cited million times over that coaches are optional.
I now think she carved out a place in man's tennis broadcasting for being stubborn, her ability to draw inference is really weak. No wonder JMac objects to her, "what does she know…"
As a commentator she is below average to very poor but considering the typical fan (clueless concerning tennis) the network and their advertisers wants to reach, she is ok.
She's okay when she's like the third person, not when she's the second and talking too much. When she's given free reign, she becomes captain obvious.
In general, I agree with what you're saying about Carillo. She is a blow hard at best. However, in this case I agree with her. She's not saying that electronic line calling is unfair to the players. What she's saying is that the "Challenge" system is unfair to the players. If they are going to use electronic line calling, she would like the umpires to use the technology to determine if the call was correct, or not. Rather than the current system of putting the burden on the players to "Challenge" the call. I happen to agree with her. IMO, the goal should be to get the call correct, not to make a spectacle out of whether the player is going to risk their two challenges per set.
She might talk too much but atleast she says what's on her mind. e.g. she is quite willing to criticize womens tennis for being mindless baseline bashing. You'll never hear that from Shriver or Mary-Joe.
I'm glad you said this, because I think she does deserve credit for speaking honestly about the state of the game nowadays. Shriver/Mary Jo simply cheerlead the women's matches, no matter how horrible or boring they are.
I used to really like Carillo. She has a sort of wit and flair I find lacking in other commentators. But she was just driving me nuts this year, talking talking TALKING incessantly through points, usually with fairly obvious commentary. If she could just button her lip as soon as the server steps up to the line, I think I could take the mixed bag that is Ms. Carillo. But this is the first tournament I actually groaned when I saw that she was commentating.
And putting her with Dick Enberg, too!?! It was like torture. He's completely useless (though often unintentionally funny, like when he called Serena "Old Rusty.")
please tell me that this is the last broadcast for ESPN this year for Grand Slams.
please oh please.
Carillo is and always has been terrible. This news isnt new.
btw, this was the worst announcing i have heard for any tennis tournament.
Well the tennis channel is going to be broadcasting the French. Not sure who will be in the booth though.
as ESPN signed off after the men's final, I believe Fowler said "we'll see you at Roland Garros." Could have been a slip-up, but this was on the re-broadcast after they would have had time to edit it out. I am really hoping that TTC is able to pick up the Eurosport feed as previously announced
Or will they?
This news story makes it sound like they will sell back some of their rights to ESPN:
Makes sense since with the tiny # of households that get TTC, they couldn't sell the ads for enough cash not to take a huge bath. I think the partnership is the best idea. TTC should let ESPN show Andy, Serena, Blondie, and a little Fed - and TTC could show all the good early round matches.
I wish ESPN would let Luke Jensen work the booth with Cliffy. Couldn't be any worse and 99% sure it would be better. They might have to give Luke a downer - he might be a little too hyper for Cliff.
I hate the way that she explains Federer's technique, as being "quite". To me it's annoying and way vague for people trying to understand Federer's game (people who know the game and beginers alike).
ESPN has the Australian Open and Wimbledon, TTC (as far as I know) has the French, and USA network has the US Open.
I like hearing Mary Cirillo commentate on a tennis match. She make insightful remarks that most of the others don't think of. I have heard some negative comments about her. Just wondered what other folks thought.
What an old thread - just read the whole thing. Mary Carillo has been very successful at her job since the mid 1980s. She might have been wrong on Serena's chances early on, at the 2007 Australian Open, but she usually can explain which player from either women's tennis or men's tennis she thinks will win long before we see who wins. She can be funny and insightful and most of the time she lets the players do the talking with on court and adds her side commentary infrequently. She's as good as Pam Shriver or John McEnroe. Chris Fowler seems disinterested and Pat McEnroe should concentrate on Davis Cup. Cliff Drysdale and Mary Carillo are the old school pair from ESPN in the 1980s and know what they are doing. She has done a great job talking about tennis for years. No American tennis enthusiast has watched a tennis match on tv since the 1980s without Mary Carillo's commentary at some point throughout the last 20 years.
Damn. Your assessment is so on target, that your post should be the leading information on any official bio of her. And for God's sake will someone EVER call her out about her pro-Nadal stand?? In her eyes, the simple-minded clay-boy Nadal is the freakin' second coming!! The situation truly mirrors Patrick McEnroe's constant saliva bathing of all things Roddick, which is all too disgusting to say the least.
Pam Shriver sometimes too
I agree with you as well. On occasion when my brothers are watching she will say something that makes no sense and we will just look at each other.
If you want great commentary, get ATP master's series TV.
The commentators are 2 Brits most of the time, and they talk about the players, matches, and their games in a way that any player can learn from.
The best part is that they speak sparingly and to the point, rather than the incessant jibbering of Carillo or Shriver...
You are so right, and that's something I noticed when I first got my hands on the 2005 Safin vs Federer Australian Open Semi-Final video. The two Eurosport guys talked about their games, previous matches in the tournament, and so much relevant information.. all BETWEEN points. That was such a revelation to actually hear good commentary during a match. You can't truly comprehend how bad the commentary is on ESPN2 until you experience competent commentators do commentary.
^^^^ Agreed. The eurosport guys are very good.
I guess I'm in the minority here. I like Carillo - she speaks her mind and sometimes says the unpopular, but I'd rather hear that than a "Yes Man", errr Yes Woman. I think she is getting some undeserved bashing simply due to the pitch of her voice... seems to confirm that the most vocal posters here are high school boys (a little jealous of Mary's deep tone as you suffer away with a screechy pre-pubescent squawk?) Mary, you go girl!
Before, I either enjoyed Mary or was ambivalent. Yeah, she tries too hard sometimes, but she never really bothered me...
Until today. Actually, she was kind of annoying me yesterday, but today when she was going on and on about Hawkeye, she may have lost me for good. She made very little sense. Murray continued to play a point even though a backhand was out (by an inch or two) and immediately after the point, when Murray went back to look at the mark, she exclaimed "this is why I hate the review system!!!" Huh? Because Murray didn't stop the point and ask for a review? How is that the technology's fault? Later, she said that Hawkeye might have cost Andy the championship and it was unfair. It was truly bizarre.
I heard this too. She said she wanted all calls to be electronic and then Dick said that he "enjoys the human element" of having the lines people make the calls and Carillo agreed with him, umm so what exactly are you proposing here Mary?
I went upstairs to make some food and came back down ten minutes later and she was still complaining about it. Enough is enough, she's a nut.
^ It was kind of funny how every time she ranted about it there would be a bit of silence, if even for a few seconds, as if Dick and John didn't want to undermine her on the air, yet, thought she was a kook. They certainly didn't seem to agree and they made a few jokes to try to lighten the mood.
She can be good. She knows tennis, and seems like a nice person, but she often gets carried away by her own rhetoric. She reminds me of Jim Lampley in that respect. Didn't she work with him in the early days of her broadcasting career? I agree there was too much talking over the points by all parties yesterday. At least McEnroe often returned the discussion to the play. He is the best tennis announcer by far IMO. Dick Enberg is older now, and often flubs the score, but he also makes astute observations, and characterizes things well.
Yeah - the guys moved on, and were playing point after point, and yes, Carillo would just not shut up over the lines - I am sorry Mary - you know that one point in the second set will not determine if Murray wins a 5 set match. I mean, jeez, I had to review TVO to watch one really great point because she was sooooo distracting.
Despite what anyone has to say, I like Mary Carillo and she is a very gifted journalist in her own right. Although, she can shut up sometimes, that will never take away from her gift and contribution to the sport of tennis or any sport that she does cover.
You really don't understand her point? I was just talking to a friend of mine(a casual tennis fan) about the way replay is used in other sports, & we agreed the only reason it is used in other sports is strictly for the purpose of getting calls right, not for the fans at all(& fans in baseball & football stadiums aren't getting fancy replays on the scoreboard to ooh & ahh at as they do in tennis)
In the NBA they automatically use replay on shots that end quarters or games, no players/coaches are required to 'challenge.' And in college football they automatically review any questionable calls throughout the game.
I explained to him what happened yesterday & he was pretty shocked, he basically said what Carillo said, what's the point of replay at all if bad calls can still happen? wasn't that the whole point of adding it, to make sure bad calls can't decide a match?
Her point is valid, someone could have relayed to the chair umpire the info that the ball was out immediately & he could have stopped the point. But no, having players 'challenge' is more dramatic so they are sticking with a flawed system where players can still get screwed by bad calls.
Its sorta sad that pro tennis has to resort to gimmicks to help its popularity, they know that this really isn't about getting calls 'right' at all(I've seen quite a few points where players stare at lines, then decide not to challenge, then the replay shows that they should have)
Carillo is right, it should not be the players responsibility to call the lines.
I think the ATP/ITF should at least think about automatically using replay on any close shot on big points(mainly game points), sort of like the way the NBA uses it(and tennis replays are quicker than any other sports' replays, other sports often need to have several refs study various camera angles before ruling, while its just a simple question in tennis - in or out?)
Maybe some of you will understand her point when a bad call happens in the 5th set of a grand slam final, and the player either doesn't challenge or is out of challenges. wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of replay?
I thought yesterday was a big enough point that fans would finally get how silly the system is, but I guess not.
I have liked McEnroe until the US Open. He was getting on my nerves a bit this time.
I like Mary Carillo. I think she is one of the better commentators out there. I don't know where you are coming from when you say she doesn't stop talking when I notice that she doesn't get a word edgewise when she is in the booth with Enberg and J Mac. That said I do like Enberg's end of the tournament segments.
I also agree with MooseMAlloy about what Mary Carillo said about hawkeye. I really don't think players should make their own calls. HAwkeye has made Umpires lazy. I was actually surprised that umpires can use the challenge system when it happened during the women's finals. If that's the case, the umpires should be calling for hawkeye not the players.
there is a ton of ways to use Hawkeye, but this is the one they came up with to limit the delays, but still bring it into use. Most courts don't have it, so remember it is a luxury when you have the opportunity and it makes sure you don't get a major rip at a bad time. also, linesman are part of the game as well. They make far less mistakes than the players do, and maybe less than hawkeye?? probably not, but just cause hawk eye says something, does not make it correct. On the closest ones, I prefer the linesmans call, as it may fall into the margin for error for hawkeye, but the linesman call is the standard.
Mary's problem is her poor explanation of her position, just like on every other subject.
Separate names with a comma.