WTA shafted by the tv media

[tennissavy]

I love this and other articles by J. Stewart at ten nis week . c o m
It explains how the networks like to pretend that most women's matches are not good when in fact there are many wta matches which are never shown which are better than the men's matches. I saw great matches this past week at the open which were never shown on tv. Today I am at home and I am going to miss Jankovic vs. Kuznetsova. I know it's going to be good but it won't be shown. We have to be subjected to the same old men's matches, often one sided.

Here is the article:

The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Five Television Tracker


Photo By Michael Baz By J. Stewart
09/02/2006


Editor's note: Tennis Week contributor J. Stewart will post periodic reports, including statistical summaries and his analysis and opinion, of the U.S. Open television coverage. Stewart's U.S. Open Day Five summary is here.




Let's get right to the numbers for day five.

Day Five Session

Match coverage: Six hours.
Women's coverage: 56 minutes.
Night session: Four hours (no live tennis).
Women's night coverage: Zilch.
Day five total: 10 hours of coverage.
Total women's coverage: 56 minutes.
Matches going the distance: Men: one. Women: three (one covered).
Men's matches shown: Men: Federer-Henman, Gonzalez-Hajek (a few quick single-point look-ins), Ginepri-Goldstein, Moya-Mathieu (match point), Murray-Di Mauro (a short look-in and later match point), Gaudio-Querrey, Blake-Gabashvili, Spadea-Bjorkman (short look-in).
Women's matches shown: Jankovic-Vaidisova (two points), Henin-Hardenne-Sugiyama, Kuznetsova-Rodionova (match point).
Highlights of other matches: Men: Agassi-Baghdatis (during day session), Haas, Blake. Women: Dementieva, Rezai.
Americans in action: (M-match coverage, L-look-in, H-highlights). Men: Blake (M), Ginepri (M), Goldstein (M), Querrey (M), Spadea (L). Women: None.
Five day totals: Match coverage time: 56 hours 19 minutes. Women's coverage: Nine hours, 21 minutes.

Unforced errors: None (I'm even spelling "Querrey" correctly now).

Closing comments: Half the women's third-round matches played Friday went the distance, yet were one of them not Henin-Hardenne, we'd have seen virtually no coverage of any of them. One seriously begins to wonder if it's a concerted effort on USA Network's part to hide them, to perpetuate the myth that there aren't any close women's first week matches. Even the score ticker updates, which are becoming a bit more frequent, usually omit the women's in-progress matches. If you're going to update the in-progress matches, update them all. USA's problem, apparently, was that there were a couple of occasions Friday when women's matches were deep into third sets (Vaidisova, Schiavone) while they were showing early match coverage of one-sided men's matches. You know darn well that they wouldn't hesitate to break away from a women's match, even a superstar like Sharapova or Williams, to pick up a fifth set, even if it involved the most obscure journeymen.

A repeat of Agassi-Baghdatis to fill in the rain delay in the night session, with only time constraints preventing them showing the whole match. Anyone who didn't see this coming, stand on your head. Following up yesterday's comments, I paid very close attention to the Baghdatis' injury situation in set five. After the post-game-one treatment, Ted Robinson reported the word from the trainers: "The official word is it's a left thigh strain." Fast forward to four-all, Baghdatis collapses clutching his right leg, which is severely cramping. The trainer tells him basically get up, I can't treat you. Forced to compensate for the ailing right leg, it's not long before the overburdened left leg starts acting up. After a tortuous ninth game is completed, Baghdatis is finally permitted treatment.

The announcers give us "confirmation he was treated for cramping in BOTH thighs." As cramping is now listed as a treatable medical condition/injury, and since the ITF's Grand Slam rules clearly spell out that players are entitled to immediate treatment for each new injury/condition, with subsequent treatments for the same condition limited to changeovers, and since the word of the trainers themselves confirmed that Baghdatis suffered two different injuries-conditions, initiating in two different legs, he should have received immediate treatment when he collapsed to the court. Now, I'm not accusing the USTA or its officials of any deliberate malfeasance, but they did break the ITF's rules. That it happened to an opponent of the beloved and retiring Agassi in a tight match, gives the whole affair the aroma of "home cooking", deserved or not.

And I repeat my question of yesterday: would Agassi, had he been the one in those circumstances (both injuries), received treatment? I'm guessing yes. The other unfortunate part is the possible carryover. Agassi might not be able to play again. So, instead of his career-ending match possibly being one of the most dramatic matches in U.S. Open history, played against a charismatic top 10 player, he might wind up defaulting to a relative unknown. Not a fitting exit for Agassi. Today, I get to tackle CBS' coverage in addition to USA's. As the forecast is not promising (it's still raining here, a couple hundred miles west of NYC), CBS will be stuck doing the "filler fandango." Will they show extensive coverage from a variety of matches from earlier in the week, including (dare we hope) some that USA didn't show? Or will they rerun Connors-Krickstein for the umpteenth time? Place your bets, folks. Which match will they show, Connors-Krickstein, or Agassi-Baghdatis or all Agassi? I'm guessing the latter first, and if it's still raining, the former as well. Looks like the Capriati-Henin-Hardenne thriller, which we were told would be added to the rain-filler rotation, has been cast aside.

While we're placing our bets, let's assume, somehow, the day session got completed as scheduled, and USA were to show their originally scheduled matches featuring Williams and Nadal. When are they going to shoe-horn in their Grand Spam and Wertheim insider features? They should do it during the gap between night matches. My bet is they would break away sometime during the Williams match, regardless of how close it is. What's your guess?

Related Stories:
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Four Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Three Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Two Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day One Television Tracker

 

[zhan]

i like the henin hardenne matches...
the rest of WTA is not really worth watch ...
seriously

 

[tennissavy]

Zhan, if you saw the wta matches I have seen, which are never shown on tv, you would change your mind.

 

[FuriousYellow]

Henin-Hardenne getting ignored again while American fans are forced to watch Ginepri vs. Haas. I can understand ignoring champions to show Agassi. Heck, I can understand ignoring them to show Blake. He's a big fan favorite and his matches are often good.

Ginepri?????

Give me break!

 

[tennissavy]

I know furious. I feel your pain. Of course, if the match is one sided, that will be thrown in our faces again and again. Keep in mind that there are two other matches featuring Kuznetsova and Dementieva which are in tiebreaks or nearly that close which are total dogfights and we aren't being shown those great matches. It is just like the artice, which I pasted above, states- that the great women's matches are not shown and only henin's matches are shown making the wta look one sided when, in reality, is more interesting in many cases than the atp.

 

[fleabitten]

Henin-Hardenne getting ignored again while American fans are forced to watch Ginepri vs. Haas. I can understand ignoring champions to show Agassi. Heck, I can understand ignoring them to show Blake. He's a big fan favorite and his matches are often good.
Ginepri????? Give me break!

Please! HH wins 6-2,6-0 or something (snore!) while Haas/ Ginepri have only played one set which goes to a tiebreak! This match is far more entertaining than the HH match. (I'm even an HH fan.) We can always catch her in a later round when she's playing a worthy oponent. Once again, Please!

 

[tennissavy]

Please! HH wins 6-2,6-0 or something (snore!) while Haas/ Ginepri have only played one set which goes to a tiebreak! This match is far more entertaining than the HH match. (I'm even an HH fan.) We can always catch her in a later round when she's playing a worthy oponent. Once again, Please!

fleabitten: do not post scores. There is a match results section for that.

Also, there are two great matches, which I mentioned, going on so we are being screwed.

 

[Kobble]

For the few good WTA matches that are ignored there are ten times as many good mens matches ignored(due to Venus, Serena, and Davenport etc). No pitty from me, I like the new trend.

 

[tennissavy]

For the few good WTA matches that are ignored there are ten times as many good mens matches ignored(due to Venus, Serena, and Davenport etc). No pitty from me, I like the new trend.

Wrong. There are MANY great, not good, wta matches which are ignored for journeymen like ginepri... We are missing a great match between Kuznetsova and Jankovic, just check the scoreboard. If I had a ticket for today I would be watching that one over the men.

 

[tennissavy]

Petrova/golovin was a great match yesterday too but not even a point was shown on tv, I'll bet. I was so happy to be at the open yesterday. The only good men's match I saw was Safin/nalbandian. The other men's matches I caught were pretty dull with the exception of murray. The women's matches I saw were great but I understand that they were not broadcasted on tv. Typical. I am so glad that artice I pasted said it as it is.

 

[Matt_Williamson]

I love this and other articles by J. Stewart at ten nis week . c o m
It explains how the networks like to pretend that most women's matches are not good when in fact there are many wta matches which are never shown which are better than the men's matches. I saw great matches this past week at the open which were never shown on tv. Today I am at home and I am going to miss Jankovic vs. Kuznetsova. I know it's going to be good but it won't be shown. We have to be subjected to the same old men's matches, often one sided.

Here is the article:

The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Five Television Tracker


Photo By Michael Baz By J. Stewart
09/02/2006


Editor's note: Tennis Week contributor J. Stewart will post periodic reports, including statistical summaries and his analysis and opinion, of the U.S. Open television coverage. Stewart's U.S. Open Day Five summary is here.




Let's get right to the numbers for day five.

Day Five Session

Match coverage: Six hours.
Women's coverage: 56 minutes.
Night session: Four hours (no live tennis).
Women's night coverage: Zilch.
Day five total: 10 hours of coverage.
Total women's coverage: 56 minutes.
Matches going the distance: Men: one. Women: three (one covered).
Men's matches shown: Men: Federer-Henman, Gonzalez-Hajek (a few quick single-point look-ins), Ginepri-Goldstein, Moya-Mathieu (match point), Murray-Di Mauro (a short look-in and later match point), Gaudio-Querrey, Blake-Gabashvili, Spadea-Bjorkman (short look-in).
Women's matches shown: Jankovic-Vaidisova (two points), Henin-Hardenne-Sugiyama, Kuznetsova-Rodionova (match point).
Highlights of other matches: Men: Agassi-Baghdatis (during day session), Haas, Blake. Women: Dementieva, Rezai.
Americans in action: (M-match coverage, L-look-in, H-highlights). Men: Blake (M), Ginepri (M), Goldstein (M), Querrey (M), Spadea (L). Women: None.
Five day totals: Match coverage time: 56 hours 19 minutes. Women's coverage: Nine hours, 21 minutes.

Unforced errors: None (I'm even spelling "Querrey" correctly now).

Closing comments: Half the women's third-round matches played Friday went the distance, yet were one of them not Henin-Hardenne, we'd have seen virtually no coverage of any of them. One seriously begins to wonder if it's a concerted effort on USA Network's part to hide them, to perpetuate the myth that there aren't any close women's first week matches. Even the score ticker updates, which are becoming a bit more frequent, usually omit the women's in-progress matches. If you're going to update the in-progress matches, update them all. USA's problem, apparently, was that there were a couple of occasions Friday when women's matches were deep into third sets (Vaidisova, Schiavone) while they were showing early match coverage of one-sided men's matches. You know darn well that they wouldn't hesitate to break away from a women's match, even a superstar like Sharapova or Williams, to pick up a fifth set, even if it involved the most obscure journeymen.

A repeat of Agassi-Baghdatis to fill in the rain delay in the night session, with only time constraints preventing them showing the whole match. Anyone who didn't see this coming, stand on your head. Following up yesterday's comments, I paid very close attention to the Baghdatis' injury situation in set five. After the post-game-one treatment, Ted Robinson reported the word from the trainers: "The official word is it's a left thigh strain." Fast forward to four-all, Baghdatis collapses clutching his right leg, which is severely cramping. The trainer tells him basically get up, I can't treat you. Forced to compensate for the ailing right leg, it's not long before the overburdened left leg starts acting up. After a tortuous ninth game is completed, Baghdatis is finally permitted treatment.

The announcers give us "confirmation he was treated for cramping in BOTH thighs." As cramping is now listed as a treatable medical condition/injury, and since the ITF's Grand Slam rules clearly spell out that players are entitled to immediate treatment for each new injury/condition, with subsequent treatments for the same condition limited to changeovers, and since the word of the trainers themselves confirmed that Baghdatis suffered two different injuries-conditions, initiating in two different legs, he should have received immediate treatment when he collapsed to the court. Now, I'm not accusing the USTA or its officials of any deliberate malfeasance, but they did break the ITF's rules. That it happened to an opponent of the beloved and retiring Agassi in a tight match, gives the whole affair the aroma of "home cooking", deserved or not.

And I repeat my question of yesterday: would Agassi, had he been the one in those circumstances (both injuries), received treatment? I'm guessing yes. The other unfortunate part is the possible carryover. Agassi might not be able to play again. So, instead of his career-ending match possibly being one of the most dramatic matches in U.S. Open history, played against a charismatic top 10 player, he might wind up defaulting to a relative unknown. Not a fitting exit for Agassi. Today, I get to tackle CBS' coverage in addition to USA's. As the forecast is not promising (it's still raining here, a couple hundred miles west of NYC), CBS will be stuck doing the "filler fandango." Will they show extensive coverage from a variety of matches from earlier in the week, including (dare we hope) some that USA didn't show? Or will they rerun Connors-Krickstein for the umpteenth time? Place your bets, folks. Which match will they show, Connors-Krickstein, or Agassi-Baghdatis or all Agassi? I'm guessing the latter first, and if it's still raining, the former as well. Looks like the Capriati-Henin-Hardenne thriller, which we were told would be added to the rain-filler rotation, has been cast aside.

While we're placing our bets, let's assume, somehow, the day session got completed as scheduled, and USA were to show their originally scheduled matches featuring Williams and Nadal. When are they going to shoe-horn in their Grand Spam and Wertheim insider features? They should do it during the gap between night matches. My bet is they would break away sometime during the Williams match, regardless of how close it is. What's your guess?

Related Stories:
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Four Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Three Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Two Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day One Television Tracker

First of all, consider that not all courts are set-up to be televised multi-angle, there are contracts as to who does the televising, there are only so many announcers and they are under contracts also, womens tennis is not as exciting as men's, there are far more one-sided matches in the womens tennis world, there are a lot more "un-heard of" women playing the big events.

All of this (and more) equates a logical conclusion to televise men's tennis more than women's... sometimes.

 

[Matt_Williamson]

Wrong. There are MANY great, not good, wta matches which are ignored for journeymen like ginepri... We are missing a great match between Kuznetsova and Jankovic, just check the scoreboard. If I had a ticket for today I would be watching that one over the men.

Think "American"...

 

[tennissavy]

First of all, consider that not all courts are set-up to be televised multi-angle, there are contracts as to who does the televising, there are only so many announcers and they are under contracts also, womens tennis is not as exciting as men's, there are far more one-sided matches in the womens tennis world, there are a lot more "un-heard of" women playing the big events.

All of this (and more) equates a logical conclusion to televise men's tennis more than women's... sometimes.

What you are saying regarding the one sided women's matches is in direct contrast to the article and the truth. There are far more compelling women's matches going on than are televised. We see the men's matches on all courts with cameras and not the women's matches. We are missing a total dogfight right now with kuznetsova, a us open champion by the way.

 

[tennissavy]

I love that J. Stewart. Now this further illustrates what he/she is saying in the articles and what I have always said- the boring men's matches are being shown(Nadal/Novak, Ginepri/Haas) but we only see the last game of a thriller with Jankovic/Kuznetsova or no wta at all. Dementieva's match was a close match too but the crappy men's matches were shown instead. It keeps happening but it will change. Articles like J. Stewart's are exposing this issue, making everyone aware of how great the wta is. Cliff Drysdale said on the air last year about the greater depth on the wta than the wta and I applaud him. For those of you who bash the wta, you are just blind and stupid. Great tennis is just that, great. I don't care who plays it but the truth be told- the women are playing it and we are not seeing it.

 

[Matt_Williamson]

I love that J. Stewart. Now this further illustrates what he/she is saying in the articles and what I have always said- the boring men's matches are being shown(Nadal/Novak, Ginepri/Haas) but we only see the last game of a thriller with Jankovic/Kuznetsova or no wta at all. Dementieva's match was a close match too but the crappy men's matches were shown instead. It keeps happening but it will change. Articles like J. Stewart's are exposing this issue, making everyone aware of how great the wta is. Cliff Drysdale said on the air last year about the greater depth on the wta than the wta and I applaud him. For those of you who bash the wta, you are just blind and stupid. Great tennis is just that, great. I don't care who plays it but the truth be told- the women are playing it and we are not seeing it.

Ha... whatever... kids...?!?!

 

[tennissavy]

Ha... whatever... kids...?!?!

Good one. Very thoughtful and witty.

You are wrong in your statements and can't stand that even writers of major internet tennis sites are reporting the truth. You can't deal with it. Those of us who love the wta and recognize how great is has become are angry with the tv networks and people like you but at the same time we are smiling because changes will come. We will eventually see the better matches. Unfortunately, unless the men's tour "steps up to the plate" we might eventually be watching only the WTA. Now, let's watch the chokefest between Ginepri and Haas.

 

[Regulator]

C'mon guys! As boring and uncharasmatic as many of the today's men's players are, the female players are really more boring. I don't find any excitement watching female tennis unless there's a hot new piece of a-s-s on the court to look at it. Otherwise most of the female players are useless and the WTA has allowed the stance of the women's players mostly look like prostitutes with rackets on the court. How is it that "pro" female players cannot even serve consistentantly and hit the high loopy shots. The women should be forced to play best of 5 sets as well if their so "great".

 

[Topaz]

C'mon guys! As boring and uncharasmatic as many of the today's men's players are, the female players are really more boring. I don't find any excitement watching female tennis unless there's a hot new piece of a-s-s on the court to look at it. Otherwise most of the female players are useless and the WTA has allowed the stance of the women's players mostly look like prostitutes with rackets on the court. How is it that "pro" female players cannot even serve consistentantly and hit the high loopy shots. The women should be forced to play best of 5 sets as well if their so "great".

Your comments make it pretty obvious that you aren't watching the women's games at all. There are plenty of pros in the WTA who do *not* hit high, loopy shots and serve consistently. However, I can't expect you to notice that when your attention is elsewhere.

Yet another example of someone who claims the he both 1) doesn't watch the game, but yet 2) knows all about it. You and all the other geniuses of the WTA tour on this board.

 

[Topaz]

Tennissavy, you had me thinking about your comments and agreeing for the most part, right up until you called Ginepri/Haas boring. Fifth set tie-breaks=not boring.

Though, I would have loved to see more than the end of Jankovics match, but hey...at least they showed that much.

And now, we get to see Roddick play Becker (*yawn*) while Davenport is having a much more competitive match. At least we are seeing something, though...remember that!

 

[tennissavy]

Topaz, at least you agree with most of what I said and therefore, the article I pasted. However, I thought the Haas match was all about choking and it was so frustrating to know a great match was going on and upset happening on the WTA while I was watching the guys fold.

 

[Topaz]

So the women's #7 and #10 seeds just got finished playing, and we saw *one* game. *sigh* I do think the article is on to something. And when we do get to see the WTA, it is all shrieking and grunting players. No wonder some people have the criticisms of the tour that they do...they only know what they are shown.

 

[Ztalin]

I don't really mind. I don't really even follow women's tennis that much... it's so incredibly boring.

 

[tennissavy]

Here bashers is the latest article by J. Stewart. It goes into the much greater depth of the wta than the atp and the lacking match tv coverage. It's great. Educate yourselves.

Here it is:

The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Seven Television Tracker


Photo By Susan Mullane By J. Stewart
09/04/2006


Editor's note: Tennis Week contributor J. Stewart will post periodic reports, including statistical summaries and his analysis and opinion, of the U.S. Open television coverage. Stewart's U.S. Open Day Seven summary is here.




A two-network split today, necessitating two separate sets of totals. Let's get right to the numbers and see how they stack up.

Day Seven Session
CBS Coverage

Total airtime: Seven hours, 16 minutes.
Women's airtime: Seven minutes. (I'm not kidding.)
Men's matches shown: Agassi-Becker, Safin-Nalbandian, Roddick-Verdasco, Nadal-Moodie.
Women's matches shown: Schnyder-Bartoli (one point during whip-around), Davenport-Srebotnik .
Highlights of other men's matches: Becker (second round and NCAA highlights), Agassi (vs. Boris Becker).
Highlights of other women's matches: None.
Men's matches going the distance: Five (two shown).
Women's matches going the distance: Five (one shown, one quick look-in).
Americans in action: (M-match coverage, L-look-in, H-highlights). Men: Agassi (M), Roddick (M), Sweeting (H). Women: Davenport (M).
Tournament totals for CBS: Airtime: 13 hours, 13 minutes. Women's airtime: Seven minutes.
USA Network Coverage

Total airtime: Five hours, 33 minutes.
Women's airtime: One hour, 19 minutes.
Men's matches shown: Davydenko-Kubot (one point during look-in), Gicquel-Gaudio (one point during look-in), Federer-Spadea, Blake-Moya, Bryan/Bryan-Johansson/Lindstedt.
Women's matches shown: Li-Pierce (one point during look-in), Mauresmo-Santangelo, Williams-Ivanovic, Sharapova-Likhovtseva.
Highlights of other men's matches: Agassi, Roddick, Nadal, Hewitt, Gasquet, Murray, Safin, Berdych (match point).
Highlights of other women's matches: Davenport.
Men's matches going the distance: One (look-in).
Women's matches going the distance: Two (one coverage, one look-in).
Americans in action: (M-match coverage, L-look-in, H-highlights). Men: Blake (M), Spadea (M). Women: Williams (M).
Tournament totals for USA Network: Airtime: 61 hours, 52 minutes. Women's airtime: 10 hours, 42 minutes.
Unforced errors: Dick Enberg. Serving at 1-2, Agassi held ad when Becker won the point to bring it back to deuce. Enberg commented "Becker earning another break point." Also during the Agassi match, Enberg twice screwed up on challenges, confusing who had challenged, and whether they had won or lost and had to be corrected by McEnroe both times. Enberg said the crowd at Armstrong got to see two final set breakers: Davenport and Safin. Davenport played on the Grandstand. Enberg mispronounced Chiudinelli as "Shoo-en-delly." Twice. Prior to going to a commercial break Al Trautwig said: "coming up, we've got highlights of ALL the other matches." USA made a liar out of him by showing highlights of several completed men's matches, but only Davenport on the women's side.

Scattered Shots: Say What?. These don't really fall into the unforced errors category, but were some rather curious comments. Enberg commented on the difficult situation facing Becker, with the crowd "being so anti- against him." Pam Shriver, at 5-1 in the fifth set tiebreak of Safin's match, said: "BOTH players" had "155 points EACH." Enberg informed us Verdasco's "dad's brother" played basketball. Would that be anything like his Uncle? Enberg called Brad Gilbert Murray's "new head coach." That's not what we call it in tennis, although if Gilbert is working on all aspects of Murray's game, including his psyche, that label could be technically true.

Closing comments: Seven minutes CBS?? In two days?? That's beyond weak. I'd say more of my opinions of CBS' producers, but this is a family-friendly site. From the hype-disconnected-from-reality department, we had Ted Robinson repeatedly reminding us of all the matches that went the distance — on the MEN's side, on the MEN's side, on the MEN's side. And topped it with this ditty: "What we saw today was the incredible depth in men's tennis, with the tremendous number of five-setters in the third round." Okay, fact-check time: 14 men's third round matches were played Sunday. Of those, four went the distance. Balancing that, an additional four were total blowouts. And of the 14 matches, only five were won by the lower-ranked player. Now, let's contrast that with what happened on the women's side. Through Sunday, and at the time of Robinson's remark, all of the women's third round matches had been completed. Of the 16 matches, fully half (eight) went the distance. And of the 16, seven were won by the lower-ranked player. So, if the men's third round results showed "incredible" depth, with a "tremendous" number of matches going the distance, what adjectives would describe the women's results? They had twice has many matches going the distance (with two pending on the men's side). Is their number "tremendouser?" "Doubly tremendous?" About one third of the men's third round matches were statistical upsets (lower-ranked player won), while nearly half of the women's were. Is their depth "incredibler?"

The misleading hyperbole only makes the announcers sound desperate. Why are they so desperate? Here's a detail many of you may not know. During the summer U.S. Open Series the ratings of the first men's event, featuring an all-American final, were up, but all subsequent men's events saw ratings drops. Conversely, despite the WTA looking more like the MIA this summer, after an initial dip on their first event, all of the other women's ratings were up. So, instead of being happy that at least one tour saw an increase, and trying to build on that for a coattail effect, many in the tennis press seem put off that it wasn't the men who were up, and are determined to hype the men's game while demeaning the women's. Hey, dummies. This is tennis. In the general public's mind, the men's and women's tours aren't two separate sports, but rather two separate conferences within one league. You know, like the AFC and NFC in football. Sometimes, one conference is more popular, sometimes the other. But if one continues to grow and grow, it lifts the whole league's popularity. Why don't the tennis folks get that? You want to make the men's tour more popular? Get behind the women, capitalize on their popularity, and hype them to the max. Boost tennis out of being a niche sport. As the women rise, they'll bring the men along with them. Coattails. Ask yourself, tennis honchos, would you rather be the less popular half of the NFL, or the more popular half of the MLS? Stop trying to tear down your most valuable asset. If Joe Sixpack hasn't yet taken a shine to Federer after a decade and a half of rah-rah pro-American jingoism, then ride the Williams/Sharapova/Hingis bandwagon, get more viewers tuning in, and they'll eventually start to embrace Fed just as they did Becker, Edberg, Borg. End of Sermon. (How appropriate that I wind up delivering a sermon during a Sunday wrap-up.)


Related Stories:
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Six Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Five Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Four Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Three Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day Two Television Tracker
The Big Picture: U.S. Open Day One Television Tracker

 

[tuk]

I thank god they don't show many women's matches....I would rather watch any bad ATP match than a good or "competitive" WTA match....
I want to watch the "best" players on court...if any of them were females it would be fine, but since I'm sure any guy in the men's draw would beat any woman in the women's draw therefore the best players are all males....
of course that's just my opinion....you are free to feel different about it...
:mrgreen:

 

[shrakkie]

why shouldnt what he bulk of fans want be aied?and i honestly believe that the trend is that atp matches are more entertaining

be it true or not i think that s the view of most viewers so...

 

[skip1969]

Tennissavy, you had me thinking about your comments and agreeing for the most part, right up until you called Ginepri/Haas boring. Fifth set tie-breaks=not boring.

well, i wasa bored sh*tless. you know, it takes more than just a close score to make drama sometimes. if the fifth-set tiebreak guaranteed instant drama, i think the three other majors would have adopted them long ago.

to be honest, i was soooo looking forward to watching a ton of tennis after all the rain. i gotta say that on the whole, the matches that were shown (on cbs, in particular) were not very exciting. and i am talking about the actual quality of the tennis, here. they stuck with matches that had no real spark, in an attempt to grab some ratings here in the us. but casual and diehard fans (of any sport) tend to channel surf when they aren't captivated by what they are being fed. i saw a lot of errors and a lot of mediocre play from both men and women. and i only hope that the last rounds bring us the kind of calibre of tennis that makes a slam worth watching.

networks got lucky. they were gonna ride the agassi gravy-train one way or another. he obliged them by playing two high-quality, riveting matches before bowing out with a whimper. best matches of the tourney provided by a guy with one foot out the door. wonder what cbs plans on doing now that the old man is gone.

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

The best thing about most women's matches is they end in 2 sets and are over in 30 min - 1 hour.

Especially the early rounds of the majors when most seeds toast the qualifiers.

Now, let's talk about who really gets shafted by the TV media: Men's Doubles.

 

[Matt_Williamson]

Good one. Very thoughtful and witty.

You are wrong in your statements and can't stand that even writers of major internet tennis sites are reporting the truth. You can't deal with it. Those of us who love the wta and recognize how great is has become are angry with the tv networks and people like you but at the same time we are smiling because changes will come. We will eventually see the better matches. Unfortunately, unless the men's tour "steps up to the plate" we might eventually be watching only the WTA. Now, let's watch the chokefest between Ginepri and Haas.

I'm speaking from perception, not pure belief. However, I might add that one of the best matches I've seen in a while was WTA. Jankovic vs S. Williams in California (??)

The truth is that most viewers are American and male. Most men would rather watch ATP matches for hours on end and maybe 5-8 minutes of WTA.

Now if WTA would play in thong and wet t-shirt, I'd quit my job and follow the tour with jimmy in hand.

 

[Craig Sheppard]

Women's tennis: if it don't look good, it ain't worth watching.

 

[donnyz89]

I'm glad they showed Hass and Ginepri over HH beating up on Peer... or watching Lindsay walking all over the court. I'm mad they didnt show Nalbandian and Safin, but I think that was the same time as agassi?

I could care less if they dont show any womens whatsoever, but then again, thats just me. good competition and good tennis are different things. Two highschool players can have a GREAT match, so can two 12 year olds can battle it out but its a matter of skill level.

 

[arosen]

We are safe to assume that women are way more pleasing to the eye. Good game + good looks=unbeatable combo. Go WTA? Not so fast. A lot of those girls are buttugly midgets. On average, I repeat, if you look at the mean of all matches played over the season on both ATP and WTA tours you would find that mens' matches are more entertaining due to higher competitiveness and overall better quality of tennis played. Sure, WTA has gotten better depthwise. Still, they are nowhere near as competitive as men. That said, Wimby final on womens' side was awesome, too bad girls play good tennis in later rounds only.

 

[DashaandSafin]

I may sound childish and immature here, not to mention chauvinistic, but oh well:

Womens tennis, is, how shall i put it?...Boring.

Hey, ive tried to watch it. Ive tried to watch Sharapova, Williams, Henin, Pierce, Maresumo. Honest. Ive tried watching them all play. Its downright boring and no where near as exciting as the mens game. Also, you say all these women are "beautiful". Yea, beautiful as Star Jones. Only Sharapova is worth mentioning, well...Hauntachova too.

Anyway, their game is basically must slower, more grunting, and I hit serves harder than they do.

 

[West Coast Ace]

We are safe to assume that women are way more pleasing to the eye. Good game + good looks=unbeatable combo. Go WTA? Not so fast. A lot of those girls are buttugly midgets. On average, I repeat, if you look at the mean of all matches played over the season on both ATP and WTA tours you would find that mens' matches are more entertaining due to higher competitiveness and overall better quality of tennis played. Sure, WTA has gotten better depthwise. Still, they are nowhere near as competitive as men. That said, Wimby final on womens' side was awesome, too bad girls play good tennis in later rounds only.

Again, arosen nails another thread.

Sorry, tennissavvy, if you tell the same lies over and over it doesn't make it the truth. The sad FACT is that for the most part the women's Slams don't start until the 32's - while the men consistently have compelling 1st round matches and seeds have to be playing well or they will get upset. And for the most part, the women do play the same game. Men are just more coordinated and play a more athletic game - sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Maybe you can go over to MoveOn.org - I'm sure they'll buy your PC silliness.

 

[tennissavy]

Again, arosen nails another thread.

Sorry, tennissavvy, if you tell the same lies over and over it doesn't make it the truth. The sad FACT is that for the most part the women's Slams don't start until the 32's - while the men consistently have compelling 1st round matches and seeds have to be playing well or they will get upset. And for the most part, the women do play the same game. Men are just more coordinated and play a more athletic game - sorry to be the bearer of bad news. Maybe you can go over to MoveOn.org - I'm sure they'll buy your PC silliness.

Lies??? That writer did not state lies but FACTS. Those facts are true and accurate. It is so sad that you can't accept the truth. The WTA has greater depth than the ATP but the networks aren't showing you most of those great matches which exemplify that truth.

 

[skip1969]

Lies??? That writer did not state lies but FACTS. Those facts are true and accurate. It is so sad that you can't accept the truth. The WTA has greater depth than the ATP but the networks aren't showing you most of those great matches which exemplify that truth.

well, yes the writer put forth the stats. but he also gave us his opinion (on why he thinks the wta is getting shafted by the networks). not that i don't agree with him, cos i do.

"Editor's note: Tennis Week contributor J. Stewart will post periodic reports, including statistical summaries and his analysis and opinion, of the U.S. Open television coverage. Stewart's U.S. Open Day Seven summary is here."

 

[West Coast Ace]

Lies??? /QUOTE]Like the old saying "Liars figure and figures lie." I'm sure a journalist with a PC agenda could pull the numbers to prove his case. But you're entitled to believe him if you want. I know BS when I see it.

Please debate me on the 'quality of the 1st two rounds of the Slams' - I'm waiting. The women don't have the depth to justify a 128 draw - if you say they do then you're either blind or just a PC Liberal.

Just comparing tonight's two matches - both ladies have title hopes while I think Hewitt and Gasquet would be thrilled to make the semis. But the difference in the tennis is astounding. The men are playing a more exciting, more athletic match, and show a much broader range of shots.

 

[DashaandSafin]

Just look at the scores from the womens side. Much more breadsticks and bagels.

 

[Matt_Williamson]

Just look at the scores from the womens side. Much more breadsticks and bagels.

... and 1/2 the amount of sets.:mrgreen:

 

[Regulator]

Your comments make it pretty obvious that you aren't watching the women's games at all. There are plenty of pros in the WTA who do *not* hit high, loopy shots and serve consistently. However, I can't expect you to notice that when your attention is elsewhere.

Yet another example of someone who claims the he both 1) doesn't watch the game, but yet 2) knows all about it. You and all the other geniuses of the WTA tour on this board.

You don't know me, how long I've played or watched tennis. My point is you cannot compare men's tennis to woman's tennis just as you cannot compare men's hockey to woman's hockey. The mens game is far more fast pace and physical than the female's game. I'm not saying that they suck. I'm saying that I'd rather watch a men's game. I don't care who gets more aces or more serves in, or what the percentage of unforced errors is.

 

[mctennis]

I agree with the original poster. They show us Roddick playing some #300 ranked player getting slaughtered for 2 hours but not a decent female match or any other match. Then all they focus on his showing Roddick's every shot and even when he is wating to receive serve. How about showing us the pther player? ( I'm just using Roddick as an example but they do that with all top ranked players when they are on Center Court). Lots more better tennis on other courts. At least with womens tennis they have to place the ball more than power the ball to win the point. I get tired of all the baseline blasters. Boring to watch.
Then the announcers think they have to keep us entertained with all their witty comments. They think if they have the mike in front on them they have to saw something. I turn off the sound just to watch tennis. It is lot more interesting.

 

[ta11geese3]

At least with womens tennis they have to place the ball more than power the ball to win the point. I get tired of all the baseline blasters. Boring to watch.

Dude, the defintion of WTA is baseline blasters. If I'm going to watch baseline bashers, might as well watch the one that is more exciting- the one that has more variety, more pace, and more winners. And... that's not the wta.

 

[DashaandSafin]

Baseline bashers=WTA.

They showed Roddick because
A) Hes American and this is an American GS
B) Hes probably easier on the eyes than most of the WTA sasquaches
C) The man he happened to beat, beat Andre Agassi. Its intresting to see how he would actually do.

 

[BLiND]

I much prefer to watch the mens matches than the womens, and everyone else I now is the same (even the women).

What the WTA needs to understand is that the ATP is just so much more popular. They need to wake up and pay attention, the viewing figures don't lie.

 

[coolblue123]

I guess whether ppl like watching men or women's tennis matches are a personal preference, but I do wish that they do mix it alittle bit. Plus, given that most women's matches are alot shorter than men's matches, i would say it would be more advantageous for tv networks to show variety.

But I do agree w/ an earlier post stating that tv networks are more apted to show US player's matches. To me, it shows tv networks failing to recognized that tennis is one of the few sports that is really internationalized.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[tennissavy]

I much prefer to watch the mens matches than the womens, and everyone else I now is the same (even the women).

What the WTA needs to understand is that the ATP is just so much more popular. They need to wake up and pay attention, the viewing figures don't lie.

You are blind to the figures. Here in the US, the figures for tv viewers are higher for the wta.

 

[ta11geese3]

You are blind to the figures. Here in the US, the figures for tv viewers are higher for the wta.

Do you have figures to back up that statement? Not to mention... if they were actually higher, why is the wta being 'shafted by the tv media'? We know all they care about is money...

 

[tennissavy]

Do you have figures to back up that statement? Not to mention... if they were actually higher, why is the wta being 'shafted by the tv media'? We know all they care about is money...

The information is in the articles I pasted. You should take the time to read them. Here is yet another article relating to the superior popularity, among tv viewers, of the WTA. Please don't be stupid by trying to refute this too:

Oz Open Women's Final Was Most Viewed Match In ESPN2 History


Photo By Fred Mullane By Tennis Week
02/01/2005

Serena Williams captured her seventh Grand Slam championship at the Australian Open and continues to be a ratings winner for ESPN2. The network announced today that its live coverage of Williams' 2-6, 6-3, 6-0 victory over top-seeded Lindsay Davenport in Friday night's final registered a 1.5 rating and was viewed in an average 1.35 million households making it ESPN2's highest-rated and most-viewed tennis telecast in history.

The Williams sisters, Andre Agassi and Jennifer Capriati have generated some of the highest-ratings in ESPN2 history.

Serena Williams has shown her star power in prevailing in the three highest-rated tennis telecasts in ESPN2 history. The network’s previous highest-rated tennis telecasts were the 2003 Australian Open women’s semifinal, which featured Williams saving match points against Kim Clijsters and last week's Oz Open women’s semifinals in which Williams fought off three match points to claim a captivating 2-6, 7-5, 8-6 victory over Maria Sharapova. Both matches registered a rating of 1.1 with the Williams-Sharapova match drawing an average audience of 1 million households.

ESPN’s coverage of the 2004 Australian Open women’s final earned a 0.9 average rating and was viewed in an average of 843,000 households.

The numerous additions to ESPN2’s coverage of the Australian Open increased the total hours of programming to 111, an increase of 35 hours over the planned 76. The Australian Open marks the beginning of more than 600 hours of tennis coverage in 2005, including 300 hours from three Grand Slam events — the Australian Open, the French Open from Roland Garros in Paris and The Championships at Wimbledon.

The ratings conclude a Melbourne fortnight that featured ESPN2's most comprehensive Grand Slam coverage in recent memor