CAMELOT FANTASIES

Quote from: thetruth on March 31, 2015, 10:56:13 pm

Masterclass, first of all great post.

However, I am in the States and I’m not sure if you all have the same commentators as we do, John McEnroe, Pat McEnroe, Mary Carillo, Jim Courier, etc. I need to start here to see if we are getting the same information. But one thing I will say is that the way that it is reported to us regarding the exemption rule, is that they don’t mention it. What they say instead is that Mr. Federer gets to play his own schedule. And this isn’t just recently; they’ve said this for years, which always sounded unfair to me. You can admit that it sounds like favoritism when it is presented in this manner. Do you remember in 2007 when Wimbledon was extremely rainy and Rafa and Novak’s matches were rained out and they didn’t put them back on until the end of the day? It rained the next day and instead of finishing their matches first, they put them on very late in the day, very close to when all of the other matches had been completed. Consequently, on the third day they had to play again.

If I’m not mistaken, and I don’t think that I am, Djokovic ended up retiring in his semifinal and Rafa suffered a knee injury during the final. Even back then they were reporting it as Federer being #1 he was able to receive favorable scheduling because of his ranking. i remember it well because there was a lot of bickering on the tennis boards because this is the way that  it was presented to us, that Federer, by virtue of him being Federer, basically could do whaever he wanted. If that is not true, that is great news, because I never thought that was fair. And the following year people, well Rafa fans, were upset because when Rafa became #1 he was not given the same treatment or privilege that he was "supposed" to according to the pundits and their #1 theory.

Interesting Lady TT, but I'm not too surprised.  I was born in the US and lived there for many years before moving to Europe.  I knew all these former player commentators, and I can say that they were surely not all sweethearts and unbiased in their views.  I take their opinions/conclusions about other players with a grain of salt.  They are more or less paid shills at this point by the ATP and their networks, and generally blow with the wind and are no doubt asked to create as much drama as possible.  It's a shame, because some really know the tech aspects of the game very well.   McEnroe talking about strategy of serving at a certain pace to be able to volley, or returning a certain way for the chip and charge is still well worth listening to. Also, to probably a lesser extent, there is still some professional "jealousy" of current players; they are making so much more money than they did and breaking long standing records that these players set.  So some comments and views can have a slant, if you will, a lot of times to drum up controversy, even trolling, to create more drama and capture more radical fans that they want glued to the tv and sport.  On SkySports, the British based dedicated sports network, there of course announcers who don't bother to hide their Murray bias, and I believe there is probably an edict from that network that says don't say anything bad about Andy, and yet some announcers I think try to be as even-handed as possible.  Then on BBC and Eurosport, there are traditionally some of the old guard like Frew McMillan (South African),  Mats Wilander, Annabel Croft, etc.  There are announcers and journalists that gush over Federer, other ones that do the same with Nadal or Djokovic.  Some of it is quite shameless, but it is what it is.  Many times I'd like to turn the sound off, but I like listening to the ball being hit, so I just ignore the announcers.  Again, I've played and watched enough tennis that I form my own opinion of what is unfolding, and that's fine with me.  But I do like to hear when there is objective news about the players that I don't know about, so sometimes the commentators are helpful in that regard.

Mind you, these commentators you mention and I mention aren't the first ones to show their bias, but I think they may be the most blatant in that regard.  There were commentators in the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc. In the 60's and 70's commentators were mostly professional journalists or broadcast journalists, not former players.  Many were commentators from other sports doing double duty, mostly football and baseball.  Even they had their favorites, but it was more subtle.  Not the outright cheerleading you see by some today.  Still, they promoted the stars in general to build up fan interest and viewership.  It was/is still a business.  If I can remember, in the USA there was Pat Summerall, Bud Collins, Dick Enberg. Marv  Alpert, Jim McKay, even Brent Musburger.  Sometimes they would have guest commentators that were either retired players, like Bobby Riggs, Tony Trabert, and many Australians, like Cliff Drysdale, John Newcombe, or promoters, like Donald Dell, Jack Kramer.  And these are only the men.  There were many women, especially former players like Billie Jean King, Virginia Wade, Tracy Austin, etc.

What I think we have mostly lost are the professional tennis journalists and other sports broadcasters that did good jobs in investigating back stories and commenting on the actual play.  I guess it, unfortunately, reflects society as a whole. Today people seem drawn to the tabloid type headline journalism instead of what we had in the past, which was brilliant investigative journalism and thoughtful commentary.  People seem too eager today to be told what and how to think via headlines and few blurbs, instead of reading articles that force them to think and make up their own minds.

As for what you say about the favoritism in scheduling, especially in forums, well, it goes almost without saying that forum commentary is usually the most biased thing you will see.  But there is sometimes a grain of truth here and there.  I don't recall the specific instances at Wimbledon you mentioned, but sometimes circumstances can make it appear as if there is favoritism.  I recall several instances of people wondering why a certain player played at a certain time of day, or court, and sometimes it is because of player requests, sometimes for tournament needs like doubles or weather rescheduling, but most times it is usually for network priorities, the business of tennis, when the most fans are going to be present to watch the matches.  You mention Federer.  His global popularity is a bit of a double edged sword. Most of the time he draws the prime time slots for a reason.  He draws the biggest crowds and television audiences, whether he is #1 or #4.  Even in early rounds, center court is often packed.  Nadal is similar but not as much from what I've seen over the years globally, Djokovic and Murray even less.  But I recall maybe 3 years or so ago, when Federer had to play about 9 night matches in 11 days during the Madrid - Rome spell, some of them late night affairs.  I remember him finally saying in Rome that the night schedule was getting to him, especially with the kids, as he preferred earlier matches so he could rest a bit more and then the evening with family and tuck the kids to bed.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Thanks Masterclass for the wonderful post.

I watched some tennis a few decades ago for a minute, but I didn't understand the game at that time. I really started becoming a fan after watching Pete play and the bias was strong because of course they preferred Agassi over Pete.

I agree wholeheartedly that the commentators actually troll more than the fans and sometimes it gets on my nerves  and sours my disposition. If what they said was true, then that would be grossly unfair in my estimation. So, I am grateful to you for telling about the exemption rules. They put an entirely different spin on it. And like you said, it is difficult to watch tennis without hearing the sound of the ball. Sometimes I try to watch it without sound, but you can't because the sound of the ball against the racket and the feet moving to the ball is a beautiful thing.

I don't begrudge Federer anything, he's done too much for the game no matter who you are a fan of. His contribution to tennis has been immense. As a Rafa fan I must admit I couldn't stand Federer for a long time, but not for his game, accolades, or records, but because I didn't like what I perceived to be his passive-aggressive nature. And in the beginning he wasn't very humble, IMO. There are still times that he irritates me when he makes what I consider to be snide remarks in the press, but I get over it quickly nowadays because one thing I realize is that since his ascension he hasn't changed and I have much respect for that. He is who he is and you know what you get with him. So, after a while you understand that he isn't being haughty but he speaks what he feels. There's nothing wrong with that.

What changed my mind about Federer was the 2008 Wimbledon final. That is the best tennis I have ever seen on a tennis court. That match was sustained brilliance throughout and I found myself OK with whoever won, because both of them deserved it. That had to be a difficult blow for Federer to have played so well and still lose, of course it would have been the same for Rafa as well.

After that match I was able to put things into perspective. With the retirements of Pete and Andre there was a real vacuum in the sports, especially after Lleyton got the chicken pox and the tour had no major stars. Roger stepped up and basically saved the sport, so how can I begrudge him? Then when you see how those two ruled the sport for such a long time while giving major respect to each other, as a fan you have to let the pettiness go.

It's great to know that what those guys say in the booth isn't always correct, because omission does not equate to the truth. From now on I will ask the questions that I need answered instead of assuming that I have the correct information. We can always learn from others and I am glad that you took the time to teach me an important lesson. Much respect. As always.