ESPN Execs Explain Network's Australian Open Coverage -
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:13 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,059
ESPN Execs Explain Network's Australian Open Coverage

I found this interesting and thought I would post it here. ---- I wonder if it is brought about in response to some of our complaints!

from TennisWeek: (I have also copied the links to the interviews down at the bottom!)

Tuning In To Tennis: ESPN Execs Explain Network's Australian Open Coverage

Photo By Cynthia Lum By Richard Pagliaro
At the Australian Open, where a retractable roof can completely shroud the sky, American viewers can always see the stars shine with a television rather than telescope providing the perfect view.

Tennis fans tuning into ESPN's nearly 80 hours of Australian Open coverage may see a sight that resembles planetarium-produced programming — the stars are always out no matter when you tune in. Though the men's and women's draws began with a combined collection of 256 players, the number of players appearing in prime-time American television are about as large as the cast of a television sitcom.

Part of ESPN's programming decisions take into account the alarming time difference between Australia and the United Sates: Melbourne is 16 hours ahead of the East Coast and 19 hours ahead of the West Coast. ESPN execs assert that repeating the matches of some players, such as top-ranked Andy Roddick, in both their live evening coverage and tape-delayed afternoon coverage is due to the network's dual obligation to provide West Coast prime-time viewers the most popular players as well as giving those on the East Coast who can't live every weekday night as if it were New Year's Eve the chance to see the players they missed in the mid-afternoon tape-delay telecast. As a result, the Oz Open may appear to offer a less varied view than ESPN's coverage of Roland Garros or Wimbledon, but part of that may be due to the fact that the window of air time for the season's first Slam is slightly smaller than the subsequent Slams, while the competition from other traditionally popular American events — the NFL playoffs, NBA season and the conclusion of the college football season and start of college basketball season — provides a tougher test to capture the interest of potential viewers.

In addition, a depleted women's draw saw such prominent players such as defending champion Serena Williams, two-time champion Jennifer Capriati, former winners Monica Seles and Mary Pierce all withdraw from the tournament before a single shot was struck leaving ESPN without the presence of some of the game's most popular players in a women's field that already lacks the depth of the men's side. For those reasons, ESPN insists part of its programming plans are based on its desire to establish the story lines fans will follow throughout this Melbourne fortnight as well as the rest of the year.

Tennis fans who attend matches are accustomed to taking a seat and watching a drama unfold where points are the plot line propelling the story to the inevitable climax that culminates with match point. One match can be an exciting episode enjoyed in its entirety. ESPN seems to approach its coverage of a match as a single show in a two-week mini-series with unseeded players sometimes relegated to the roles of character actors in the ongoing saga of the stars.

In those instances, the coverage can seem like a made-for-tennis television version of "Waiting for Godot" with Roddick playing the lead role and the network essentially directing its show while "waiting for Roddick" to take the stage. The star power of Agassi, Roddick and the Williams sisters is undeniable, but hard-core tennis fans who can tire of the feeling they are force-fed the same match menu at the expense of sampling the appealing variety inherent in a 128-player Grand Slam draw.

In that sense it seems as if ESPN is basically operating under the assumption that it can count on its core audience — those die-hard fans who will stay up past midnight to watch tennis even if the match they're watching is about as competitive as Steffi Graf's obliteration of Natasha Zvereva in the 1988 Roland Garros final — to tune in regardless of the matches it televises. Critics take the network to task for emphasizing the same cast of Americans in an attempt to cater to the casual tennis fan or the general sports fan, who is aware of Andre, Andy, Venus and Serena on a first-name basis, but may wonder if Smashnova-Pistolesi is a new brand of jackhammer or Vodka.

Some fans of foreign players feel their favorites are too often overshadowed in the ESPN star system. But can you really blame the network that has invested millions of dollars in securing rights fees to three of the four Slams — the Australian Open, Roland Garros and Wimbledon — and plans to telecast 525 hours of tennis coverage this year, including the U.S. Davis Cup ties, Indian Wells, the Nasdaq-100 Open, the Tennis Masters Cup and WTA Tour Championships, for trying to grow the game's television audience?

On the other hand, repetitive telecasts of the same, name players may be good for ratings, but are they good for the growth of the game? And does ESPN really care about tennis' future anyway or is it merely trying to maximize its investment in a niche sport that sometimes seems to struggle to match the viewership of late-night infomercials?

Among ESPN's staff of about 85 people working in Melbourne include its primary announcing team — Cliff Drysdale, Mary Joe Fernandez, Patrick McEnroe, Pam Shriver, MaliVai Washington and Mary Carillo— who have all competed in Grand Slams during the course of their playing careers. That experienced crew is complemented by studio host Chris Fowler, play-by-play announcer Tim Ryan and Brad Gilbert, who will appear as an ESPN analyst when it doesn't conflict with his primary job of coaching Andy Roddick.

The network has invested both time and money to transform the way tennis is televised with its Emmy Award-winning ShotSpot technology that not only provides clear views of close calls, but is also used to help measure stroke speed.

The network's numbers — ratings — can serve as both evidence that the American stars draw viewers and support ESPN's assertion that its American player-based programming is simply a product of the network giving people precisely what they tune in to see. And the fact is many Americans undoubtedly do tune it to follow the familiar faces creating compelling story lines: Roddick's run to a potential second straight Grand Slam championship, the ageless Agassi asserting his authority over players a decade or more younger as he stretches his victory streak in Melbourne to 24 matches in seeking his fifth career Australian crown, the long-awaited return to tournament tennis of designing diva Venus Williams as she strives to sew up her first major title since the 2001 U.S. Open championship.

In the bottom-line business of television, numbers play a primary part in programming, and the ratings rise when American stars — particularly Agassi, Roddick and the Williams sisters — play. The ratings from the 2003 Roland Garros and U.S. Open women's finals, which aired on other networks, support the statement that American players produce higher ratings in this country. The all-Belgian final between Justine Henin-Hardenne and Kim Clijsters in both the 2003 Roland Garros and U.S. Open finals drew a significantly lower rating than the 2002 finals featuring the Williams sisters. Jennifer Capriati's consecutive conquests of Martina Hingis in the Australian Open finals in 2001 and 2002 were among the highest-rated women's tennis matches in ESPN history.

History helps shape the future of how tennis is televised in the United States.

During the tennis boon of the 1970s, a cast of compelling characters consistently contending for Grand Slam championships — Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors on the men's side and Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova in the women's game — gave tennis a constellation of charismatic competitors whose star power drew fans to the game like the sun draws fans of tans.

Ratings have declined in recent years and ESPN analyst Patrick McEnroe attributes this to a number of factors including the undeniable passion that made those past champions so appealing and identifiable to fans as well as the apathetic approach some young players have that makes the simple act of running after a crosscourt shot seem as daunting as swimming the English Channel.

"We could basically predict my brother, Connors and Borg would be in the semis of majors so people knew them just because of that," McEnroe said told Tennis in a past interview. "Obviously, they had unbelievable personalities and they cared about winning more than anything else. A lot of the young players I see today don't put their asses on the line every time they go out there and that disturbs me. Not just in tennis, but in every sport. In tennis, you have to earn it every week, so it shouldn't be much of a problem. I think the word is passion. These guys had a passion for the sport, for winning and for competing."

Passion has not been confined to the court.

Some viewers posting on Internet bulletin boards, including Tennis's message board, have slammed ESPN for its programming decisions and occasionally opting to forsake a live match between lesser players for a taped telecast of a higher seeds. Whether you view ESPN's coverage as redundant or revealing may well depend on where your rooting interest lies, but there's no question that in trying to track the progress of every popular player in an effort to fulfill every fan's desires, the network faces a task as arduous as an astronomer identifying every single start in the sky.

Tennis Week touched on the programming issues and production values present in ESPN's coverage of the Australian Open in an interview with two leading members of ESPN's tennis team: Dennis Deninger, ESPN Coordinating Producer, Remote Production and Len DeLuca, the network's senior vice president of programming strategy.

Both men rose early in the Australian morning to participate in this interview conducted in a conference call. In the first half of the interview, DeLuca details the factors that play a part in ESPN's programming decisions at the Australian Open. To read it, please click DeLuca Interview.

In the second half of the interview, Deninger discusses some of the production aspects present in ESPN's coverage from Melbourne. To read it, please click Deninger Interview.

For a complete listing of ESPN's Australian Open schedule, please visit the ESPN Australian Open web site page.

DeLuca Interview

Deninger Interview
MisterQ is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:22 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,079
looks like someone read the e-mails, although nothing new was said, really...they have their opinion, and we have our opinion. I think they are wrong when they say that the hard-core fans will watch 'anything'. I felt it was a little disrespectful to us.
for-sure is offline  
post #3 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:36 PM
Cam'ron Giles's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Juelz Santana's bed
Posts: 16,096
ESPN is full of shit...

Official Gangsta rappa of the Royal Court

Will you be there?
Cam'ron Giles is offline  
post #4 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:40 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,079
I agree. BULL!
for-sure is offline  
post #5 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:42 PM
Team WTAworld
Senior Member
tall_one's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: :)
Posts: 712
They honestly believe that their die hard fans will watch whatever the put on?! - sorry but that assumption is wrong. I have not, nor will I watch any of Agassi, Roddick or Venus' matches (unless they play one of my favs) I shut off the TV when they come on, I'm tired of seeing the same people over and over again and i'm tired of ESPN showing blow out matches when there are good, close games on. ugh, what idiots!

Good Luck Dinara!
tall_one is offline  
post #6 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:43 PM
Senior Member
~ The Leopard ~'s Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Kissing my little Lolita
Posts: 13,105
None of this is surprising. They are after ratings, and they are thinking short term. They don't see it as their job to promote and develop the game. It's the same with Channel 7 and its relentless coverage of Australian players.

I don't like it, and I'm happy to bitch about it, but it won't do any good.

From what I've heard, ESPN is as bad as Channel 7 in producing a lot of yacking instead of showing actual tennis. It'd be nice if they crossed more to matches in progress and cut down on the yacking, but I guess that won't happen either.

It's a pity, because audiences are getting a distorted idea of what tennis is all about...but what can you do?

Vin, kvinder og sang
~ The Leopard ~ is offline  
post #7 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:48 PM
country flag SJW
Senior Member
SJW's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Allez
Posts: 11,016
if Britain had 5 Tim Henmans, we would be suffering from the same thing
SJW is offline  
post #8 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:50 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Mexico
Posts: 15,689
I know. They can show the Agassi match, but it would have been nice to see the ending of the Kapros-Mandula match on TV.
rated_next is online now  
post #9 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:52 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,722
Originally Posted by Cam'ron Giles
ESPN is full of shit...
Really? When the last time you ever saw a network acknowledge the complaints of large numbers of fans in an open forum like that, or bother to explain themselves?

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #10 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:56 PM
Senior Member
Greenout's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Abroad with a passport
Posts: 16,036
Too bad. This is horrible news for tennis back in the States.
The situation in Asia is different. They're pragmatic. If there's no
Sampars,Serena, Anna, Mary or Jenn, then WTF! there's still the
new Justine, the King of Clay JCF, Roger, Marat, the new superstar
tennis couple of Kim/Leyton, Paradorn, Amelie, now Maria and
these players are being promoted here. THANK GOD!!
Everyone here learned something from losing all those battles in
World War history. You have to move with the times, and
stop wasting time feeling sorry about what you lost.

I thought 9/11 would change America. It hasn't, obviously
alot of the things back home in the states are still the same.
Still hung up about the USA, and only the USA.

(shakes head)

Last edited by Greenout; Jan 24th, 2004 at 12:43 AM.
Greenout is offline  
post #11 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 23rd, 2004, 11:59 PM
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 27,280
Originally Posted by SJW
if Britain had 5 Tim Henmans, we would be suffering from the same thing
We're suffering enough with just one .
Kart is offline  
post #12 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2004, 12:08 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: b/n 1 & 3
Posts: 3,628
A really good article, may be the whiners will read and understand where ESPN is coming from. As any business, they have to maximize profit. If showing competitive matches b/n lower ranked players produces more rating than the demolishen of a player by a high ranked American player, then I have no doubt we will see more of the former matches. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. But, I am just repeating whatever the article described....

Btw, ESPN doesn't have any obligation to improve tennis or any other game. If broadcasting tennis matches becomes less profitable, it will just move to some other sport. I think the people who are negotiating with ESPN in behalf of the tennis tournaments are responible for the growth of tennis. So, they should negotiate into the broadcasting contract some terms which forces ESPN to show more of the lower-ranked-non-american players.
Hulet is offline  
post #13 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2004, 12:21 AM
Senior Member
JustineTime's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 3,026
This is rather like a politician saying "I promise" while flipping you off behind his back. It's a politely couched, diplomatic "screw you".

When TNT covered Wimbledon(time difference notwithstanding), they would switch around to different courts to give fans a better flavor for what was going on in general. It was MUCH better, IMO.

Question: did they sell the rights to ESPN because of poor ratings? If so, we're screwed because that would mean that ESPN is basically right.

At any rate, it seems clear that they have no intention of making any changes.


The transgression of the wicked saith within my heart, that there is no fear of God before his eyes. Ps. 36:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Ps. 14:1, 53:1

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction. Prov. 1:7

...Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding. Job 28:28
JustineTime is offline  
post #14 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.
Posts: 902
ESPN is digging its own grave. By not showing a variety of players, casual tennis watchers never learn who is coming up in the tennis world. This has lead to no one knowing who Kim and "Christine" are.

Non Americans used to be well known when they were shown on TV. Steffi, Monica, Martina, etc. Now, the WTA consists of Venus, Serena, and Jennifer.

Tennis coverage has gotten so bad over the last couple of years. Hopefully it will turn around.

Maria Madison Venus Serena Na

Arantxa Sanchez Vicario
jdog3008 is offline  
post #15 of 57 (permalink) Old Jan 24th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,079
I LOVE TNT's Wimbledon coverage. The switching from court to court gives tennis a really 'international feel'
for-sure is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome