PDA

View Full Version : Tennis analyst Carillo serves some aces (c/p)


badunka
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:01 AM
I thought I would give some love to Mary. She seems to be a very dividing figure on this board! it is from the Toronto Star (April 4 2005) ()c/p)
I know it doesn't inclue references to WTA but it is still fun. Enjoy! :)

-------------------------------------------------

Tennis analyst Carillo serves some aces
She's one of TV's best in the booth

CHRIS ZELKOVICH TORONTO STAR APRIL 5 2005

Of all the professional talkers hired by all those networks to act as sports analysts, very few actually do much in the way of analysis.

And considering that television is supposedly about entertainment, even fewer manage to do any entertaining.

Usually all you get is information that Jones came to play, Team A looks strong tonight and insights that basically amount to saying that the side with the most points will probably win.

Then there are the standouts, like tennis analyst Mary Carillo, who proved once again yesterday that she ranks with golf guy Johnny Miller as the best in the TV game.

Carillo not only tells viewers what they can't see, and not much more than that, she actually enhances the broadcast with both insight and humour.

Instead of stating the obvious, as too many do, Carillo speaks generally only when she has something to say. Several times during yesterday's NASDAQ Open men's final, Carillo was silent as the points piled up.

Though saying nothing may not seem like a talent, to viewers who would rather hear the smack of ball against racquet instead of platitudes it's a rare blessing.

Of course, it's what Carillo says that sets her apart.

With young Spanish hotshot Rafael Nadal chasing top seed Roger Federer all over the court, she noted that the favourite was "missing from everywhere. It's hard to make Roger Federer look like that."

But although she was obviously impressed with the flamboyant Spaniard, she admitted that Federer was contributing to Nadal's early success.

"It's hard enough playing the tough teenaged lefty without having to get out of your own way," she said.

She told a great story about how Nadal played a match with a seriously sore ankle because he had already defaulted twice to his opponent. After beating him, Nadal pulled out of the tournament.

But Carillo's real strength is her sense of humour, which tends to cut through the meaningless hype to which we've sadly become accustomed.

When a frustrated Federer tossed his racquet, she joked, "The winner of the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award, no less." As Nadal faltered down the stretch, announcer Bill Macatee offered that Nadal needed to turn things around, prompting Carillo to reply, "It seems what Rafael Nadal needs right now is a nap."

Carillo might have been a bit enamoured of Nadal at times, but who could blame her? Here was a guy who was all fire and fist pumps in stark contrast to Federer, an entertainer in a world of automatons.

Maybe she liked him so much because he's a lot like her.

tennischick
Apr 4th, 2005, 01:20 PM
i love Mary. she calls it like she sees it -- for everyone. :worship:

BlazeII
Apr 4th, 2005, 01:24 PM
She's my fav US commentator

SelesFan70
Apr 4th, 2005, 03:22 PM
I think she's tough on everyone. She's my 2nd favorite behind Tracy Austin who is more than fair to everyone. :hearts:

jonny84
Apr 4th, 2005, 03:25 PM
I never realised until I watched it a second time, but Mary had a little cameo in the film, Wimbledon as the tv anchor!

cartmancop
Apr 4th, 2005, 04:35 PM
I like her much better than Pam, Mary Jo & Tracy Austin. She is a much better analyst & is able to commentate both men's & women's tennis equally well.

Denise4925
Apr 4th, 2005, 04:42 PM
I usually like her, but I thought she was very harsh on Serena during the AO and fawned all over Maria, unnecessarily so. She criticized Serena from head to toe, on her game and her off court activities when Serena was cruising in the early rounds. However, when Maria was struggling against the likes of Lindsay Lee Waters, you'd think Maria was the second coming, walking on water on the court. :rolleyes: I, along with many others complained about this to ESPN. I don't know what good it did, but at least I got it off my chest to the proper audience. Anyway, I just wanted to add my comment that I used to think she was fair and objective, but after that, I don't know.

Dave B
Apr 4th, 2005, 05:16 PM
I like Mary a lot, but she can be hard on players. Have you heard her bit on Fernando Gonzales? :eek:

mboyle
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:35 PM
I like Mary a lot, but she can be hard on players. Have you heard her bit on Fernando Gonzales? :eek:

Gonzalez is technically an aweful player. His technique is non existant, just whatever hits it hardest on that shot. He doesn't think about where the ball is going at all, just, "how hard can I hit this?" That's painfully annoying as an avid tennis fan, especially when he wins against people who are actually thinking out there and who actually use the same swing for the same shot.

mboyle
Apr 4th, 2005, 06:36 PM
I have a feeling Hingis would be a great US commentator if she knew English better. She always seems to be searching for words and expressions, and she often chooses the wrong ones, but I couldn't commentate half as well as she in any other language, so...

Yonge
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:06 PM
I read this on the paper today and I laughed when I read the caption of Roger Federer's photo. I can't remember it verbatim, but it was something along the lines of "Carillo called Federer the winner of a fictitious Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award. Fictitious? :lol:

creep
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:08 PM
I love Mary.:) But I'm unsure if I love her as much as lizchris.

Chriskip
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:31 PM
Is this the same Mary who never even gave Nadal a chance in the semis. She said (after he was already in the final and she was commentating the Agassi/Federer match) that Nadal did not stand a chance and did not have "the game" to beat either of them. I love Federer but just to prove her wrong I wouldn't have been too disappointed if he had lost. Then for the entire time in the first 3 sets, until the tiebreak, guess what? She was all on the Nadal bandwagon. At that time I willed Federer to win........and if I remember correctly it was about this time when Roger started to play his natural game that she became quiet. What else could she do......like many of her other colleagues she had been made to eat her words and she felf like a fool. In my opinion thats why she was quiet....out of pure shame. To me Federer has become like a few other top players before him (and by a few I mean a few...we all know them) who the commentators cant wait on to lose. They may pretend they are enjoying them winning, but you can secretly hear that they prefer the opponent to win. I dont know about non-American commentators, but the US ones are all for the select few Americans (Agassi, Roddick and Capriati........not even Lindsay is really cheered by them) and that is why I find it hard to like these players. I like and respect their game but cant really cheer for them..................................my 2 cents worth.

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Apr 4th, 2005, 07:37 PM
Seems better than Mary Jo Fernandez..

Cris Senior
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:58 AM
Seems better than Mary Jo Fernandez..
Right,Fernandez can't even enunciate clearly.She seems to speak with a lisp and doesn't have much of an intelligent or even funny commentary.You wonder what moron hired her.
Carrillo at least is smart and humorous,though she has spells of non-sense talking where she becomes a pain in the neck because it distracts from the actual court event.She is naturally garrulous.
Cris

Knizzle
Apr 5th, 2005, 01:03 AM
Is this the same Mary who never even gave Nadal a chance in the semis. She said (after he was already in the final and she was commentating the Agassi/Federer match) that Nadal did not stand a chance and did not have "the game" to beat either of them. I love Federer but just to prove her wrong I wouldn't have been too disappointed if he had lost. Then for the entire time in the first 3 sets, until the tiebreak, guess what? She was all on the Nadal bandwagon. At that time I willed Federer to win........and if I remember correctly it was about this time when Roger started to play his natural game that she became quiet. What else could she do......like many of her other colleagues she had been made to eat her words and she felf like a fool. In my opinion thats why she was quiet....out of pure shame. To me Federer has become like a few other top players before him (and by a few I mean a few...we all know them) who the commentators cant wait on to lose. They may pretend they are enjoying them winning, but you can secretly hear that they prefer the opponent to win. I dont know about non-American commentators, but the US ones are all for the select few Americans (Agassi, Roddick and Capriati........not even Lindsay is really cheered by them) and that is why I find it hard to like these players. I like and respect their game but cant really cheer for them..................................my 2 cents worth.

She didn't go quiet in my opinion, but she immediately jumped on the Federer bandwagon.

BTW Carillo and Nav made a great commentating team at Wimbledon. I also enjoy BJK's guest appearances. Hingis would be good also if she spoke English better.

Geisha
Apr 5th, 2005, 01:04 AM
Nice.

Paldias
Apr 5th, 2005, 01:08 AM
Just because she harps on the Williams sisters doesn't make her a bad commentator. I've always liked her, but necessarily what she thinks about the Williams sisters.

RVD
Apr 5th, 2005, 01:16 AM
Hmm...? Interesting. :confused:
Not once did this article mention how Mary fairs in the WTA booth. Which clearly identifies this as an ATP article. So why is this in the WTA side?
I suppose Mary does well there due to the likely checks-and-balances of the ATP production heads. Can you imagine her making those regularly broadcasted snide remarks she makes during WTA matches? They wouldn't stand for it, which is more likely why she's quiet during certain instances of the ATP matches. In the WTA booth, she most certainly is a different commentator. :shrug:

Whatever, the case may be, she sucks when it comes to fair and unbiased analysis of my favs. So maybe that is why some here feel irritated by her. Just an opinion of course.

MrYonex
Apr 5th, 2005, 02:00 AM
Mary is such a great comentator! She is so smart and funny! Its also great that she can do mens and womens tennis!

P.S. Just because she doesn't gush over your favourite player doesn't mean you have to complain to ESPN though... :rolleyes:

badunka
Apr 5th, 2005, 02:00 AM
Hmm...? Interesting. :confused:
Not once did this article mention how Mary fairs in the WTA booth. Which clearly identifies this as an ATP article. So why is this in the WTA side?
I suppose Mary does well there due to the likely checks-and-balances of the ATP production heads. Can you imagine her making those regularly broadcasted snide remarks she makes during WTA matches? They wouldn't stand for it, which is more likely why she's quiet during certain instances of the ATP matches. In the WTA booth, she most certainly is a different commentator. :shrug:

Whatever, the case may be, she sucks when it comes to fair and unbiased analysis of my favs. So maybe that is why some here feel irritated by her. Just an opinion of course.

haha wo w but Mary does commentate for the WTA so maybe it does belong here. THe article is here for a fun read and if you're going to make dumb comments I'd appreciate if you'd stay out of my threads.

RVD
Apr 5th, 2005, 03:46 AM
haha wo w but Mary does commentate for the WTA so maybe it does nelong here. THe article is here for a fun read and if you're going to make dumb comments I'd appreciate if you'd stay out of my threads.http://deephousepage.com/smilies/whistle.gif http://deephousepage.com/smilies/moon1.gif http://deephousepage.com/smilies/whistle.gif

A reBUTTal to your juvenile response.

badunka
Apr 5th, 2005, 04:15 AM
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/whistle.gif http://deephousepage.com/smilies/moon1.gif http://deephousepage.com/smilies/whistle.gif

A reBUTTal to your juvenile response.

you said it all. luv ya :hearts:

Denise4925
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:27 AM
Mary is such a great comentator! She is so smart and funny! Its also great that she can do mens and womens tennis!

P.S. Just because she doesn't gush over your favourite player doesn't mean you have to complain to ESPN though... :rolleyes:
Gushing is one thing, but being overly critical on a player's style of play, playing (especially when she's trouncing someone), a player's clothes, to their personal life all in one match is another thing altogether. Just call the freaking match. No need for snide remarks and asides. It's distracting from the match and it doesn't lend anything. That's why I complained and for no other reason. :rolleyes:

Denise4925
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:28 AM
http://deephousepage.com/smilies/whistle.gif http://deephousepage.com/smilies/moon1.gif http://deephousepage.com/smilies/whistle.gif

A reBUTTal to your juvenile response.
:haha: :haha: :haha:

wta whore 79
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:36 AM
Mary is much better doing ATP in my opinion. It seems like she is able to be much less biased in that arena. As far as WTA goes, I can't wait for Martina Navratilova to retire so she can do some friggin commentary for US television! She is wayyy funnier than Mary C., and her perspective is TO DIE FOR! I remember one year she was calling Wimbledon and Hantuchova was playing someone in maybe a 4R match-up. She predicted that in a years time that Hantuchova would be in the QF. And guess what? She was DEAD ON! No one else really has that insight. Off tangent a little bit, but none of the commentators thought that Serena had a chance going into US Open 99. But guess what? She was MY favorite to win (and I had analyzed everyone's chances), and we all know what happened. The point of the matter is that few are able to correctly predict the way that Martina can. She just has a knack for the sport and she cracks me up!

Mary Joe Fernandez is probably my favorite current women's commentator. (Although I love me some Johnny Mac as well!) She is very intelligent and very statistics-ordinated. She might not be the most entertaining, but she always knows what she's talking about. On the other hand, I loved me some Chris Evert commentary just because she seemed so ignorant about what had been going on during the tour between the Grand Slams. It was hilarious. You could tell that she didn't live tennis week-in week-out the way a good commentator should.

tenn_ace
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:37 AM
Mary is THE best commentator IMO followed by JMac...

Yonexforever
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:48 AM
My opinion of that Blankety Blank is well established, she started off well, but seems to have slid down the slope of self promotion.
She jumps on the bandwagon of the player that's leading at the moment, unless if course it's some tall male blond Swede., which she seems to have a penchant for!

Denise4925
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:51 AM
My opinion of that Blankety Blank is well established, she started off well, but seems to have slid down the slope of self promotion.
She jumps on the bandwagon of the player that's leading at the moment, unless if course it's some tall male blond Swede., which she seems to have a penchant for!
:lol:

Tratree
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:53 AM
You know what.....I love me some Mary. Nobody brings the funny like her. And she knows of what she speaks. Just about every player has had the treatment from Mary. I can recally MANY things she has said about Capriati, Hingis, Graf, even Monica. She just tells the truth, regardless of what people think. It can sting, but she doesn't mince words. That I like about her, even when it's my favorite she's zinging. You certainly can't call her a kiss-ass like some commentators who are either bought out by IMG or is the DAVIS CUP CAPTAIN PATRICK MCENROE....give it a rest already dude! Do they have to talk about stupid Davis Cup every damn match? Anyways, I'd buy Mary lunch any day of the week.

Brian Stewart
Apr 5th, 2005, 08:50 AM
Traci, are you suggesting IMG would place less-than-qualified announcers in the booth purely on the basis of connections?
*cough*Nagelsen*cough*

Getting back to Mary Carillo, she used to be one of my favorite announcers, but she has slipped badly in recent years. Her rep was as the "journalist in the booth". But when she talks (almost brags) about not knowing who a player ranked in the 50's-60's is, her credibility as a journalist goes out the window. Someone who is employed as a tennis announcer (as opposed to general sports announcers asked to fill in occasionally) should know a lot about everyone who is plying their craft on the tour regularly. I could understand if it was some wild card ranked in the 300's, but announcers should know anyone in the top 100 like the back of their hand.

Another strike against Mary is her lack of objectivity. This is displayed in two fashions. For one, she seems to have turned against women's tennis, to the point where she makes Cliff "come on let's get this match over with so we can show some men's tennis" Drysdale look neutral by comparison. Mary does women's matches with the same enthusiasm as a child being forced to practice the piano. Identical situations in men's and women's matches are treated more positively in the men's matches, and more negatively in the women's. I expect this kind of nonsense from the incompetent Drysdale and Pat Mac, or the biased Ted Robinson. But from someone like Mary, who has shown more ability in the past, and who should recall from her playing days what it's like to be on the receiving end of less than objective journalism, it's extremely disappointing. And since when is being able to return, and consequently break, the opponent's serve a bad thing?

As to her other displays of non-objectivity, I have to largely concur with the Williams fans. Mary loved "big babe tennis" when the big babes in question were Pierce, Davenport, Seles, Capriati. When it became apparent that Serena and Venus were the best at this style, she immediately soured on it. And god forbid she's in the booth for an all-Williams encounter. She's made up her mind she isn't going to like it. During the match, she constantly harps on the errors, making it sound like every other shot is going 10 feet out. Why no mention of the spectacular shots in between? P-Mac is willing to "throw out the stats" in men's matches, even when it's not justified, if they're in negative territory. Why can't Carillo similarly dismiss negative stats when it is justified? This is especially applicable to matches with at least one Williams involved.

Mary has slipped badly. She's not in the same league as Pam as a tactical analyzer of matches. (Pam's the best at it of those currently employed, until Martina re-re-re-retires. Johnny Mac has the ability, but is willing to turn a blind eye to tactical gaffs too often.) I'm critical of Mary not because she is a bad announcer, but because she has become one. She used to be much better. She can be much better.

Ironically, Mary's woes may stem from being hoist on her own petard. When she signed on with HBO to do Wimbledon, she also was hired to work on their Real Sports program, which she still does, last I heard. And her duties with CBS have expanded on to other sports throughout the year. These activities have coincided with her declining performance in the booth. In other words, as her non-tennis activities have consumed more of her time, her tennis performances have suffered.

Perhaps her producers will point this out to her, and remind her of some sloppiness in her announcing of recent years, before the next time she does a match involving those she has been unduly critical of. I hope she can get her performances back to where they were. In a sport overrun with C-level announcers, we don't need those capable of performing at a higher level bringing their games down.

RVD
Apr 5th, 2005, 12:30 PM
Traci, are you suggesting IMG would place less-than-qualified announcers in the booth purely on the basis of connections?
*cough*Nagelsen*cough*

Getting back to Mary Carillo, she used to be one of my favorite announcers, but she has slipped badly in recent years. Her rep was as the "journalist in the booth". But when she talks (almost brags) about not knowing who a player ranked in the 50's-60's is, her credibility as a journalist goes out the window. Someone who is employed as a tennis announcer (as opposed to general sports announcers asked to fill in occasionally) should know a lot about everyone who is plying their craft on the tour regularly. I could understand if it was some wild card ranked in the 300's, but announcers should know anyone in the top 100 like the back of their hand.

Another strike against Mary is her lack of objectivity. This is displayed in two fashions. For one, she seems to have turned against women's tennis, to the point where she makes Cliff "come on let's get this match over with so we can show some men's tennis" Drysdale look neutral by comparison. Mary does women's matches with the same enthusiasm as a child being forced to practice the piano. Identical situations in men's and women's matches are treated more positively in the men's matches, and more negatively in the women's. I expect this kind of nonsense from the incompetent Drysdale and Pat Mac, or the biased Ted Robinson. But from someone like Mary, who has shown more ability in the past, and who should recall from her playing days what it's like to be on the receiving end of less than objective journalism, it's extremely disappointing. And since when is being able to return, and consequently break, the opponent's serve a bad thing?

As to her other displays of non-objectivity, I have to largely concur with the Williams fans. Mary loved "big babe tennis" when the big babes in question were Pierce, Davenport, Seles, Capriati. When it became apparent that Serena and Venus were the best at this style, she immediately soured on it. And god forbid she's in the booth for an all-Williams encounter. She's made up her mind she isn't going to like it. During the match, she constantly harps on the errors, making it sound like every other shot is going 10 feet out. Why no mention of the spectacular shots in between? P-Mac is willing to "throw out the stats" in men's matches, even when it's not justified, if they're in negative territory. Why can't Carillo similarly dismiss negative stats when it is justified? This is especially applicable to matches with at least one Williams involved.

Mary has slipped badly. She's not in the same league as Pam as a tactical analyzer of matches. (Pam's the best at it of those currently employed, until Martina re-re-re-retires. Johnny Mac has the ability, but is willing to turn a blind eye to tactical gaffs too often.) I'm critical of Mary not because she is a bad announcer, but because she has become one. She used to be much better. She can be much better.

Ironically, Mary's woes may stem from being hoist on her own petard. When she signed on with HBO to do Wimbledon, she also was hired to work on their Real Sports program, which she still does, last I heard. And her duties with CBS have expanded on to other sports throughout the year. These activities have coincided with her declining performance in the booth. In other words, as her non-tennis activities have consumed more of her time, her tennis performances have suffered.

Perhaps her producers will point this out to her, and remind her of some sloppiness in her announcing of recent years, before the next time she does a match involving those she has been unduly critical of. I hope she can get her performances back to where they were. In a sport overrun with C-level announcers, we don't need those capable of performing at a higher level bringing their games down.This sums it up for me X2! :worship:
You really should post more often Brian Stewart. It's a treat reading your replies. :yeah:

Brinyi
Apr 5th, 2005, 02:07 PM
An alternative interpretation to Brian's interesting observations:

I don't think it needs to be assumed that Mary has cooled to "big babe tennis" because of the Williams sisters. I think it quite possible that she has cooled to it because it has gone from being a "fresh approach" to becoming the dominant style, with the result that now the majority of young players coming up whack the ball hard but in a fairly brainless fashion. Which is perhaps why she has cooled toward women's tennis in general, which has become increasingly less interesting, tennistically speaking, than men's tennis (at the elite level anyway, especially with Justine missing).

Denise4925
Apr 5th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Traci, are you suggesting IMG would place less-than-qualified announcers in the booth purely on the basis of connections?
*cough*Nagelsen*cough*

Getting back to Mary Carillo, she used to be one of my favorite announcers, but she has slipped badly in recent years. Her rep was as the "journalist in the booth". But when she talks (almost brags) about not knowing who a player ranked in the 50's-60's is, her credibility as a journalist goes out the window. Someone who is employed as a tennis announcer (as opposed to general sports announcers asked to fill in occasionally) should know a lot about everyone who is plying their craft on the tour regularly. I could understand if it was some wild card ranked in the 300's, but announcers should know anyone in the top 100 like the back of their hand.

Another strike against Mary is her lack of objectivity. This is displayed in two fashions. For one, she seems to have turned against women's tennis, to the point where she makes Cliff "come on let's get this match over with so we can show some men's tennis" Drysdale look neutral by comparison. Mary does women's matches with the same enthusiasm as a child being forced to practice the piano. Identical situations in men's and women's matches are treated more positively in the men's matches, and more negatively in the women's. I expect this kind of nonsense from the incompetent Drysdale and Pat Mac, or the biased Ted Robinson. But from someone like Mary, who has shown more ability in the past, and who should recall from her playing days what it's like to be on the receiving end of less than objective journalism, it's extremely disappointing. And since when is being able to return, and consequently break, the opponent's serve a bad thing?

As to her other displays of non-objectivity, I have to largely concur with the Williams fans. Mary loved "big babe tennis" when the big babes in question were Pierce, Davenport, Seles, Capriati. When it became apparent that Serena and Venus were the best at this style, she immediately soured on it. And god forbid she's in the booth for an all-Williams encounter. She's made up her mind she isn't going to like it. During the match, she constantly harps on the errors, making it sound like every other shot is going 10 feet out. Why no mention of the spectacular shots in between? P-Mac is willing to "throw out the stats" in men's matches, even when it's not justified, if they're in negative territory. Why can't Carillo similarly dismiss negative stats when it is justified? This is especially applicable to matches with at least one Williams involved.

Mary has slipped badly. She's not in the same league as Pam as a tactical analyzer of matches. (Pam's the best at it of those currently employed, until Martina re-re-re-retires. Johnny Mac has the ability, but is willing to turn a blind eye to tactical gaffs too often.) I'm critical of Mary not because she is a bad announcer, but because she has become one. She used to be much better. She can be much better.

Ironically, Mary's woes may stem from being hoist on her own petard. When she signed on with HBO to do Wimbledon, she also was hired to work on their Real Sports program, which she still does, last I heard. And her duties with CBS have expanded on to other sports throughout the year. These activities have coincided with her declining performance in the booth. In other words, as her non-tennis activities have consumed more of her time, her tennis performances have suffered.

Perhaps her producers will point this out to her, and remind her of some sloppiness in her announcing of recent years, before the next time she does a match involving those she has been unduly critical of. I hope she can get her performances back to where they were. In a sport overrun with C-level announcers, we don't need those capable of performing at a higher level bringing their games down.
:worship: :worship: :worship: Great post. You took the thoughts right out of my head. On the money!!!

Julia1968
Apr 5th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Getting back to Mary Carillo, she used to be one of my favorite announcers, but she has slipped badly in recent years. Her rep was as the "journalist in the booth". But when she talks (almost brags) about not knowing who a player ranked in the 50's-60's is, her credibility as a journalist goes out the window.

Were you aware that tennis commentators employer networks have a research staff which prompts player bio's and player historical information to the commentators during matches???? It is a practice which has continued for decades.

Tennis commentators have never been required to bestow "instant recall" in their respective booths while commentating, at least until now by Brian.

Whether or not Carillo knows who a player is ranked in the 60's has nothing to do with credibility, considering most others do not know either.


Someone who is employed as a tennis announcer (as opposed to general sports announcers asked to fill in occasionally) should know a lot about everyone who is plying their craft on the tour regularly. I could understand if it was some wild card ranked in the 300's, but announcers should know anyone in the top 100 like the back of their hand.

Why should a commentator who is covering only semi and finals of major tournaments know the top 100 like the back of her hand when very few outside of the top 100 ever make the semi or finals in a major tournament???

Another strike against Mary is her lack of objectivity. This is displayed in two fashions. For one, she seems to have turned against women's tennis, to the point where she makes Cliff "come on let's get this match over with so we can show some men's tennis" Drysdale look neutral by comparison. Mary does women's matches with the same enthusiasm as a child being forced to practice the piano. .

Hmmmmm...it seems non-sequitur for a tennis commentator to continue covering women's tennis, if they didn't want to. Carillo has done that job for well over a decade and she's so well respected in the sporting world, that if she didn't want to do it, she wouldn't have to. Its largely why Carillo is commentating other sports besides tennis. She's professional and being rewarded for her professionalism. I could understand where some crying jag might be jealous of that.

Identical situations in men's and women's matches are treated more positively in the men's matches, and more negatively in the women's. I expect this kind of nonsense from the incompetent Drysdale and Pat Mac, or the biased Ted Robinson. But from someone like Mary, who has shown more ability in the past, and who should recall from her playing days what it's like to be on the receiving end of less than objective journalism, it's extremely disappointing. And since when is being able to return, and consequently break, the opponent's serve a bad thing?

I wished you could provide more specific examples. Your opinions in this case are largely subjective. Re: return service, break opponents serve. In what context was Carillo talking about that issue?

I think you have the terms "journalist" and "tennis commentator/analyst" confused. Carillo is not representing herself as a "journalist" when she "commentates/analyzes" tennis matches. That is why she can interject her personal opinions and isn't required to be objective.

As a "journalist", she is required to be objective. Carillo has never portrayed herself as a "journalist" while "commentating/analyzing" a tennis match.

As to her other displays of non-objectivity, I have to largely concur with the Williams fans. Mary loved "big babe tennis" when the big babes in question were Pierce, Davenport, Seles, Capriati. When it became apparent that Serena and Venus were the best at this style, she immediately soured on it..

That's not accurate. Carillo has several dozen times been very positive during Serena's "Serena Slam" run. In fact, Carillo raved about Serena. Of course, that's when Serena was winning about every tournament she played. Serena isn't anywhere near the level of play she once displayed, which is why Carillo may not be as willing to discuss her as positively because Serena isn't that "hot" anymore. Younger and better players are coming along which is what the majority tennis fans like hear about.

Again, when Venus was at her best, a 12 month period during 2000-2001 when Venus won 4 grand slam events. Carillo was very jovial about Venus. However, Venus hasn't won a grand slam singles event since 2001. Why should Carillo be raving over a has-been grand slam winner????


And god forbid she's in the booth for an all-Williams encounter. She's made up her mind she isn't going to like it. During the match, she constantly harps on the errors, making it sound like every other shot is going 10 feet out. Why no mention of the spectacular shots in between? P-Mac is willing to "throw out the stats" in men's matches, even when it's not justified, if they're in negative territory. Why can't Carillo similarly dismiss negative stats when it is justified? This is especially applicable to matches with at least one Williams involved.

It is largely argued that "All-Williams" encounters are generally error-prone. Why should a tennis commentator/analyst "dismiss negative stats" because it is Venus and Serena Williams playing. Why should Venus and Serena Williams be treated any differently than any other player???

When tennis is sloppy and error-proned, Carillo lets everyone know about, regardless of the player. She always has and always will.

badunka
Apr 5th, 2005, 06:38 PM
great post julia. alot of thought going on in this thread!