PDA

View Full Version : ESPN Should Be Thanked...


lizchris
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:17 PM
for not showing the Canadian Open final this year. This has to be one of the worst, if not the worst finals this year. The fact that this was a Tier I tournament makes it even worse. Hopefully next year, more of the top ten will show up and the Americans will come in masse.

AnDyDog621
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:19 PM
wasn't the french final just as bad??

lizchris
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:24 PM
wasn't the french final just as bad??

Actually, the French Open final was the second or third worst women's final this year. What gets me is that people complain how boring the Williams sisters finals are, but at least their finals go to three sets and are not blowouts.

AnDyDog621
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:29 PM
so ur saying u think the French Final was the 2nd or 3rd worst women's final this year, but the Canadian one was worst??

harloo
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:35 PM
I think ESPN should be thanked for not showing this, how embarassing.

shap_half
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:38 PM
Actually, the French Open final was the second or third worst women's final this year. What gets me is that people complain how boring the Williams sisters finals are, but at least their finals go to three sets and are not blowouts.
yeah their only finals that went to three sets were their last two Australian Open and Wimbledon. Did you watch one of their first finals in the 2001 US Open, that was just so embarrassing for Serena and quite an uninspired finals.
The finals between Justine and Kim have always been high quality match ups. They have played 5 finals and Justine have won 4 of them - only one being a two setter which was the French. Every other final they've played, especially San Diego and Berlin this year have been very well played.

treufreund
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:40 PM
NO you are wrong! Hindsight is 20/20. of course this final happened to be a blowout but it is still a tier 1 and should have been covered. You are obviously not a WTA fan but Williams fans only. Even if it is a blowout I want it ON TV! imagine if it had turned out an amazing final and was not televised.

not to mention the great semis that were not televised.

your post wreaks of bias!

Serendy Willick
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:50 PM
yeah their only finals that went to three sets were their last two Australian Open and Wimbledon. Did you watch one of their first finals in the 2001 US Open, that was just so embarrassing for Serena and quite an uninspired finals.
The finals between Justine and Kim have always been high quality match ups. They have played 5 finals and Justine have won 4 of them - only one being a two setter which was the French. Every other final they've played, especially San Diego and Berlin this year have been very well played.


"High quality"? I dont think so. Their match in San Diego was decided mostly on errors (I dont even think that they reached the double digits in winners) That French Open final was flat out horrible (The German Open final was good, but you cant argue with the 1&2 thrashings that Kim gave Justine at the beginning of the year. I dont have a problem with their finals but what I do have a problem with is the fact that sorry azz press can put Serena and Venus finals through the ringer constantly, bitching and moaning about someone else needs to get to the finals to make it more competitive :rolleyes:, but dont do the same whenever anyone else plays a shitty final. My point in case, Mary Carillo had no problems trashing the Wimbeldon or Austrailian Open finals, but kept her stank azz trap closed whenever Kim and Justine played almost the exact similar type of matches that V and S played.

lizchris
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:51 PM
NO you are wrong! Hindsight is 20/20. of course this final happened to be a blowout but it is still a tier 1 and should have been covered. You are obviously not a WTA fan but Williams fans only. Even if it is a blowout I want it ON TV! imagine if it had turned out an amazing final and was not televised.

not to mention the great semis that were not televised.

your post wreaks of bias!

I don't deny that I am a WIlliams fan and a fan of good tennis. You can't tell me that this final today was good tennis because it was not. BTW, EPSN doesn't carry the Tokyo or Swisscom Challenge tournaments either and they are Tier I's

In addition, the word is reek, not wreak.

lizchris
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:54 PM
yeah their only finals that went to three sets were their last two Australian Open and Wimbledon. Did you watch one of their first finals in the 2001 US Open, that was just so embarrassing for Serena and quite an uninspired finals.
The finals between Justine and Kim have always been high quality match ups. They have played 5 finals and Justine have won 4 of them - only one being a two setter which was the French. Every other final they've played, especially San Diego and Berlin this year have been very well played.

The 2001 USO women's final might have benn uninspiring, but it was still televised.

shap_half
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:56 PM
"High quality"? I dont think so. Their match in San Diego was decided mostly on errors (I dont even think that they reached the double digits in winners) That French Open final was flat out horrible (The German Open final was good, but you cant argue with the 1&2 thrashings that Kim gave Justine at the beginning of the year. I dont have a problem with their finals but what I do have a problem with is the fact that sorry azz press can put Serena and Venus finals through the ringer constantly, bitching and moaning about someone else needs to get to the finals to make it more competitive :rolleyes:, but dont do the same whenever anyone else plays a shitty final. My point in case, Mary Carillo had no problems trashing the Wimbeldon or Austrailian Open finals, but kept her stank azz trap closed whenever Kim and Justine played almost the exact similar type of matches that V and S played.

I disagree. The San Diego final was pretty good and better than what happened at Melbourne or Wimbledon. And this is not because I like Justine. It's flat out true. The finals that the sisters make it to are always decided by errors. And it wasn't until the Australian Open that they could even make it to three sets. But when Justine and Kim played their first final at the Ordina Open in 2001, it was a three setter. And it wasn't until the French Open that it wasn't a three setter. And when they played another final, it was another three setter. I will agree that the French Open final was horrible but was it any worse than what the sisters did the year before? Sure the score wasn't as bad but how was the quality?

And yeah I pretty much agree with the press comments and Mary Carillo. But I can't agree with the idea that Clijsters-Henin finals are just as boring as Williams finals.

shap_half
Aug 17th, 2003, 08:57 PM
The 2001 USO women's final might have benn uninspiring, but it was still televised.
because it was a Grand Slam final you fucker. I'd take the 2003 French Open final where there was actually winners coming off of one side of the net with some magnificent shots than the 2001 US Open where Serena pretty much blew balls out of the ass of her racket.

lizchris
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:00 PM
because it was a Grand Slam final you fucker. I'd take the 2003 French Open final where there was actually winners coming off of one side of the net with some magnificent shots than the 2001 US Open where Serena pretty much blew balls out of the ass of her racket.

You can take what you want, you piece of shit, but ratings don't lie and apparently in the US more people wanted to see Venus and Serena than they did Kim and Justine.

harloo
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:00 PM
LOL@this match. I mean last year we had Mauresmo/Capriati in the finals which was a good match, the year before it was Capriati/Serena which was good. However this year was just a joke. H-H should of been handed the title before she even showed up.

6-1,6-0 in a tier I final is a joke. Now maybe in a tier II or III or lower, but a tier I? :rolleyes:

Serendy Willick
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:01 PM
I disagree. The San Diego final was pretty good and better than what happened at Melbourne or Wimbledon. And this is not because I like Justine. It's flat out true. The finals that the sisters make it to are always decided by errors. And it wasn't until the Australian Open that they could even make it to three sets. But when Justine and Kim played their first final at the Ordina Open in 2001, it was a three setter. And it wasn't until the French Open that it wasn't a three setter. And when they played another final, it was another three setter. I will agree that the French Open final was horrible but was it any worse than what the sisters did the year before? Sure the score wasn't as bad but how was the quality?

And yeah I pretty much agree with the press comments and Mary Carillo. But I can't agree with the idea that Clijsters-Henin finals are just as boring as Williams finals.



Sorry but I will agree to disagree. That San Diego final was no worse than anything that Venus or Serena had done. BTW, had you think that maybe the pressure of the ocassion would get to the players? Clisjsters and Henin-Hardenne in 2001 were not in the big leagues yet, and had nowhere near the pressure of having idiots nitpick every thing you do out there on the court but Venus and Serena did. Not only because they two of the toughest to play, but because they were sisters.

shap_half
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:07 PM
You can take what you want, you piece of shit, but ratings don't lie and apparently in the US more people wanted to see Venus and Serena than they did Kim and Justine.

yes because venus and serena are americans and sisters?!?! most americans are in it because of the drama behind it. but any tennis fans can see that their finals are never inspiring. except for wimbledon 2003 because i really wanted venus to win.

shap_half
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:09 PM
Sorry but I will agree to disagree. That San Diego final was no worse than anything that Venus or Serena had done. BTW, had you think that maybe the pressure of the ocassion would get to the players? Clisjsters and Henin-Hardenne in 2001 were not in the big leagues yet, and had nowhere near the pressure of having idiots nitpick every thing you do out there on the court but Venus and Serena did. Not only because they two of the toughest to play, but because they were sisters.

Of course the pressure is always there for Venus and Serena but this year alone the Belgians played 4 finals, two of them were three setters and the other one Justine had to retire, when they are already 2 and 3 in the world. I think that the rivalry between Justine and Kim is more palpable and the finals end up being more meaningful in terms of the rivalry and who is actually better.

lizchris
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:13 PM
yes because venus and serena are americans and sisters?!?! most americans are in it because of the drama behind it. but any tennis fans can see that their finals are never inspiring. except for wimbledon 2003 because i really wanted venus to win.

Well at least we agree on something.

Serendy Willick
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:15 PM
Of course the pressure is always there for Venus and Serena but this year alone the Belgians played 4 finals, two of them were three setters and the other one Justine had to retire, when they are already 2 and 3 in the world. I think that the rivalry between Justine and Kim is more palpable and the finals end up being more meaningful in terms of the rivalry and who is actually better.


So Venus and Serenas finals dont means squat because theyre not palpable as you say? I always thought that getting to the finals of a tournement was meaningful no matter who you are. I'm not saying that their finals are all perfect high quality, I'm just getting tired of loser "so called "experts" that rip them apart about their finals while Kim, Justine, and many others in the tennis world have played in some finals with not much high quality either.

shap_half
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:22 PM
So Venus and Serenas finals dont means squat because theyre not palpable as you say? I always thought that getting to the finals of a tournement was meaningful no matter who you are. I'm not saying that their finals are all perfect high quality, I'm just getting tired of loser "so called "experts" that rip them apart about their finals while Kim, Justine, and many others in the tennis world have played in some finals with not much high quality either.

Of course they mean alot regardless of who is in the final. What I meant to say, and I probably didn't say it very well, is that when justine and kim plays the rivalry is bigger. it's kinda hard to form a rivalry with you sister wouldn't you say? and so the matches between K and J are more exciting because we know that the rivalries are bigger and they will most likely play better and really try to defeat one another. it's hard to have that mentality against your sister.

TeeRexx
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:36 PM
People complain about the WILLIAMS always being in a final, but a tournament without VENUS and/or SERENA is like a birthday cake witout the icing, choco icing at that. :)

Maybe next year VENUS or SERENA will play in this event and it will once again be televised to tennis buffs. :)

Lee-Waters' Boy
Aug 17th, 2003, 09:50 PM
i dont like serena, venus, or justine but ill still tell you the san diego final fucking sucked. anyone who argues that was high quality tennis is high