I'd say NBC. They have diverse programming, they treat it with respect, good (but not great) commentators and they actually pre-empt NBC shows to show tennis!
USA comes in second, I'm sorry but i can't stand Jim Courier
TNT comes in third
CBS comes in fourth (horrible job)
ESPN should be banned from displaying Tennis ever again
Feb 13th, 2003, 08:06 PM
TNT's Wimbledon coverage is UNBELIEVABLE! They start when LIVE tennis starts, and they show EVERYTHING. They always end AFTER the LIVE tennis has stopped.
But they only cover WB.
USA has great coverage too. of the open and they did have the French....ah the good old days.
CBS/NBC really only show the finals/mid-weekend. I haven't liked NBC in the past because of Chris Evert.
Feb 13th, 2003, 08:06 PM
Serena covered all four really well.
Feb 13th, 2003, 08:08 PM
this is true
Feb 13th, 2003, 08:11 PM
Feb 13th, 2003, 08:12 PM
TNT is absolutely the best. They show EVERYTHING!!
Feb 13th, 2003, 08:12 PM
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, how I miss HBO!!! No commercials!:(
I'll take USA and TNT.:)
Feb 13th, 2003, 09:26 PM
Here Channel 7 does Davis Cup, Aus. Open,...and I think US OPen.
Can't remember who does the French. 9 does Wimbledon and their coverage was shit (they would rather show The Footy Show than a Wimbledon semi-final between Hewitt and Henman)
Feb 13th, 2003, 09:38 PM
yes i miss HBO also! but tnt, picked up were they left off, honestly! they show everything, i mean all the showcourts, they do it all!
Feb 13th, 2003, 09:40 PM
without a certain person playing the bbc coverage of wimbledon is probably the best.
Feb 13th, 2003, 10:29 PM
:rolleyes:@whoever voted espn..
Feb 13th, 2003, 10:32 PM
Feb 13th, 2003, 10:33 PM
I loved HBO's Wimbledon coverage!!
I like TNT but I miss HBO!! :sad: :sad: :sad:
Feb 13th, 2003, 10:55 PM
HBO did it the best. Even leaving aside the commercial-free aspect (which the other channels can't do), HBO showed us more variety. We at least got to see highlights of all of the seeds, and other known players. By showing several matches, it made it feel like a big event. The other networks tend to focus on one match; almost invariably a men's match. The problem with B-O-5 and the lack of service breaks is that even a bad men's match can last 4 hours. There's your whole telecast. That makes a slam indistinguishable from a regular tournament. Move around, and show us a bunch of different players. With a b-o-5 match, there's really no reason to tune in before the 3rd set. Show us matches that are in the latter stages. And if a network is going to go jingoistic on us, show us ALL the Americans, not just the men and then the top 2 or 3 American women. If Mardy Fish and Taylor Dent deserve coverage, then certainly Chanda, Alexandra, Lisa, Meg, and Laura do. Hell, Monica had to twist an ankle and lose to get any coverage during the 1st week of Oz.
Feb 13th, 2003, 11:00 PM
HBO--Wimbledon coverage was the best!
USA--US Open is also good.
Feb 13th, 2003, 11:03 PM
HBO did a great job with Wimbledon but TNT did better than i thought they would do...
i like USA's coverage of the US open as well
Feb 13th, 2003, 11:26 PM
I love TNT for Wimby, and CBS's coverage of the US Open--- USA is okay too.
Feb 13th, 2003, 11:39 PM
Nobody can compete with TNT
On the other hand...nobody can possibly be worse than ESPN or the "exclusive" ESPN 2 :rolleyes:
Feb 14th, 2003, 12:30 PM
BBC all the way baby!!
Feb 14th, 2003, 02:24 PM
Brian, adding to what you stated, I don't understand why they don't jump around more either. I can understand them wanting to focus on the matches of certain players. However, if a men's match is tied at one set all, and a women's match is in the second set, it seems more logical to me to show the women's match because it could end with that second set. Whereas, you know that men's match will have to go AT LEAST two more sets. (which kinda goes back to your point about not needing to tune in before the third set) Even if that women's match goes to the third set, there's a good chance they could show that set and still have not only the fourth set of the men's to show, but possibly a little part of that third.
Feb 14th, 2003, 05:34 PM
TNT coverage of wimbledon is the best. I like that TNT covers a diverse field of players (not just Americans). USA is great, because I like the night matches, but USA network is too patriotic, showing mainly americans unless a foreign top player is losing.
NBC and CBS don't cover the slams that much, so both do a similar job when they show it on the weekends.
ESPN SUCKS. They have so many sports to show, so that unlike TNT and USA who will stay till the match is over, they will leave a match.
Feb 14th, 2003, 05:48 PM
TNT's coverage of Wimbledon is insane... they're on 12 hours a day, at least. They definitely need to lose Marv Albert, though. USA does a good job with the Open, too... they do stick with the matches during the 2nd week.
ESPN sucks because they do cut away from matches, and they always have that stupid ticker line that distracts me to no end.
Feb 14th, 2003, 09:00 PM
Despite getting screwed out of live coverage on the West Coast, TNT is the best. They do switch courts often and are most wise at devoting time to interesting matchups. However, I do miss HBO covering Wimbledon and their hightlight show. :sad:
USA does a decent job. Not that they don't have their faults (i.e. interviewing celebrities in the stands during the match; showing Agassi demolish Jan-Michael while ignoring the Clijsters/Mauresmo and Dani/Justine 4th round matches; long ass commercial breaks, concentrating on American players, sorry to say... - to name several) but overall capable. And they will stay will stay with a dramatic 5 setter.
I want to like ESPN's coverage but they suck! They don't switch courts (What's the problem? If we can view these matches with the IBM netcam, why can't they have access to concurrent matches), they concentrate on American players (like they think the tennis viewing public don't recognize Int'l talent :rolleyes: ).
Feb 15th, 2003, 06:26 AM
I remember reading what a big hit that digital service was for Wimbledon. With so many cable systems digital in the US, there's no reason why we couldn't have that here in the US. Have a channel devoted to each court with a camera. We could pick and choose which matches we want to see. Obviously, part of the payout has to go to the main channel carrying the coverage, as their ratings would plummet without the captive audience.
And whatever they charge, keep it reasonable. (By my definition, around $20 would be reasonable. Definitely has to be under $30. Or give me the zapper option.)