Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Everything she says is about 'attacking', 'hitting with confidence', 'going for her shots'. She never says anything technical.

When Lindsay started losing games after being up 4-0, the first thing I noticed was that her hip rotation was slower. She had been hammering home her groundstrokes, really setting up and twisting her hips into the shot. Suddenly she was 'guiding' them. On 90% of her forehands the racket was ending up above her head. You have more control that way, but far less velocity.

Do we hear any of this from Mary Jo Fernandez? No. We don't hear it from Cliff Drysdale either, but he's the host, not the analyst. I don't expect him to know anything about women's tennis. It's Fernandez' JOB to give us insight into the match, not garbage like 'the momentum has shifted'.

When Lindsay raced out to a 4-0 lead, did we hear, 'Davenport is really attacking the Clijster's backhand'? No. We DID hear how many games Lindsay had won in a row, but that's a footnote.

Did we hear how Clijsters was exploiting the slowness with which Davenport gets out of her service follow-through to hit down the line winners off Davenport's serve to duece court? No.

When Davenport starts hitting down the middle to force Clijsters to create her own angles, do we get comment from Fernandez?

This final was an entertaining match, but boy was the commentating low-rent. For all the actual information about how the match was played, I could have watched with the sound off.

Get Hingis, and make it her brief to tell us who's attacking what with what.

Now, as this match wore on, Clijsters threw in everything but the kitchen sink. Dropshots, offensives lobs, lotsa slice, heavy pace. It was a real display of shot-making, the kind we don't see much of. (Other players USE all those shots in a match, but not nearly that much, and no with efficiency.) I can understand why the WTA might not want that pointed out, but it's right there on the screen in front of us.

Isn't the ananlyst supposed to tell us what kind of tactics the players are using, and what they're trying to do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: -Ph51-

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,211 Posts
I have never heard a commentator talk about herself as much as Mary Joe Fernandez. She talks about her win at the Pacific Life in 1993, about the commercial she was in for Pacific Life, the doubles that HER and Lindsay played, she had a shout out to her daughter which was cute but not necessary. It just seems to be a lot of me, me , ME.
Pam Shriver might have helped her odds of getting into the hall of fame by commentating but she didn't bring her matches up everytime she commentated. I guess you commentate about what you know and obviously Mary Joe Fernandez just knows Mary Joe Fernandez.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I happen to think tennis is one of the most poorly commentated sports on TV, but this match was a wasteland. I mean, that match was a GIFT to an announcer. Both players with way more winners than UEs. Long rallies. Twists and turns and reversals of fortune. But players using a wide variety of tactics.

But all the announcers can say is 'this is a critical game'.

This was a POOR, poor performance, announcer wise. Give me either Martina.
 

·
Senior Member,
Joined
·
2,918 Posts
perhaps they've been told to deliberately dumb down?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,790 Posts
sounds like we dont even need the commentators if we already know whats going on? i mean who really watches the matches anyway and cant tell whats happening?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,514 Posts
Wow Volcana, that was sooo amazing I can't tell you:worship: . Seriously, that knocked my socks off. Wow! You're completely right. Geez Hingis should be a commentator:eek: . Too bad she can't speak English well enough to be on tv (her English is good, but it sounds foreign, her expressions are weird, and her vocabulary is limited.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,514 Posts
darren cahill said:
sounds like we dont even need the commentators if we already know whats going on? i mean who really watches the matches anyway and cant tell whats happening?
honestly, I don't notice those little things, and it would make it sooo much more exciting:eek: .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,338 Posts
I agree...I felt like Clijsters was becoming much more aggressive, and there was no mention of this!! Lindsay did start guiding the ball...Good post, Volcana!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
darren cahill said:
sounds like we dont even need the commentators if we already know whats going on? i mean who really watches the matches anyway and cant tell whats happening?
New viewers who are just getting turned on to tennis. Casual fans who want a deeper understanding of the game. Recreational players who want a better understanding of the tactics the pros use.

Why bother using a former world #3 who appeared in 3 GS sinles finals if she can't explain what's going on better than we can?
Danke Anke said:
hey hey hey I think mary joe is one of the better announcers -- much better than that awful mary carillo..
All that proves is the situation is worse, not better.

That was SUCH a good match for teaching people about tennis. Effin' wasted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,742 Posts
if i had to listen to cliff talk about kimmy and leyton's breakup one more time i think i might have stuck a pen in my ear!! he did it during her match against elena d too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,790 Posts
I just didnt feel like she did a bad job. most of the time i dont really even hear the commentators. Its just the same old same old and every one has their own taste and preferance. You said you prefer either martina any day and both of them happen to be my least fave. Hingis sounds like she has wads of cotton in her mouth and when she doesnt, it takes her forever to spit out a complete sentence. and Navratilova was just plain awful. just my opinion. but i dont think its anything to get mad about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,790 Posts
mboyle said:
Wow Volcana, that was sooo amazing I can't tell you:worship: . Seriously, that knocked my socks off. Wow! You're completely right. Geez Hingis should be a commentator:eek: . Too bad she can't speak English well enough to be on tv (her English is good, but it sounds foreign, her expressions are weird, and her vocabulary is limited.)
I agree, she drove me bonkers at Wimbledon. i cant even imagine the horror of her and Zina Garrison doing TV together. They'd sound like 2 drunks slurring their way through a match.

then again, it might be fun!:lol:
 

·
Senior Member,
Joined
·
2,918 Posts
although she has a gravelly voice, virginia wade seems to at least "think" about what the players are doing on the court, and then relates that to the viewer. I can't stand all this "Player X had to do a lot of running there" when that was pretty obvious. Why not say "Player X is increasingly being made to run, and Player Y has good technique on the drop-shot, playing it one-handed with slice. We might see more of this in the next few games, and it will be interesting to see whether Player X anticipates it better, or attempts to play some drop-shots herself". Analysis of tennis matches is not that difficult, even for a club player.

Completely agree with the Volcana on this one. Mary Joe should know better. In fact, wasn't she always referred to as the 'smart one' during her time on tour :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,790 Posts
I like Volcanas post as well (i like pretty everything VOlcana posts)..i just get so tired of the ESPN sucks, this commentator sucks, this one sucks, everything sucks. god, enough already. Plus sometimes i think things are a tad exaggerated.....Mary Joe mentioned her 1993 win ONCE, when CLiff asked her who won it, and she barely answered the question. and the comment about Kim threw the kitchen sink at lindsay as the match wore on....dropshots etc...She had ONE dropshot at 4-2 30-15 in the 3rd set (she had one or two early in the match but none again until the middle of the 3rd). hardly worth falling out over. i understand the frustation cause i want to chop my own dick off everytime Andy Roddick comes to the net with his flailing self looking like a seagull flapping in a hurricane and no one ever says "why does the goof INSIST on coming in on every shot only to be passed constantly."....its something i've always wondered about. i always thought a cool idea would be to have contests where a fan could commentate with the pros and see what a 'real fan' has to say. sometimes i bet they'd be a lot more candid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
Mary Jo is okay...I agree that she should make fewer mindless comments. She reminds me of Tracy Austin in that way. The TV networks always tell commentators to keep it simple for the audience. Both Mary Jo and Tracy follow that too much. Pam Shriver, who is probably the best commentator today, doesn't though.

Unlike the earlier poster, I don't think Mary Jo talks about herself that much at all though. Pam Shriver does that a lot....though she has a self-deprecating way about her. Sometimes I actually FORGET that was still playing just a few years ago.

What Mary Jo has going for her is her voice (fairly easy to listen to and sounds good on TV) of all things...something that Hingis struggled with. Navratilova is a great commentator but she doesn't have a good TV voice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,998 Posts
I agree that Mary Jo has a good voice for TV. & she doesn't talk about her game nearly as much as Pam...everything leads to "back when Martina & I played in 1832 bobby jones satellite, etc." Martina N. knows the game but its very hard to listen to her for a long period of time. Her voice isn't very appealing IMO.

I'm still hoping that Chanda Rubin will do commentating when her playing days are over...she was a great analyst when she did a little bit at Wimbledon a few years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,217 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
jfk said:
The TV networks always tell commentators to keep it simple for the audience.
There's 'keep it simple' and there's 'mindless uninformative blather'.

Couldn't we at least get 'Clijsters has a very good down-the-line forehand. Davenport wants to avoid getting caught too far to her right with Clijsters hitting forehands'?

That simple isn't it?

I leave teethmarks in my rackets from frustration listening to these people. Imagine boxing where they didn't tell you which hand the guy punches with better, or that one guy was hitting the other wth body shots to get him to drop his hands. How is the casual fan going to learn the intracacies of the game if the announcers don't teach them what to look for?
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top