Shriver is so annoying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Joined
·
16,780 Posts
Cliffy keeps calling Hingis "Seles". 
Joined
·
2,672 Posts
Shriver is so annoying!!!!!!!!!!
Chris Evert would have been a much less biased announcer but she's got a life!! Pam will be so full in the next few days because she has to eat all those pre-mature, lofty, un-called for comments she made about Venus winning it all!! Happy gobbling, Pam...another lesson in humility!!
barmaid
Chris Evert would have been a much less biased announcer but she's got a life!! Pam will be so full in the next few days because she has to eat all those pre-mature, lofty, un-called for comments she made about Venus winning it all!! Happy gobbling, Pam...another lesson in humility!!
barmaid
Joined
·
16,780 Posts
barmaid:
CHRIS EVERT is "LESS BIASED"?? LOL! You mean the Chris Evert who calls Capriati matches without even noticing there is another player on the court? Chris is THE most biased announcer in the history of ALL SPORTS COMBINED.
CHRIS EVERT is "LESS BIASED"?? LOL! You mean the Chris Evert who calls Capriati matches without even noticing there is another player on the court? Chris is THE most biased announcer in the history of ALL SPORTS COMBINED.
Joined
·
16,898 Posts
The ESPN commentators are performing well below par this Australian Open. I wonder what's gone wrong. Cliff Drysdale really struggled in the Safin/Sampras match. He even mis-read the score a couple of times. And he did call Hingis Seles. Well, he's not used to women's tennis, you know! And Pam, I usually like her. But enough about Venus, when she's not even in the match she's commentating on. And Pam also has the annoying habit of telling everyone how arrogant Hingis is, and how she annoys the other players. Really? I thought Martina was popular among her peers. She's supposed to be the friendliest #1 there has ever been. Go Martina and Marat!
Joined
·
2,745 Posts
I agree that Shriver is biased towards Venus. But in general I think that Shriver tells it like it is, which I like. Evert, too, is biased, but towards Hingis. Its the mentoree thing I think. I haven't heard her say anything about Hingis' arrogance - maybe I missed that. It will be interesting to see what she talks about now that Venus is out.
Ruth in PHilly PA USA
Ruth in PHilly PA USA
Joined
·
1,855 Posts
janie: I think that s/he meant that Chrissy is biased b/c she has a life- which takes away from her preparation, so she goes with her gut or her bias for Tina or Jen comes through. Pam, otoh, has no life, knows the current state of the game, and it becomes irritating. At least that is what I made of the comment.
Joined
·
380 Posts
I'm used to Shrivers' cattyness when she "commentates" on Martina's matches, but last night Pam was on a roll.
According to the latest Tennis Hall of Famer ( must have been slim pickin's for nominees this year) :
The crowd hates Martina.
All the other tennis players are annoyed by Martina because she
" makes faces " during a match. (sheesh!)
The 5 single slams that Martina won really don't mean anything because the finalists included Pierce, Martinez, Novotna, Mauresmo, and " a young Venus Williams".
Melanie Molitor is a crazed, fanatical," in your face " tennis mom.
Martina has not improved her serve because she's stubborn.
I didn't realize Pam was psychic ( or psycho ).
Shriver kept dredging up the FO final '99, and Martina's meltdown.
That was three years ago, get over it Pam.
Martina did not stop to applaud everytime Adriana hit a winner, therefore, Hingis is a bad sport.
On a positive note, Pam liked Martina's outfit. Wow Pam, your unbiased afterall.LOL
Cliff Drysdale was for the most part quiet during most of Pams' diatribes against Hingis. I felt that he might have been embarrased by all of her bashing.
Lastly, I expect all players to have their games critiqued and their on court behavior examined equally. I don't expect this to be done with sarcasm and vitriol. It's not always what you say, but how you say it.
According to the latest Tennis Hall of Famer ( must have been slim pickin's for nominees this year)
:The crowd hates Martina.
All the other tennis players are annoyed by Martina because she
" makes faces " during a match. (sheesh!)
The 5 single slams that Martina won really don't mean anything because the finalists included Pierce, Martinez, Novotna, Mauresmo, and " a young Venus Williams".
Melanie Molitor is a crazed, fanatical," in your face " tennis mom.
Martina has not improved her serve because she's stubborn.
I didn't realize Pam was psychic ( or psycho ).
Shriver kept dredging up the FO final '99, and Martina's meltdown.
That was three years ago, get over it Pam.
Martina did not stop to applaud everytime Adriana hit a winner, therefore, Hingis is a bad sport.
On a positive note, Pam liked Martina's outfit. Wow Pam, your unbiased afterall.LOL
Cliff Drysdale was for the most part quiet during most of Pams' diatribes against Hingis. I felt that he might have been embarrased by all of her bashing.
Lastly, I expect all players to have their games critiqued and their on court behavior examined equally. I don't expect this to be done with sarcasm and vitriol. It's not always what you say, but how you say it.
Joined
·
16,780 Posts
Justin,
Thank you for your insight. Yes, I see now that I might have misread Barmaid's post.
Conssitency,
An excellent breakdown of Pam's biased last night. I especially agree about the constant references to the 1999 FO final- - VERY overdone.
However, to be honest, I did not think Pam presented Molitor as "crazed". I thought Molitor's defensive reaction to Pam was normal. Sheesh, she was being offered a tape which, let's face it, could be viewed as a commentary on what Molitor is doing wrong with her charge! Who on earth would NOT react defensively to such an offer, especially since we can be sure that Pam's was far from the first such offer of "help" in the past 2 years? Let's offer Pam a tape on the mistakes SHE is making, and see how happily SHE reacts!
Thank you for your insight. Yes, I see now that I might have misread Barmaid's post.
Conssitency,
An excellent breakdown of Pam's biased last night. I especially agree about the constant references to the 1999 FO final- - VERY overdone.
However, to be honest, I did not think Pam presented Molitor as "crazed". I thought Molitor's defensive reaction to Pam was normal. Sheesh, she was being offered a tape which, let's face it, could be viewed as a commentary on what Molitor is doing wrong with her charge! Who on earth would NOT react defensively to such an offer, especially since we can be sure that Pam's was far from the first such offer of "help" in the past 2 years? Let's offer Pam a tape on the mistakes SHE is making, and see how happily SHE reacts!
Joined
·
380 Posts
Janie,
I think I was so miffed over the way Pam was calling last nights quarterfinal match that I just overreacted.
You are right. Melanie was most likely irritated that Shriver was trying to give Martina a video with coaching tips.
I think I was so miffed over the way Pam was calling last nights quarterfinal match that I just overreacted.
You are right. Melanie was most likely irritated that Shriver was trying to give Martina a video with coaching tips.
G
Guest
·I honestly think that to be a commentator/summariser/analysis you have to be objective and unbiased. You can get round this in some sports, or in tennis, you can get round it if you know the vast (and I mean VAST) majority of your audience are of a certain country (i.e. Henman and the BBC, a damn obvious example, and also Jonathan Pearce's England commentary, which is about as biased as you can get, but very funny and appropriate because it is for a partisan audience).
However... Shriver's commentary/summary is a different kettle of fish. It's not objective, it's sort of meant to be subtle "bashing" but it's so obvious. I mean come on, does she really have to bring up FO'99 every single time she mentions Martina? No. But she does, just for a little dig.
It's like this... If I was chosen as the commentator for any player vs. Martina, in my heart I would be wanting Martina to win. But, the message you have to convey is one of sitting on the fence. That is what you get paid for. Criticism and praise has to have a back-up, and it has to be the here and now, not based on something that happened three years ago. If I was to commentate on a Martina match and at the end of it the viewers had absolutely no idea who I was rooting for underneath, I'd be doing a damn good job. Infact, I'd be just DOING my job.
However... Shriver's commentary/summary is a different kettle of fish. It's not objective, it's sort of meant to be subtle "bashing" but it's so obvious. I mean come on, does she really have to bring up FO'99 every single time she mentions Martina? No. But she does, just for a little dig.
It's like this... If I was chosen as the commentator for any player vs. Martina, in my heart I would be wanting Martina to win. But, the message you have to convey is one of sitting on the fence. That is what you get paid for. Criticism and praise has to have a back-up, and it has to be the here and now, not based on something that happened three years ago. If I was to commentate on a Martina match and at the end of it the viewers had absolutely no idea who I was rooting for underneath, I'd be doing a damn good job. Infact, I'd be just DOING my job.
OK, so Pammy's biased towards Venus. And Evert is biased towards Capriati, Mcenroe is biased against women,and so on. It's fashionable to knock announcers for having a bias, but I still think MOST, including all 3 mentioned above, have valuable insights to offer us No one is 100% accurate and bias free all of the time.,
ps. IMO Drysdale has been perceptive about Hingis looking thinner and stronger this event, even if he does get names confused!
No one is 100% accurate and bias free all of the time.,ps. IMO Drysdale has been perceptive about Hingis looking thinner and stronger this event, even if he does get names confused!
Joined
·
1,509 Posts
Ok it's not as bad as BBC!!!!!
They start to show Seles vs Anabel at 2-1 anabel!!
For 2 games they where talking about Henman. After the Seles match they continued to talk abaout Henman!!!!!
Also in the British Champoinships 2 years ago they showed the womens final after it had been played. The score was 3-2 ret!!!
They showed from 2-1!!!!
What's the point!!!!!!!
They start to show Seles vs Anabel at 2-1 anabel!!
For 2 games they where talking about Henman. After the Seles match they continued to talk abaout Henman!!!!!
Also in the British Champoinships 2 years ago they showed the womens final after it had been played. The score was 3-2 ret!!!
They showed from 2-1!!!!
What's the point!!!!!!!
Joined
·
2,450 Posts
I must admit that Pam is a wee bit biased towards Venus. When she started reminiscing(sp) about all of Hingis' bad attitude outbursts, I just laughed and this thought popped up in my head that Pam is biased against anyones attitude that's not like Venus'. She is always saying how bad of an attitude Capriati or Hingis has. Though Capriati is still proving Pam's theories about her, I don't see Hingis doing anything wrong. I do like Shriver's commentating though. It was really funny how she goes on and on about Venus even when she's not playing. And when she is on court, she's the whole story. Cliff tends to ask a lot of questions about Venus, and I'm sure Pam is whispering during change overs "hey Cliff, when we come back from commercial break, why don't you ask me some more about Venus...". Hehehe
Joined
·
360 Posts
Consistency: I loved your breakdown! You are a great writer!
My little additions:
Cliff brought up that Martina is friendly, and Pam said she broke the no1 mold by being one of the group.
The commentary on the 99 FO was completely overdone, but that's been discussed. At one point Adriana looked at the line where her shot was called out, so Pam says something along the line of "In the 99 FO final Martina would have gone over to look at it".
Martina for her part did not help herself any when she broke her racquet. That just gave Pam more ammunition.
I thought Pam was pretty fair to Melanie in that she said she couldn't really understand her English. However calling somene "in your face and aggressive" is not usually a compliment, but it's not that bad
My little additions:
Cliff brought up that Martina is friendly, and Pam said she broke the no1 mold by being one of the group.
The commentary on the 99 FO was completely overdone, but that's been discussed. At one point Adriana looked at the line where her shot was called out, so Pam says something along the line of "In the 99 FO final Martina would have gone over to look at it".
Martina for her part did not help herself any when she broke her racquet. That just gave Pam more ammunition.
I thought Pam was pretty fair to Melanie in that she said she couldn't really understand her English. However calling somene "in your face and aggressive" is not usually a compliment, but it's not that bad
Joined
·
394 Posts
I think the "Pierce Arantxa Venus Amelie Novatna" comment was ridiculous. I mean, those are or were the top players of the time. Let's face it, those are atleast as tough as a tiny Justine, a slow, injured Lindsay and a sister with a mental block.
However, what got me really mad was this: Every time Hingis made a mistake, she would get mad, and sort of beat herself up about it. Then the holier-than-thou Pam would say "see, the crowd doesn't like Martina because she gives dirty looks when her opponent wins the point. It's like she's saying how dare you win the point".
Yes, guilty guilty Martina, do not get upset with the way you are playing. Every time you screw up, smile and clap!
However, what got me really mad was this: Every time Hingis made a mistake, she would get mad, and sort of beat herself up about it. Then the holier-than-thou Pam would say "see, the crowd doesn't like Martina because she gives dirty looks when her opponent wins the point. It's like she's saying how dare you win the point".
Yes, guilty guilty Martina, do not get upset with the way you are playing. Every time you screw up, smile and clap!
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
