From: guillory@crhc.uiuc.edu (Stanford Guillory)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.tennis
Subject: Re: US Open - General Observations
Date: 13 Sep 1992 00:01:56 -0500
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
NNTP-Posting-Host: bach.crhc.uiuc.edu

clc5q@hemlock.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman) writes:

>But tennis is supposed to be much more of a participation sport than these

Supposed to be?!? Who determined this? You?!? For your info, as
much as I love the game of tennis, I "participate" in a lot
more basketball. And for a lot less money. My basketball
cost me 20 bucks. My rackets cost me more than a hundred bucks,
much more than most people are willing to participate in, I imagine.


>other TV sports.  So, we should get lots of tips on how to improve our
>games, and insights into what the pros do differently with their shots,

Oh, so now TV should be obligated to give you free lessons?!?!


>and coverage of the doubles and mixed doubles we often play ourselves

This is the only thing you have said that has made sense. However, I
have to confess that I found the US Open 92 final boring, which I
guess explains why I like to play doubles so much.


>on weekends. Yet, I rarely see anything of the kind at a grand slam event
>on network TV --- the ones with the biggest audiences.

i.e., the ones who don't play tennis, so wouldn't appreciate
doubles?!


>As for getting interested in tennis, I got interested by watching the old
>Public Broadcasting System (PBS) coverage in the 1970's.  I remember the

And I used to have to walk 167 miles through the snow every day
just to find a private place to masturbate!!!

>Imagine --- doubles on TV, and it wasn't even grand slam doubles! I remember

Gee, imagine that doubles superceded all other coverage on the
days of the womens' semi-finals?!?!

>series of prerecorded tips from famous players.

And I bet they were paid handsomely too. What is their incentive
now? Or did they just do it for your benefit?

>I think that you would like the same things I liked, and you are just not
>catching my meaning when I say "casual fans".  I didn't say "casual players",
>and I didn't mean "casual players."

Hey, it doesn't rock my world either, that tennis isn't a major
broadcast sport. I am pissed that I can't get coverage of the
Australian.

The best thing we can do to improve tennis coverage is to develop
a broader base that advertisers are interested in. i.e, the 
"CASUAL FAN".

>Well, it is easy to paint my criticisms as snobbish.  We are all snobbish
>about different things.  Millions of editorialists, writers, TV commentators,

But it is the rare snob who criticizes an entity for not being what
he expects, and then demands that if comply?!?

>and ordinary citizens have criticized the effects of targeting the lowest
>common denominator in an audience.  This applies to popular music, to the

This is not an accurate analogy. By definition, popular music is 
already "popular", and thus reaches an audience that results in the
making of money. And so the potential for exposing the audience to
a broader realm of music exists. 

This is not the case in tennis. I have already read editorials by
"idiots" (my word for them) complaining about the length of matches,
(what jackass, having seen the Chang-Lendl 89 French Open match could
be against 5 sets) and how tennis needs to change to broaden its
appeal. To argue about unappealingly the product is packaged when
the product is not even desired is a bit premature.

>Yes, I will confess to being a nitpicker.  But, if I did nothing but write
>about tennis for a living, I would have my free ATP media guide in front
>of me, and would not write that Chang never made it past the 4th round
>since 1989.  It isn't that hard to look up.

HELLO: That is the point, people aren't paid to write about
tennis for a living (except at Tennis specific mags such
as Tennis). Gee, Even I have figured out that the wire stories
are often clueless.

>By the way, I spoke to the guy who edits the ATP guide yesterday on the
>phone.  He said that the grand slam events refuse to use the ATP computer
>statistics, because they resent the ATP or something.  He sees them post

Oh, you are a knowledgeable fan. Don't you know about the break
the ATP made?!? Don't you know why the grand slam cup exists? You
ain't know REAL fan!!

>win column and the loss column.  This is just unprofessionalism, stupid
>rivalries, and lack of effort by people whose entire livelihood is tennis.
>Yes, that tends to make me pretty critical.

This is partly accurate. Some peoples' livelihood is the grand slam
tour, and some peoples' livelihood is the ATP tour. Simple as that.

>|||  clc5q@virginia.edu (Clark L. Coleman)

Stan