There's tennis being played and ITV decide to go to the studio for a discussion on the history of the tiebreak between Inverdale and Petchey. It's bad enough hearing their voices without having to put up with seeing their faces.
[ETA - oh ****, they're going to show Nadal's match...]
There's tennis being played and ITV decide to go to the studio for a discussion on the history of the tiebreak between Inverdale and Petchey. It's bad enough hearing their voices without having to put up with seeing their faces.
[ETA - oh ****, they're going to show Nadal's match...]
Why on earth wouldn't they?
I like Petchey FTR. By a mile the most knowledgeable pundit I've seen on TV. Grates doing Murray matches though but aside from that he's brilliant
Nadal is playing pretty well here. Second serve is still a liability though and he's letting Almagro dictate too many rallies but there's a bit more zip on the forehand at least
I guess I'm one of those tennis weirdos who prefer a competitive game of tennis instead of a groupie of one particular player who wants a one-sided procession.
Never met her of course but just got the feeling she is the sort of "In my day" type pundit you get in sport..
Last British lady to win Wimbledon so guess she does feel she has a right to say whatever she wants though.
In tennis terms, I'd say 'chapeux' to any double Grand Slam winner.
She can think what she likes but calling a male player a 'drama queen' is laced with inappropriate perjorative undertones not so subtely attacking his masculinity and ironic coming from someone who by all accounts has behaved like one on numerous occasions herself.
AM might come back at her, 'takes one to know one'.
It's all too old-school for my liking, like when I saw Sue Mappin tearing a strip of a junior who has just made an error in a practice match with the question, 'What do you call that?', a ridiculous thing for a coach to say if you are trying to establish a level of awareness and then correction of a problem in a player, especially in a sport like tennis where the ball is on the strings according to one study by respected tennis sports scientist Howard Brody back in the 90's, for .4 of a second.
Maybe these women are just passing on the sort of now outmoded hard-nosed, 'kick backside and take names' communication styles that coaches (and many PE teachers) used with them when they were young in the late 50's and early 60's?
I guess I'm one of those tennis weirdos who prefer a competitive game of tennis instead of a groupie of one particular player who wants a one-sided procession.
You're having a laugh if you think ITV aren't going to show the greatest clay courter ever who is probably the main protagonist of this whole tournament this year
Almagro beat Nadal last year too so it wasn't always a certainty to be that one-sided
Stream another game if you're so desperate but blaming ITV for this is laughable
I'm normally opposed switching matches half way through but damn this match is only going one way, when you have the womens number one in a right battle.
You're having a laugh if you think ITV aren't going to show the greatest clay courter ever who is probably the main protagonist of this whole tournament this year
They have the same obsession with showing every stroke of a Federer match and we know how good he is on clay...
I agree that they show the big names as they think people will watch. But if the match is practically a foregone conclusion then there is little point in watching. I'd rather watch Serena struggle than Nadal picking his shorts to victory in three straight sets. They should be more fluid in what they show, picking up on the drama and potential upsets instead of slavishly sticking to a dull walkover.
I'm normally opposed switching matches half way through but damn this match is only going one way, when you have the womens number one in a right battle.
Never heard of Friedsam but she has won the first set. It's on Eurosport
They have the same obsession with showing every stroke of a Federer match and we know how good he is on clay...
I agree that they show the big names as they think people will watch. But if the match is practically a foregone conclusion then there is little point in watching. I'd rather watch Serena struggle than Nadal picking his shorts to victory in three straight sets. They should be more fluid in what they show, picking up on the drama and potential upsets instead of slavishly sticking to a dull walkover.
It was just as likely Nadal would struggle than Serena would. Serena is on Europsort anyway so it makes more sense to leave on the best ATP match, so they might get viewers over from ES
ITV sadly lack something a lot of internet posters do -hindsight!!
Comments
Poor from Caro.
[ETA - oh ****, they're going to show Nadal's match...]
Maybe not such a surprise as apparently Wozniacki has lost to Gorges twice on clay before...
Why on earth wouldn't they?
I like Petchey FTR. By a mile the most knowledgeable pundit I've seen on TV. Grates doing Murray matches though but aside from that he's brilliant
I'll still be amazed if he can beat Novak though
The match was home and hosed last night. Rain delay completely killed his momentum. Tsonga will be happier for sure I'd say
I guess I'm one of those tennis weirdos who prefer a competitive game of tennis instead of a groupie of one particular player who wants a one-sided procession.
In tennis terms, I'd say 'chapeux' to any double Grand Slam winner.
She can think what she likes but calling a male player a 'drama queen' is laced with inappropriate perjorative undertones not so subtely attacking his masculinity and ironic coming from someone who by all accounts has behaved like one on numerous occasions herself.
AM might come back at her, 'takes one to know one'.
It's all too old-school for my liking, like when I saw Sue Mappin tearing a strip of a junior who has just made an error in a practice match with the question, 'What do you call that?', a ridiculous thing for a coach to say if you are trying to establish a level of awareness and then correction of a problem in a player, especially in a sport like tennis where the ball is on the strings according to one study by respected tennis sports scientist Howard Brody back in the 90's, for .4 of a second.
Maybe these women are just passing on the sort of now outmoded hard-nosed, 'kick backside and take names' communication styles that coaches (and many PE teachers) used with them when they were young in the late 50's and early 60's?
You're having a laugh if you think ITV aren't going to show the greatest clay courter ever who is probably the main protagonist of this whole tournament this year
Almagro beat Nadal last year too so it wasn't always a certainty to be that one-sided
Stream another game if you're so desperate but blaming ITV for this is laughable
nadal, Djok, Murray, Fed, Serena, Maria will instantly grab their attention though no matter who they're playing
Ah but they should pander to about 10% of their audience tho I guess!!
They have the same obsession with showing every stroke of a Federer match and we know how good he is on clay...
I agree that they show the big names as they think people will watch. But if the match is practically a foregone conclusion then there is little point in watching. I'd rather watch Serena struggle than Nadal picking his shorts to victory in three straight sets. They should be more fluid in what they show, picking up on the drama and potential upsets instead of slavishly sticking to a dull walkover.
Ad Blocker is your good friend
It was just as likely Nadal would struggle than Serena would. Serena is on Europsort anyway so it makes more sense to leave on the best ATP match, so they might get viewers over from ES
ITV sadly lack something a lot of internet posters do -hindsight!!
Nadal looks gerat. I thought maybe Almagro could trouble him a bit, but in my dreams only
Ah what a dimwit I didn't even realise eurosport was showing the french open
Cheers have it on now