Well, this was a little better. In between an interview with Alex Kuznetsov (was that really necessary?) and two separate non-live broadcasts of an entire Martina Hingis snoozer, we got to see an entertaining match involving an up-and-comer, Andy Murray. I get the feeling ESPN showed this mainly because of the Brad Gilbert connection—if he can’t improve his tennis, BG is certainly helping Murray’s visibility in the States. But whatever the reason, I’ll take it.
With regards to ESPN, I know from past interviews with the guys over there that:
(1) Women draw higher ratings in the U.S. than the men. Hence the double showing of Hingis, and zero Nadal. The problem I’ve always had with this is that there are very few competitive matches among the women in the first week. Even if the women rate slightly higher, what a tennis fan who bothers to stay up for the Aussie Open wants above all else is to see good matches, and those will inevitably be on the men’s side in the early rounds. Ratings are determined not simply by the number of people watching, but also by how long they watch, and nothing hooks a fan in longer than an epic men’s match.
(2) The first priority is to show world No. 1 players, then Grand Slam champions, then top Americans (notice we didn’t get much of the lower-ranked Americans, despite the general lean toward U.S. players). Showing the No. 1s is a way of proving to the audience that the network isn’t clueless about tennis, and overall ESPN is probably better at showing foreign players than the networks in, say, France. But just because the French do something doesn’t mean it makes sense! At the Grand Slams over the past couple years, ESPN had begun to bounce around to the outside courts, giving more of a flavor of the event as a whole. This to me is in their long-term interest, because it introduces U.S. audiences to young players that the network is going to have to show in the future anyway, no matter what country they’re from. So why not get a head start on promoting them and turning them into "personalities" (a buzz word at ESPN)? That was the concept behind the massive coverage of Marcos Baghdatis last year, and it worked—he was a big hit everywhere he went in the U.S. in 2006. That may have also been the reasoning behind sticking with the Murray match last night. But to me there’s no reason not to extend that idea to, say, showing a set of Querrey or Gasquet or Ivanovic, with Cahill and Fowler and Carillo doing a voiceover call from the big booth.
Finally, for the Hingis match, ESPN did do what I mentioned, sending Cliff and Mary Jo out and taping their commentary to be broadcast later. Then they showed the boring results twice anyway.
OK, let’s run down Day 3.
James Blake: Has any player in history ever been able to take a hard-hit serve to the forehand and snap it back crosscourt from so far behind his body, the way Blake does? Wrists of steel, I guess. He looked good last night, totally dictating play. I’d like to see a Blake-Nadal quarter as much as anything in the tournament. As it is, I think Blake will handle Ginepri; it will be interesting to see the competitive dynamic between the two friends.
Tom Blake’s and Brian Barker’s starter moustaches: Did you see those? Now that’s embarrassing. They’re growing them because Blake made the final in Shanghai. Gotta respect that. I think.
Pete Sampras: In his phone interview last night, he agreed with Agassi that Federer could win 17 Slams, but he said he would “like his chances” against Fed at Wimbledon because Federer would stay back and give him the opportunity to get on top of the net. (Should have done when they actually did play at Wimbledon, I guess. Though Fed was coming in more then.) Pete also kind of dissed Nadal, saying he’d be licking his chops to play him, and that the current group of guys are just “throwing rocks from the backcourt.”
Darren Cahill, Part 3: I thought it was interesting that Cahill, when talking about Lleyton Hewitt, didn’t just spout the usual broadcasters’ pablum about how Hewitt needs to “be more aggressive” if he wants to improve. He said the opposite actually, claiming that Hewitt has hurt himself by trying to hit bigger, that he’s naturally uncomfortable inside the baseline, and that he was at his best in the days when he moved back and ground down his opponents by retrieving everything. Good stuff, Killer.
Fernando Verdasco: I think I’d rather be Safin’s coach than his. So much game, so little to show for it.
Andy Murray: He won in straights and showed off a lot of different skills doing it, but don’t you think he still lets the match come to him too much? Murray says he likes to run, and he looks to find ways to do a lot of it during points. As Gilbert must know, that’s not a recipe for success, particularly when you’re ahead. If you sit back and give your opponent a chance to dictate, he’s going to loosen up once he’s behind and start to take it to you—he’s got nothing to lose. That’s what happened in Madrid last fall when Murray let Novak Djokovic come back to beat him, and it happened again yesterday when he was up two breaks in the third. I like to watch Murray play, but there’s still a question in my mind whether he can make that forehand into the kind of unstoppable weapon that every top player owns. As of now, it's more of a counterpunching shot that he hits well on the run. Can you win multiple Slams by relying on your backhand to dictate play? It’s hard to imagine on the men’s side.
Luke Jensen: Close talker.
Maria Sharapova’s outfit, part II: On second view, it went from understated to just dull.
Looking ahead, I still don’t know what’s going to happen between Serena and Nadia. Three sets seems guaranteed. I’m going to pick Roddick over Safin in four, even though neither guy has been playing lights out. I’ll take Monfils over Gasquet and Querrey over Robredo. The last is just for kicks, since I haven’t seen either of them play. In the case of Robredo, this is one time I'm not going to complain about ESPN's choices.
Suicide pool, 3rd round: Djokovic, Chakvetadze