As I said in my last post, in an effort to cover the U.S. Open in all of its incarnations, I spent Saturday doing a crack investigation of how the tournament looks from the couch in my living room (you wouldn’t expect me to spend my Saturday attending a Grand Slam, would you?).
I don’t have the world’s best TV. It’s a 20-something-inch Panasonic that dates from perhaps 1998. Or maybe 1993. The primary reason for this is that I detest shopping. Half a dozen times I’ve walked with a determined step to the door of a P.C. Richards or Circuit City and always thought of something better to do at the last second. So I didn’t get the HD effect that we’ve come to expect from our sporting events. But I didn’t mind. A clearer view of Ivo Karlovic’s sweat beads and stubble didn’t seem essential to my viewing pleasure.
I had DVRed the first couple of hours, so I was able to fast-forward past much of the extraneous jibber-jabber. But while I was fast-forwarding I was surprised by how little extra jibber-jabber there was. After so much exposure to ESPN’s Grand Slam coverage, with its emphasis on player interviews and studio analysis, it was nice to see that CBS still keeps their Open broadcasts focused pretty squarely on the court. In the past, I’d been frustrated by the network’s unwillingness to jump from outer court to outer court, the way you can when you’re on the grounds. Now this seemed like a dignified approach, devoid of sap, a link to all those afternoons spent watching the Open on CBS from the distance of Pennsylvania as a kid. Back then I didn’t know there was so much more going on, so I didn’t miss it.
Now I know there’s more to the tournament than meets the TV eye. My Panasonic now seemed like a tight and unforgiving frame that kept wide swathes of the Open out of view. Still, CBS moved between show courts just enough to give the viewer a taste of the tennis-circus atmosphere that pervades the venue during the first week, without belaboring the back stories of the players. We saw the Williamses on Ashe, of course, but we also got the most dramatic moments of Murray-Meltzer on the Grandstand, all we needed to see of Querrey-Karlovic, and a good dose of the long-limbed charisma of Gael Monfils. Along with those three matches, these were my impressions from a long, humid, not-so-exhausting Saturday at home.
—Ian Eagle: This nerdish fellow is the host of CBS’ coverage and has done play-by-play for the Tennis Channel. But he’s best-known in the NYC area as a commentator for the NBA’s New Jersey Nets, where he hypes the action right from the opening tip-off: “That puts the Nets up 4 to 2!” It's hard for him to get too juiced where CBS has him this weekend. I'm sure he wants to.
—Armstrong Stadium: There are vast quantities of empty seats for the Querrey-Karlovic match at 11:00. You don’t see this at the other Slams very often, but it’s a regular occurrence during matches on show courts at the Open. Worse, I’d just been watching a baseball game from Wrigley Field and was thinking how well that stadium, like Wimbledon’s Centre Court, came across on TV, how perfectly its light fit into the screen—you know where you are from the first second. That’s not true for Ashe or Armstrong during the day sessions. They’re only distinctive at night.
—Sam Querrey: A topspin lob over the 6-foot-10 Karlovic, a “come on!” and a fist-pump from the Mr. Laid Back. Now I’ve seen everything. Still, a good, gutty win for Querrey, and he should have nothing to lose against Nadal, unless he gets ahead, of course.
—Victor Troicki: The Nadal effect continues. Troicki is interviewed before the match and sounds beaten even as he’s saying he’ll try his best. He goes up a break in the second set and, true to his pre-match attitude, can’t hold the lead. I'd say Nadal is starting out each match with a 2-0 lead these days, on reputation alone.
—The Grandstand: One of the world’s most energizing courts is the only one that translates that energy to the TV screen during the day. Something about being able to see the faces of the fans behind the players makes the sport seem a little less lonely. What do we think of Andy Murray’s celebrations? I like the Bowser-bicep move because it’s so preposterous, but I’m not loving the Kobe Bryant-style blank stare into the stands after a winning point. Does the Scottish kid think he’s some kind of New York bad-ass? Somewhere deep below the sardonic humor and post-teen angst rests a very big ego. It will help him.
—John McEnroe: I don’t want to like him, but he's a good fit for casual fans and aficionados alike. His best and most surprising trait is his empathy with the players. That and his 12-hour-a-day dedication to the event. But I don’t think he should do women’s matches. He sounds al little disinterested during them, as if he can’t think of anything better to do but stay in the booth. Which might be true.
—Mary Carillo: The sport should be proud that it has produced a woman commentator/jounalist of her stature, who has big gigs with HBO and the Olympics. But I have to say that listening to her do a tennis broadcast stresses me out.
—Patrick McEnroe: He flirts with the bland, but inserts just enough insight. Yesterday he said that Querrey has good court sense. It’s true, and I hadn’t thought of that before.
—Dick Enberg: Is the legend making a comeback? I thought he had it together yesterday when he was paired with Johnny Mac.
—Rafael Nadal: You would never guess the guy has “struggled on hard courts,” would you?
—Serena Williams: I’ll use the example of Serena to ask a question I’ve been meaning to ask this week—is TV coverage of tennis fair to the players? I saw Serena live on Tuesday and felt like she commanded Ashe Stadium with understated and graceful authority. Like any star, all eyes were on her from the moment she stepped on the court; her opponent must have felt like an afterthought out there, and it’s tough to win when you feel like that. From the distance of the stands, you couldn’t see the ferocity on Serena’s face as she hit the ball or the annoyance after a miss. All you saw was the way she moved and hit, which was smoother than it looks on TV. She made sense live, and her game itself was more enjoyable to watch. Maybe it’s the communal effect of seeing a stadium full of tennis fans suddenly saying to themselves, “Wow, that’s Serena Williams, right in front of me.”
On TV, I was constantly pushed into Serena’s face by the camera and its close-ups. Serena must know she’s on camera at some level, but she’s reacting to her immediate setting, like we all do. She’s playing to the arena, not the television, which can’t capture the aura she exudes on the court.
—USA: The network is lucky to get the night sessions, when the Open looks and sounds its best. If the event is the worst-looking Slam on TV during the day, it’s the best at night (granted, only the Aussie Open has evening sessions). Perhaps Flushing Meadows' greatest contribution to tennis is to have brought a new, sparkling, only-in-New York glamour to tennis. You feel it in the arena, of course, but I think you feel it just as much on TV. There’s something about the high-watt lighting, the blue of the court and the walls that surround it, and the heavily miked ball sound that makes the night session a tense and visceral watching experience at home. Roger Federer’s game doesn’t look elegant under the lights. It looks exciting.
Still, I’d rather be at the show than watching it on TV. I’ll be back there today, hoping to get a good look at…Tursunov-Davydenko. I probably can't do that at home.
—