first

When I had a subscription to the ATP Masters Series during its first year, I really enjoyed that option of watching and listening to a match without commentary. I found that, even though I can appreciate good commentary, I chose the announcer-less option 50% or more of the times that it was offered.

I often wonder why Tennis Channel doesn't offer that kind of coverage for some of the minor tournaments that they totally ignore. They'd save the expense of the announcers and be able to bring us the kind of coverage that I had hoped would be available when I heard that a channel devoted to tennis was coming on to the scene.

first

sorry about the double post

I love listening to matches without commentary. Steve mentioned that it makes you feel like a fly on the wall inside the stadium - I totally agree. I prefer listening with commentary, however, when it's well done. I love Jason Goodall and co., who have mastered the art of being non-overbearing and witty.

I would have liked to ask Steve what he thought of Andy Murray against Troicki, after passive/defensive/inconsistent first couple of rounds. Was it just Troicki playing badly? Or was Andy playing more like Andy?

One of the few people to take a balanced outlook on Andy Murray - perhaps from genuinely being an admirer and thus the harshest of critics - so I'd be very interested.

The fact is, I feel Andy has stepped back a little after coming back from the virus - that devastating, ice-cool game and demeanour he carried onto court...something is missing.

Anyway, we get a glimpse of 'silence' in a game when watching a non-commentated match on tennistv. It's eerie sometimes, and you do appreciate what commentating (and announcers I imagine) can bring...but it all depends on how compelling the match, and who the speakers are.

I'm sure Nadal/Federer matches have been at a level that no commentator can do justice...in fact devalues a little at times.

Yes its a very nice option to have when you are tired of the commentators.

I see your point about the silence. On the other hand, some (like me) are relative newcomers to the sport, and some of the commentary actually is instructive.

Gimelstob babbling inanely with some random drunken actress at IW while Andy R. serves for his life in a match? NOT SO MUCH.

I'd like a *selective* mute switch -- if I could block out SOME of the commentators, and the screeching of Sharapova-Azarenka-Dementieva, well, life would be pretty good.

>On the whole, I felt more negative, more worried, when I watched with announcers.

Word. that's what they do, they amp the "excitement".

I love to watch announcer-less tennis matches.

However, once in a while it's nice to tune in for someone talking, but NOT american TV style. the tennistv guys seem to respect the silence during the point rule, which is golden. bbc commentators are also good about this during wimbledon. Otherwise I much prefer just to hear the sound of the ball. I feel like I actually understand the flow and dynamics better without someone constantly babbling at me about what I should be seeing (which is just their interpretation of the match).

I'm also with you on feeling that these guys become more human when not surrounded by all the hyping blather. It makes me be more of a fan when I realize that many of the annoyances I previously associated with some players are just something that's pushed at me by the commentators, not something that's a defining characteristic of that player.

nice post steve!

Would LOVE a selective mute switch....

Silence is golden

Great article here and I especially like this quote:

" If you’ve ever played a tennis match, you know that many, many points involve no strategy whatsoever. They involve reactions, improvisations, muscle memory, and luck, all things that can easily be observed without having to be explicated."

I couldn't agree more, and so many American commentators and fans are completley clueless about this. Tennis is not like football, baseball or basketball as there are no time outs between points or coaches on the sidelines to tell players what to do "ad nauseum". Incidentally, that's why tennis and soccer are not that popular in the US and it will never change unless people stop stuffing their faces and taking bathroom breaks while watching, lol !

I've been watching the online streams of the matches this past week as well...I've probably seen several of the same ones you have. Overall, I disagree; I do miss the technical talk and random tidbits that come up from time to time. The match that comes to mind for me is the epic Nadal-Verdasco match from the AO earlier this year. I watched that one without commentary, and it felt a little less urgent, less spectacular than it actually was.

Most commentated matches that I've watched, however, could certainly benefit from some silent stretches, less useless filler talk. The talking over the points in particular is irritating for me.

Be grateful though; it usually could be worse. I watched the Nadal-Gil match the other day from the same set of streams, and its commentary was the worst I've ever had to endure...in any sport. The guy just sounded bored out of his mind, repetitive every few minutes to the point of insanity, and worse, did not stop talking once throughout the whole match. Literally. From warm up to handshake, the guy spewed one long run-on sentence. The sound of the points was the only reason I didn't mute it.

I've lived in England and have got used to the BBC's dignified reticence in commentating and Eurosport and Sky's enthusiastic chit-chat about matches. Whenever I'm in the States, I'm shocked at the amount of blather. The endless, mindless banter and "wacky" joshing between the announcers. The announcers seem to put themselves front and center above and beyond the matches and players they're commentating on. (Especially Gimelstob who seems to have an ego as big as all outdoors.)

I too often push the mute button and plug into my iPod.

But then I so miss the sound of the ball against the racket, and the pitter-patter of footwork and the applause. Surely in this digital age we're be able to find a way to mute just the commentary?

Is it just me or does Doug Adler's voice constantly sound whiny? I've become fond of the British commentators, despite their repetition ("brilliant", "he'll be delighted").

It seems that I am in the minority here. While the commentators do get on my nerves sometimes, I have noticed that I really miss them when watching a commentary-less match. I first noticed this while watching the Olympic matches online last year. As far as the commentators talking too much, I would argue that tennis commentators talk far far less than the commentators for any other American sports. For one, I can't recall them ever uttering a sound during any point. So while I may not particulary care for certain commentators, I, for one, want them to stay.

I had this same comment last year when watching Tennis TV, espcially a match between Fish and Hewitt. I never enjoyed a match so much.

I have been watching most of the matches this week sans commentary, except when I'm at work and can't actually be watching the match and rely on listening to the commentary to find out what's going on. I don't like muting matches at all--the sounds of tennis are far too important to me, but the blather of most commentators, even those who I generally like, can be too negative or too positive to make listening to it a pleasant experience.

I live in Argentina .. and the commentators are not that bad. They are quite silent most of the time.. and only speak ocasioanlly.
Sometimes.. I use SAP to check the English commentators... and.. I have to tell you.. they creatainly talk a lot more !! I can't stand them.

Even with all the insane technological breakthroughs in media in the past 15 years, it seems like this will never be an option (the commentator mute). Why??

I highly recommend Jedi mind control technique: train your ears to place the commentators' voices in the background. Sure, occasionally you'll miss an incisive insight or two, but just consider how much better it is to get a pass on the inanities. A net plus, IMHO.

More specifically, there are some commentators whose talk pierces my cone of silence more than others'. (Adler just referred to a Wawrinka mid-court forehand as "heavy spankage".)

Even more specifically, Steve's point about how watching a match silently is more in the spirit in which you'd watch a friend play – without a constant barrage of x's and o's talk – is so very true. Whatever you may think about Gimelstob, his comment the other day that all he thought about was winning (and not greater specifics) is probably closer to how most matches are played than any streaming consciousness of "if this then this" and "if that then that".

Sure, basic strategies and tactics are crafted, but while the commentators may overstate the case, the steadying influence of coaches in Davis Cup suggests that most players don't compete with the intellectual distance from the battle that some folks project onto matches. Overlaying too much on a match suggests a type of mental battle that doesn't really take place, and removes us from the beautiful immediacy and instantaneous improvisation of the real competition.

I don't think the writer or the majority of bloggers know whoelse are watching tennis matches.

The club level players appreciate the GOOD analysis and advice, critiques while the game is on, so they can learn from what they hear. No matter how many lessons one takes at club level, no instructors would be able to understand the game like the analysts do. Of course, the analysts are not always on the point and drifted away among themselves. I think the payer turned into analyst is better than other talking heads. The best is Matina Navratilova who has the audience in her heart---she knows that not all the watchers are players of THAT level.

If anyone is such an advanced player who cares less the analyses, just go and get some electronic gadget to filter the voice out. Please don’t take way the right of the lower level players who need to hear and learn the games from the analysts.

Gimelstob is the worst commentator on earth. Second is Doug Adler, third is Ted Robinson.

"Gimelstob babbling inanely with some random drunken actress at IW while Andy R. serves for his life in a match?"

Yes gimelstob is a pig and we should all write and complain about him to Fox sports.

I did in fact watch last Wimbledon final without sound.....it was exhillirating ..I more naturally tuned into the play and anticipating the shot selection......and jsut admired the tennis........but the thing that I missed was the sound of the ball...........

Paradise for me would be too tune out the commentary but still be able to hear the sound of the ball......the closest compromise would be some of the British commentators

i believe that in big matches particularly the final, commentators are needed to fully appreciate the match, however, maybe they could do commentary before and after every point, not during

I think the key thing is that in tennis commentary, less truly is more. I'd rather watch the the matches without any commentary than have a constant chatter assailing my ears.

one thing i did like about martina n on ttc, she waited for the point to end before speaking, even when she was asked a direct question. i lurved that, as it was so obvious she was focused on the match, NOT just in keeping a converstation going to kill time. (And she always anwered or continued on when the point ended.)

I enjoy your posts, but please keep the tennis reports coming too. Tennis.com has been featuring so many wannabe hipster musings that I've almost given up on the site. Leave the profundity to college bloggers.

I'm really only a tennis spectator, but an avid one. From being totally indifferent to tennis, I first learned to love it after hearing commentators' opinions, factoids, even back-stories & rumors they tossed about. Because of the drama & human interest they provided I actually began to observe the matches more closely to judge for myself whether I agreed with them or not.

I do agree some commentary can be irritating by being repetitive or needlessly intrusive (personally I prefer commentary when the ball isn't in play). But for those of us who are not as much in the know --and I think we vastly outnumber those who are-- the more we learn about it, the more we're hooked into watching & someday even playing. Converting more fans to the sport often translates to greater event sponsorship money, better TV coverage, etc. Surely we can put up with some inane commentary to help support the pro tour.

I feel like the commentators repeat themselves too damn much. How many times do i have to hear that Federer should be aggresive or come into net more? There was some match I was watching where Gimmlestob was repeating the same thing over and over, I wish I wrote it down because I can't remember it right now.

Yep, I agree Steve. I've taken to watching tennis on streams, and usually watch it with just enough volume to hear the sound of the ball, but low enough to tune out the commentary. Though it's probably the case that a lot of us watch waaaay more tennis than the mythical "casual fan". So, I assume that they find reminders of the personalities helpful, while we find it intrusive on the imagination. As an analogy, maybe it's like making a movie based on a book. The characters always fall short of what you had in your head, with all due respect to Marlon Brando.

Tactically, yeah, I agree with you that the majority of tennis really isn't about some complex tactics. There are a few patterns, and the hardcore fans are familiar with most of them. I haven't heard anything mind-blowing via commentary in years.

Oftentimes, SILENCE IS MORE...

I'm not really keen on most commentators, but there is merit to have them around; sometimes the real-time analysis of a player's game is quite effective - if they do it properly.

To be honest though, the only commentator(s) I find worth tuning in for - and in fact prefer to have rather than silence - is the ever-balanced, insightful and witty Robbie Keonig, and for any double act if Jason Goodall joins him. I've not found a pair of tennis commmentators that bounce of each other as effectively, and they often get into deep, fascinating analytical conversation, but never interrupt play. Sure, they have their cliches, but I have to say I can forgive them that given how many matches they commentate on and they are only humans with their own mannerisms....but I definitely feel I learn from them (well Robbie at least) when I listen to them during a match.

It often strikes me there are long periods of silence when Robbie in particular commentates, but I guess that just echos (no pun intended) what someone already said here about the fact it's fine as long as they dont talk over play.

I'm not really keen on most commentators, but there is merit to have them around; sometimes the real-time analysis of a player's game is quite effective - if they do it properly.

To be honest though, the only commentator(s) I find worth tuning in for - and in fact prefer to have rather than silence - is the ever-balanced, insightful and witty Robbie Keonig, and for any double act if Jason Goodall joins him. I've not found a pair of tennis commmentators that bounce of each other as effectively, and they often get into deep, fascinating analytical conversation, but never interrupt play. Sure, they have their cliches, but I have to say I can forgive them that given how many matches they commentate on and they are only humans with their own mannerisms....but I definitely feel I learn from them (well Robbie at least) when I listen to them during a match.

It often strikes me there are long periods of silence when Robbie in particular commentates, but I guess that just echos (no pun intended) what someone already said here about the fact it's fine as long as they dont talk over play.

wonderful article

Hey all.

I quite often watch streams in silence - and find I miss a lot of the flavour/atmosphere of the match. I also like the context and colour that good commentators can provide. I'd also miss the analysis of technique that sometimes occurs, and the meaning of certain things - which I learn from, as I'm kind of in the process of moving from "casual fan" to whatever the next stage of tennis addiction is. ;-)

Maybe I'd be forced to work out more for myself without commentary - but too often I'd probably just be left flailing and not having much of a clue as to what was going on.

That said - agreed that less is more. Too much banter, too much repetition, too much "I would do this, why doesn't he?", too much opinion on the general state of the game - lots of that could go.

British commentators are pretty good at not talking over the play but the main annoyance I have with them is that they bring Murray into every single match, whether he's playing or not. And I *like* Murray. And when Murray *is* playing, the concentration on him to the exclusion of the other player is annoying.

I liked most of the BBC Wimbledon final commentary (sorry, Pspace) but Henman was pretty inane. He needs Johnny Mac to needle him a bit! Funny how some double acts work and others don't.

Never heard Gimelstob, and I probably don't want to, insightful or not.

I once spent a few days in ill in bed in a French hotel watching Roland Garros. My French was good enough to understand the scores etc, but nowhere good enough to understand the commentators blathering on ... bliss!

Jewell - Henman was rubbish throughout the tournament. Typical BBC jobs for the boys.

I watch Tennis on Sky Sports & BBC. I usually prefer the BBC commentary but that could be because there are no adverts, and usually the best bits of "gossip" are during the changeovers. I love Johnny Mac and even John Lloyd (who is quite often funny, but I'm not sure he means it) Best duo are Johnny Mac & Tim Henman - great double act last year at Wimbledon. On Sky I like hearing Mark Petchy & Barry Cowna, but I can't stand Peter Flemming or Leif Shiraz. They talk to much and say absolutely nothing!! Another one I would love to switch off is Frew McMillan.

"Never heard Gimelstob, and I probably don't want to, insightful or not."

Jewell,
You do not want to hear him. When the ATP matches come on, I prefer to watch it on livestream.

Yes, the incident with Gimelstob and Kournikova was absurd and idiotic on his part but I have to say the matches I've watched with him announcing have been pretty good.

Yes, he repeats tactics, techniques, and trivia a bit much but much less than Johhny-mac and is much more informative and practical than say...Dick Enberg. He does this because, strangely enough, commentators feel like they have to commentate during a match. I know strange days...

But a short burst of "Gimelstob's a pig" simply because he was a complete moron for five minutes a few months ago and did a stupid interview with a random actress is equally as stupid and short-sighted; he is one of the better announcers on tour.

When I saw Federer for the first time, his racquet head speed astounded me. Goose bumps danced on my neck. I was blinded by the motion, and then the sound of the ball on his particular set of strings. A thumpish, dull sound. No ping, which would indicate tight tension. The sound changed from forehand to backhand, from topspin to underspin. Flat serves were obvious, as were slice serves and topspin serves. The variation in tone made me wonder if they are integral to opponents anticipation strategies.

I have learned from commentators and I've been rallied to scream at the tv because of commentators. Pam Shriver comes to mind first and foremost. A dark knight on court is unwelcome, as far as I'm concerned, but ESPN is taken by her for some reason. It might want to check in with viewers' reactions. Marketing is key.

I've been watching Miami matches through a live-streaming feed, or however I'm supposed to use that word (streaming). Is it streaming television? Computer television -- no, it can't be. Maybe it's streaming. Just streaming, which would indicate the flow of tennis and life as we know it today. A mass of visual and auditory influx that overwhelms us and is ignored by us when the overdose level approaches.

Maybe that's really why we like tv tennis sans volume. It bombards our senses less and transforms tennis to its roots. Our psyches are soothed and our desire for a calmer more peaceful existence satisfied at least a little.

A selective mute button is everybody's dream. ^^ If it could mute some players'shrieking, it would definitely save the sport.

True, Gimelstob is awful, but as a former player and not a trained commentator, he gets some allowances (which IMHO he has now exhausted and should be packed off), but the worst is the superannuated Dick Enberg. He is deplorable. Another case of a network not being able to part with someone with a "name", on the mistaken belief that he draws viewers or lends heft or credibility to the event being broadcast.

I'm a Westerner living in China and have been watching tennis on their Chinese language online streams recently (because they work so well here and I can't get some of the others). Tennis is not huge here, but it's interesting listening to their commentators try and educate their audience about tennis and tennis technique and strategy, sometimes even saying 'we should all learn from such and such a player about this aspect of their game'. It's ok, I bear with it, but get annoyed when they get all negative over players mistakes (the Chinese 'aiya' often comes out after a player hits an error), and over what I call 'commentator coaching' .. when the commentator starts trying to coach the players! lol I think Westerm commentators do that too. Overall I bear with the commentators because the positives outweigh the negatives:
1. so glad to find a stream that works after years of being tennis-less
2. great for improving all aspects of my tennis related Chinese language .. I've now progressed beyond 'forehand' and 'backhand' to some of the more complex vocab of the game. Interestingly they still use 'inside out' in English when talking about an inside out forehand. ha ha maybe that's just too hard to translate. And they still sometimes use the terms 'ace' and 'deuce' in English too. Those words must be international.
3. now I know the chinese names of lots of players and find myself referring to Murray as 'mu lei' (molay?) etc ... too funny

Hi, Steve, I agree with you a lot on the commentating going on. Not much substance, not enough history, color, atmosphere, or experiential excitement to them. I like the commentating done for Wimbledon 2008 by 2 British commentators not sure who the older guy is, the other one is Tim Henman. It is actually a pleasure relistening to them. I also like John McEnroe, Mary Carillo, and the main anchors at Slams. The add-ons who some people swoon for (e.g. Cahill, MJ Fernandez, etc) are okay, but they tend to not change at all in what they say. Justin Gimelstob is annoying to me as a commentator; he comes off to me as being a bit disorganized and unthinking in his comments, and he is boring.

Who were the 2 commentators for the Gonzo/Stepanek match? Aussies? They were fine. Mostly silent during the points. And then offerring some not so insightful thoughts, "Gonzalez is just ready to explode!".

But they often would just say, "Brilliant". "Perfectly executed" or something similar.

Maybe its just the Gecko accent I like.

Agree with Steve. Watching matches online is so much better than watching it on the tube with talking heads trying to out-commentate each other with "insightful" remarks repeated ad nauseum.

Perhaps the networks should adopt this for most matches and just unleash the commentators only during quarters and through the finals.

The commentating in America could drive somebody to drink. The worst sin is when they are babbling about issues or jokes or whatever that have NOTHING to do with the match you are watching or players you are watching, sometimes even nothing to do with TENNIS and they seem to have no problem doing it during big points, and every point. I would have to say Ted Robinson is one of the worst about that. The guy cannot shut up for more than two seconds. Sometimes,it's almost not worth watching the match, because it's so irritating. Another problems is commentators that start talking about other tennis plaeyrs that aren't even playing the match, and go on and on and on. Dear Commentators, follow some rules of etiquette for tennis fans PLEASE.

1. SHUT UP during points
2. Try to limit your discussion on tennis players who aren't currently on the court. I don't want to hear about say Nadal for ten minutes at a stretch while some other players are on the court battling it out. I also don't want to hear the history of the Williams sisters rehashed for the millionth time watching two other WTA players battle it out.
3. Stop trying to be an attention hog and draw attention to yourself as if you are in competition with the players!
4. Get the player's names right, even the pronunciation of non-American players, you are paid to know these things.
5. Commentating is not supposed to be your time to socialize with other commentators and ask them about vacations that they took, their wives and husbands latest doings, etc while a match or at least a point is being played, exchange phone numbers with your fellow commentators and do it on your own time.

I watch almost all my tennis online, except the grand slams. The less commentary the better. I'm infinitely grateful that tennis commentary has never gone into John Madden territory, though with age and senility Gimelstob may try.

I like some minimal commentary, the umpire's point updates, ambient court sounds, the player's speaking/yelling, line judges, shit impacts, the sound of the live crowd. I've played and watched tennis for almost two decades, I don't think I need to be repeatedly told that player X 'needs to get more first serves in.'

Sans logarithmic commentary I can pay closer attention, think for myself, glean my own narrative, etc. NFL is too stop start, fragmented and bloated to watch sans pundit babble

*shot impacts

Cosi, great points. Speaking of pronouncing players' names correctly, if I hear them pronounce Pavlyuchenkova "pavlooCHINkova" one more time I'm going to scream - I mean, really, is, "pav-lee-ooo-CHEN-kova" really that hard??? come on... oh well, i guess I'd better get used to it. At least we don't hear "nay-dal" that much any more. ugh.

O I just have to add that in the past couple of years, for Roland Garros, Wimbledon, AO and US Open I have listened to the online Radio commentary straight off the websites of those tournaments and have loved the commentary (especially when I didn't have a streams and only had a scoreboard!). Lots of comments on those websites from people saying they watch on TV, but turn down the sound and listen from the tournament website 'radio', you guys in USA who don't like your commentators should try it.

As for TV commentary, must say I love the UK style of less is more, can't stand the blabby kind like so many here have also noted. Then again, I don't mind the insights into technical aspects of the game that I learn from.

I have been saying this for years, "we do not need the commentators for Tennis". They all repeat the same things over and over again which becomes very annoying and it takes away from you watching the game.

if you understand spanish I would suggest you to check ESPN on spanish, Luis y Javier are just great, they dont talk too much, they speak when its necessary and also they now about tactics on tennis, they sort of give advice and the same time they make it more emotional, give it a try and you will have a different perspective from this side.
enjoy

selective mute switches would be great!

I am in the one part of the country not covered by FOX Sports Network, so I don't have Gimelslob's commentary to deal with, so I can't speak with regard to his commentary. However, I want to know what broadcasts all of you are listening to where the commentators talk DURING a point. The ones on TennisTV do not make a sound except for in between points, and they often cut off even in midsentence if one of the players is getting ready to serve. Therefore, I don't understand why everyone is complaining about the precious ability to hear the ball being hit, because the commentators for the Grand Slams on TV, the commentators on Tennis Channel, and the commentators on TennisTV DO NOT TALK DURING POINTS. Like I said, I don't know about Gimelslob, but I have not seen a match yet in 3+ years of watching tennis where the commentators talk over any part of the game.

Also, another point relevant to this discussion is that taking away commentary would alienate the game from a lot of people who are not such elitists and who are not at the point where they don't feel they need to hear anyone else's perspectives on anything.

Great artile on a topic that is very actual in Bulgaria. Beeing forced to watch many matches on livestream, I found 2 satisfying solutions. To go to a link with a comment in a language you don't know or to plug my earphones and get manually the silence stretches Eric mentions.
However, I agree with Libby that there are commentators who handle it the way I like - they don't try to talk over any second but they see and mention things that as a laic I can't observe or take in for the moment. The only one Bulgarian commentator I really like is always objective, he gets pleasure from every good shot in the match and doesn't go on and on about who is who or what he misses, or what would have been a better move. He speaks more on graphics and statistics when they are shown and is really helpful, as they often stay on the screen for too short. It's normal that the requirements of the people who are professionals and those like me are different. Still, the common thing is that noone wants to be distracted from the action or pushed to take things in the one-sided way that some commentators seem to be determined to do. Thank you again, Steve.

I cannot bear listening to the commentators on Sky. After a little while i have to press mute. They fawn over Muarray. every other comment is Andy this Andy That. Any good play by any player on court is described as like Andy's. Federer and Rafa also crop up in their commentary but sometimes as more to prop up Andy's being in the top 4. And they feel the need to coment after every point and to make a conclusion based on their prejudices as opposed to letting the play unfold. They drive me crazy . And they are so so so boring sometimes. The tone of their voices.

On the other hand Goodall and Co are very economical with their comments and do add to my enjoyment of the match. I ll sometimes have the match on my laptop and listen to them and the match on sky. But then the downside is the lack of synchronisity between sound and action.

As a Brit who lives in the the US I wanted to shoot myself watching tennis on American networks...why do American commentators feel the need to TALK SO MUCH DURING PLAY?

I keep on screaming ITS TV NOT RADIO!!!!

Vie - I think the older guy is Andrew Castle, if you mean the Wimbledon final.

Master Ace - you know I always follow all your advice. ;-) Thanks!

Cotton Jack - imo, Henman was a bit rubbish on his own or with Castle. He seemed nervous, not sure what to say, really, didn't have any insight into playing the guys - but it was his first go, and I think he's kind of popular and they thought he would add to the viewing figures. I'll happily give him more of a chance. He can learn a bit, let some of his personality out (insert obvious joke here) and hopefully get better.

And when lovely Johnny Mac came along and needled Tim about never winning himself (ugh to those memories) it was very funny. So, I would happily have more Mac and Henman in the same box. (I love the way Mac punctures British hopes of a tennis resurgence - one of those yearly rituals I'd hate to lose!)

I wish the BBC would pay enough for Mac on Wimbledon final day, sigh. It was also a pity that some internal shenanigans meant no David Lloyd on final day, whether he has any special insight or not I don't know, but I do like the sound of his voice. Kind of integral to the Wimbledon experience for me.

Hey, Steve.

Beautiful writing and excellent points. I listen to the silent feed, too, and I'm so much happier when I do. Ours is a beautiful sport, and 100% better when it's heard the same way it's played.

I watched the USOpen Semi between Capriati and Henin in a crowded and noisy bar where I couldn't hear any commentary--and I didn't need it. The match spoke for itself and I knew that when I didn't need the commentators to tell me that I had seen one of the greatest women's matches ever played. To be honest, I see lots of knowledgeable fans on the internet who easily provide as much insight as the talking heads on TV.

That said, I think some commentary is necessary for those who aren't knowledgeable fans, especially if they've never played. While it might be tedious for us to hear them explain how slice and topspin affect the flight of the ball and the bounce, or comment on the court positioning, it's critical to understanding what's going on in some matches. Once you've seen enough matches and understand the game, the commentary may not be necessary, but new fans need some guidance as to what they're seeing.

That's right! There has to be difference between TV and Radio commentaries. Yet many TV comments are too much, just like a radios??!

Too much talks on TV during the match just takes our attentition far from what's on! We were distracted by too much talks over the TV.

Posted by Cosi 04/01/2009 @ 10:29 AM
-------------

i think you want to argue. Go HERE

ohh, sorry. missed the link:

www.arguenow.net

We usually turn the sound off and watch the match while reading a magazine or doing something else, stopping when things get exciting. First, we don't miss the commentary. Second, it's nice to have a little time when there is just no blatering of any kind going on. There is so little silence in our world today, especially since the advent of the cell phone. You can't go anywhere or do anything without someone sharing their personal business with you!

From time to time, however, we do listen. I agree that the British announcers are usually polite, respectful and know when NOT to talk. Some of the commentators are worth listening to for their experience and insight, but it can get out of hand. The egotistical ones who just talk about themselves and their time are a bore and worse. Those who constantly criticize the players are maddening. Let them get out there and go toe to toe with anyone in the game right now! Almost as bad are the ones who talk about certain players as if they were God and can do no wrong. Right now, that would be Nadal. I do enjoy hearing interesting statistics, but what happened three years ago when players met is probably not relevant now. And I always appreciate it when commentators don't talk DURING the points.

I don't think matches should be offered without commentary. We all have mute buttons or can turn the sound down when we don't want to hear.

Interesting article.

One more thing after reading some of the readers' comments -- please, commentators, do pronounce players' names properly! If you don't know how to pronounce it, ASK THE PLAYER! It sounds ignorant and uncaring when it's probably not meant that way. I know some of the players are willing to put up with any pronunciation, but if asked they will tell commentators how their names are really pronounced. For example, is "Cilic" pronounced SILLICH or CHILLICH? I don't know, but I hear two commentators working the same match together pronounce it both ways. Justin G doesn't even try to get names right and murders them with the American accent -- it's really embarrassing. When I heard the chair call the score in favor of "Miss Kuz-neet-SO-va" the other day I wanted to hug her. Sveta probably doesn't care when she's called "Kuz-NET-so-va," but how would Justin feel if someone called him "Gim-MEL-stoap"?

RE: Rafeal Nadal Parera,
The lost that Rafa had today against DelPotro, was nothing more than bad Sportsmenship While catchibg your breath to keep from losing. I guess the complexaties of the game did change ,this calling for the trainer when you know you are on the verge of losing has to stop. I did not want Rafa to play any more after winning AO and IW,I thought he should go home rest a bit and get ready for the Clay Season to begin. Most of the commenatators are insensitive and change with the wind,I don't think any thing said by them will bother Rafa(Murray now seems to be thier God,was'nt long ago Roger was the one-what happen? How soon they forget). Rafa is so far ahead he does not have anything to prove right now,lets just wait for the Clay Season. I think Rafa is totally exhaulted after playing singles and doubles for all 3 contests,I wish Roger all the luck in the world and I hope he wins. Anyone can be beaten on any given day,that includes Murry. Rest up Rafa,in a way I am kind of glad you lost so you will be forced to rest,even at 22 your body needs rest-you are not Superman. All non-beilevers just wait til Clay Court Season. If DelPotro pulls the rest period again I hope someone will intervine,I think that is a game he had better treasure. Rafa is excellent on learning what to do toyou after a lost. Stop all the Hoopla and play the game fair. WIN ROGER! LOVE YOU.
Stay Well and Safe-Everyone.

I agree with 40 L'Oeuf, this is the quote of the article:
" If you’ve ever played a tennis match, you know that many, many points involve no strategy whatsoever. They involve reactions, improvisations, muscle memory, and luck, all things that can easily be observed without having to be explicated."

I can't number the times I've made shots beyond my plans by simply reacting. When it happens, it looks like genius, but it's really just what happened. I like how you brought this into reality, Steve. Makes me want to watch a match without commentators.