Week 9 - WTA International ($227K) - Acapulco, Mexico - Hard

Strongbow · All-time great

RE: Week 9 - WTA International ($227K) - Acapulco, Mexico - Hard

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

blob wrote:
8 hours after posting the original article, BBC finally update their story to acknowledge that Heather does in fact exist and merit a mention for also having won a doubles title in Acapulco yesterday.
NB: Heather won her title before Jamie, and at a far more reasonable time of day for UK journalists.

A couple points on this. Heather is a singles professional, therefore the importance of her win is probably less than someone who has it has their main Sport, like Jamie for example as its his bread and butter. Its a confidence boost, extra revenue, good practics and fun for Heather. And secondly, I think both got as much recognition for this Sport as is merited, given it wasnt a Slam, not even a Masters and lack of top professionals competing.

JonH · All-time great

Also Jamies achievement in winning an atp500 is a level above Heather winning a $227k event I would suggest and hence the BBC ran with Jamie originally.

blob · All-time great

JonH wrote:
Also Jamies achievement in winning an atp500 is a level above Heather winning a $227k event I would suggest and hence the BBC ran with Jamie originally.

Nope. They covered the Skupski's win in the ATP250 last week immediately and in fulsome detail.
Unless the contention is that it's not the tier rank of the tournament that's the deciding factor to give it any coverage - ATP250 & International each being the bottom tier for their respective tours would thus get ignored- but the total amount of money on offer, and that $250K somehow obviously qualifies when $227K does not?

Singles professional? Nope. They cover league footballers playing cup competitions; they cover club rugby players playing internationals; they cover test cricketers playing 20/20 etc etc etc.

Not top players? Nope. They wrote 150 words and full stats about that top-tier clash with top-tier big name 'professional' players... er... Dover Athletic v. Leyton Orient in the National League.

Any other specious non-sequiturs?

JonH · All-time great

Gender bias more likely. The skupski win, without detail to hand, was in an event worth circa $600 k from memory. Acapulco was worth C $1.8m. From memory. Prizemoney not linked directly to points status in ATP tour.

-- Edited by JonH on Monday 5th of March 2018 08:22:27 AM

blob · All-time great

JonH wrote:
[...] Prizemoney not linked directly to points status in ATP tour.

Yes, apologies. My point in this specific respect was simply wrong. ATP 250 does not equal $250K.
The wider point stands. A bottom tier event of the tour was covered immediately in one case and only as a very late and desultory postscript in another.
I don't see any useful way to pretend that the threshold for coverage of an event is somehow based on a $ amount of the prize pool at that event being surpassed. Further, that said arbitrary amount could also somehow exclude entire tiers of the top Tours for the sport? This stretches credulity.
The same applies to the points on offer. Do we cover a Kyle or Johanna run to R16 in an event? or only if they get to QF when some magical points threshold is crossed? No, we don't, we never have, and there is no reason I can see that we ever should.

We struggle enough to get any coverage. If we reduce further from covering ATP & WTA then, what's the point at all, lets be content with just covering Wimbledon.

If people want to argue that women deserve less coverage - and I know they do want to, and do, make that argument often, then fine.
I'm not implying that any of any commenters at the latter end of this thread want to argue against coverage for the womens game. They may well want to, and are perfectly welcome to, argue that - I'm just not putting those words in to their mouths.

What I do resist though is gaslighting the issue - are you sure that this deserved coverage, was it big enough, was it equivalent, are you sure this was not just a hit and giggle, did you see the field, the prize money, the points...

JonH · All-time great

Hi Blob

To be honest I dont think we are disagreeing and apologies if it comes across that way.

Just thinking through a number of points. In terms of coverage of Jamie's win versus Heathers in the same weekend and location. The ATP500 event, as reported in the mens section, was a stacked draw. 7 top 10 singles players and the doubles field included most of the top pairings. Probably similar to an event like Eastbourne or Dubai in the WTA world?

Jamie's win was therefore pretty noteworthy; in addition, Jamie gets coverage in the press, rightly or wrongly, because he is....well, a Murray. You could argue it is because he has been world #1 , won a few slams etc but it is mainly because he is a Murray...

So on a direct comparison, I think it was always more likely and probably reasonably to expect that Jamie winning in Acapulco was going to be pretty news worthy. Now, the BBC and others messed up in my opinion by not covering Heather initially or indeed much at all (in Mail for example, they talk about Del Potro winning the Acapulco singles and dont mention Heather).

Now in terms of comparing Heather to Skupski's - totally agree with you there. I didnt follow the press coverage too much but if Skupski's got more coverage than Heather for what appears to be a similar level event, then totally wrong. To add to it Heather in that case is also the bigger name in terms of prior performance and thus deserves more coverage as well I think. For her to get less is wrong.

In general, I agree ladies tennis gets far less coverage than it deserves relative to mens. Being frank, I dont really follow WTA too deeply but that is me and in terms of what it deserves, then it should be up there equal to the men, both in the UK and globally in terms of like for like events etc. For it not too is wrong and disappointing

blob · All-time great

I have no problem with them leading with, or even devoting the majority of the article to, Jamie's excellent win. Or the Skupski's. All deserved atttention and congratulations shouted from the rooftops - we don't win many titles at any ATP/WTA level: celebrate them all fully.
To not cover Heather at all, at the same location, in the equivalent event, on the main tours of the sport, when her result came in first, I find indefensible.
It was the same when the BBC, and wider UK tennis press, did not even mention at all when Anna Smith won her WTA doubles title. (Try Google {site:bbc.co.uk "anna smith" Nuremberg} or change the site variable to any other newspaper etc. Zero results - just not reported)
Anything that attempts to normalise any travel down that path of, "oh, it's just a...", I will, personally resist.

That's not targeted against any individual here.

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

The Skupskis are also 2 British players versus Heather plus partner and brothers as well, so thats another 2 reasons. Normally Id agree the gender balance is skewed towards the mens game but in this example I dont see an issue. The British media have always been poor in relation to tennis, even a lot of the experts. A good half dozen posters on here would easily do a better job without much effort. They probably steal bits and pieces from here anyway.

blob · All-time great

If we're just going to abandon 'reasons' and keep offering new 'reasons', then sure, let's give 'reasons' for Heather, too

Heather is a former GB#1 - in singles and doubles, Heather had 3 doubles titles, and three singles titles. Heather is a Wimbledon champion. Heather has been a Fed Cup stalwart servant of the country. Heather has more career prize money. Heather won a junior GS. Heather has far better name recognition. Heather has more Twitter followers - oh so important social media angle, Heather's Mum is a quasi-coach and was in the stands cheering her daughter on - ahhh how lovely, the human interest angle, Heather's from Guernsey - the regional angle, Heather's dating another player - the salacious angle...

I can keep going until we find something that might be worthwhile in Heather's account to weigh against the vast import of the Skupski's being brothers, or Jamie being a full time doubles player as apparently obvious and compelling 'reasons' to completely ignore Heather winning a main tour title.
Just the twelfth WTA title - singles and doubles combined - for GB women in the last quarter of a century. But, apparently that cadence is too frequent? We can forget or minimise them?

They didn't report Heather's win, at all, for eight hours, at the same event. No one contemporaneously reported Anna Smith's title - it got oblique mentions when Anna later reached the Kremlin Cup SF, and played Fed Cup this year - there was similarly no reporting of her Zhuhai participation.
There's no compelling defence or rationalising to be had - not even rank incompetence.

blob · All-time great

But, I think it's best to leave this thread with the correct and fitting statement:

F: Heather WATSON/Tatjana MARIA (GBR/GER) 433 (136 + 297) defeated Kaitlyn CHRISTIAN/Sabrina SANTAMARIA (USA/USA) 242 7-5 2-6 [10-2]

JonH · All-time great

blob wrote:
But, I think it's best to leave this thread with the correct and fitting statement:

F: Heather WATSON/Tatjana MARIA (GBR/GER) 433 (136 + 297) defeated Kaitlyn CHRISTIAN/Sabrina SANTAMARIA (USA/USA) 242 7-5 2-6 [10-2]

And it seems that a mere Maria was able to beat a Saint Maria and a Christian to boot...make of that what you will!

PS apologies if that upsets anyone - I am actually a practising Christian so feel free to have a little joke in this context!

christ · Futures level

JonH wrote:
blob wrote:
But, I think it's best to leave this thread with the correct and fitting statement:

F: Heather WATSON/Tatjana MARIA (GBR/GER) 433 (136 + 297) defeated Kaitlyn CHRISTIAN/Sabrina SANTAMARIA (USA/USA) 242 7-5 2-6 [10-2]

And it seems that a mere Maria was able to beat a Saint Maria and a Christian to boot...make of that what you will!
PS apologies if that upsets anyone - I am actually a practising Christian so feel free to have a little joke in this context!

... I can't wait until a "Watson" beats a "Holmes".

Jaggy1876 · Grand Slam Champion

blob wrote:
If we're just going to abandon 'reasons' and keep offering new 'reasons', then sure, let's give 'reasons' for Heather, too

Heather is a former GB#1 - in singles and doubles, Heather had 3 doubles titles, and three singles titles. Heather is a Wimbledon champion. Heather has been a Fed Cup stalwart servant of the country. Heather has more career prize money. Heather won a junior GS. Heather has far better name recognition. Heather has more Twitter followers - oh so important social media angle, Heather's Mum is a quasi-coach and was in the stands cheering her daughter on - ahhh how lovely, the human interest angle, Heather's from Guernsey - the regional angle, Heather's dating another player - the salacious angle...

I can keep going until we find something that might be worthwhile in Heather's account to weigh against the vast import of the Skupski's being brothers, or Jamie being a full time doubles player as apparently obvious and compelling 'reasons' to completely ignore Heather winning a main tour title.
Just the twelfth WTA title - singles and doubles combined - for GB women in the last quarter of a century. But, apparently that cadence is too frequent? We can forget or minimise them?

They didn't report Heather's win, at all, for eight hours, at the same event. No one contemporaneously reported Anna Smith's title - it got oblique mentions when Anna later reached the Kremlin Cup SF, and played Fed Cup this year - there was similarly no reporting of her Zhuhai participation.
There's no compelling defence or rationalising to be had - not even rank incompetence.

Really isnt worth a vent like this Blob, really now is it. Especially when you dont consider valid reasons. Beast from the east causing delays in reports being submitted could be another.

And finally its Doubles after all.

Oakland2002 · All-time great

blob wrote:
If we're just going to abandon 'reasons' and keep offering new 'reasons', then sure, let's give 'reasons' for Heather, too

Heather is a former GB#1 - in singles and doubles, Heather had 3 doubles titles, and three singles titles. Heather is a Wimbledon champion. Heather has been a Fed Cup stalwart servant of the country. Heather has more career prize money. Heather won a junior GS. Heather has far better name recognition. Heather has more Twitter followers - oh so important social media angle, Heather's Mum is a quasi-coach and was in the stands cheering her daughter on - ahhh how lovely, the human interest angle, Heather's from Guernsey - the regional angle, Heather's dating another player - the salacious angle...

I can keep going until we find something that might be worthwhile in Heather's account to weigh against the vast import of the Skupski's being brothers, or Jamie being a full time doubles player as apparently obvious and compelling 'reasons' to completely ignore Heather winning a main tour title.
Just the twelfth WTA title - singles and doubles combined - for GB women in the last quarter of a century. But, apparently that cadence is too frequent? We can forget or minimise them?

They didn't report Heather's win, at all, for eight hours, at the same event. No one contemporaneously reported Anna Smith's title - it got oblique mentions when Anna later reached the Kremlin Cup SF, and played Fed Cup this year - there was similarly no reporting of her Zhuhai participation.
There's no compelling defence or rationalising to be had - not even rank incompetence.

Blob you have a valid point it is gender bias, confounding factirs exist but you could call the duty log at the bbc to make your point. My experience is that they listen to it. The head of sport is a women and ex Olympic gymnast, I dont think there is an underlying agenda to undersell womens sport infact I think probably the reverse. It just needs pointing out, it is casual and unintended mitigate it how you like, Hev is an accomplished doubles player arguably our second or third best after Jamie and Andy her successes need to be reported equitably.