Week 17 - WTA International ($250K) - TEB BNP Paribas Instanbul Cup, Istanbul, Turkey (clay)

indiana · Tennis legend

Week 17 - WTA International ($250K) - TEB BNP Paribas Instanbul Cup, Istanbul, Turkey (clay)

blob · All-time great

OK. Phew!
Sorry. Just grumpy.

Grachka · Club Coach

blob wrote:

A bit surprised Pauline doesn't get at least a little more support from the French, as she has been a faithful servant for them in Fed Cup - drafted in as honest cover whilst Alizé previously, and now Caro & Kiki have various fallings out with each other and the FFT and others and exempt themselves. Pauline has shown up whenever asked and done a loyal and uncomplaining job of best effort, in singles and doubles, as required.
Sacrificing these weeks from your schedule for the good of the national cause probably is a thankless task though unless you also just win. 5/12 in singles, and 6/12 overall not being sufficient to earn anything beyond a 'meh' apparently.
I have in the past, personally, been guilty of unoriginally and offhandedly calling her 'potato lady'
I hope she wins - though the Hercog story on the other side is not a bad one, either.
This Istanbul event does have a happy knack of throwing up good stories in it's winners. If only they could get any of the locals to actually watch it. Even Turkish sponsors are elsewhere this week, with Turkish Airlines very prominently plastered all over courtside... in Stuttgart
indiana wrote:
PockyTastic wrote:
blob wrote:
Press review:
Current top 50 British player makes full WTA tour level final: 0 articles
Returning former top 50 banned British player wins challenger level match: 21 new articles today
When she won Nuremberg she got next to no press coverage so Im not surprised shes been ignored again.
I guess doubles vs singles is some factor in that and arguably reasonably so to at least some extent. Though I would imagine Evo would still have 'beaten' a British WTA tour singles finalist.
Should have corrected my own post: Returning former top 50 banned British player wins qualifying match at challenger level: 21 new articles today
The 'reasonable extent' exchange rate is thus somewhere in the range of: win in round one of Challenger qualifying: 21+ articles. Win to reach WTA final: none
Got it. All the arguments that were put forward in Acapulco for a discrepancy in coverage magically disappear, being inconveniently inapplicable this time, but are readily replaced by any number of others to achieve the same status quo.
I'm going to have to ask you to plesse expand on that last line for me Indiana, as you seem to be arguing along a line that reductively ends at somewhere like: were Serena Williams British, it would be reasonable to never report her results or successes, because, well, Andy would just beat her anyway. Or even, no matter Serena's nationality, don't bother reporting the matches, because Rog & Rafa would just beat her anyway.
I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean, but after re-reading the comment over and over, I can't find any other way to interpret it.
Unless you have an ellipsis on the end of your statement to the effect of: '... would still have 'beaten' a British WTA tour singles finalist [in terms of the coverage each were given.]"?
Probably that? (Hopefully that) Hence the quoting of 'beaten'? Probably that.

But he's not got the coverage because men winning in challenger qualifying is newsworthy, but because he's a former Top 50 player and because he had a drugs ban. No other British guy who wins in challenger qualifying would get that level of coverage (or any, for that matter).

blob · All-time great

I'm not going to requote it all again to fill up the page (q.v.) :
Yes, I noted, that the exchange rate is:
Former top 50 player in a match in qualifying of not even the top-tier professional Tour, returning from a ban that was entirely their fault: 21+ articles
Current top 50 player reaching a final of the full, top-tier, professional tour, never having recieved a ban, because of normal, law-abiding professional behaviour: 0 articles

You can argue that returning from a self-inflicted ban certainly deserves *some* coverage; a line or two: "'x' returned to action today in qualifying at 'y' after serving their ban for 'z'. They won their match, and now face 'q' in the next round. It could even be the lead out bookending tail to the full paragraphs describing the Brit success where our never-banned player had just reached a full tour final - a feat which Brits manage very rarely.

I am, however, prepared to listen to why returning from a ban in qualifying at a low tier is rewarded with *all* the coverage, and the scrupulously professional career behaviour and elite success is rewarded with a complete blackout.

The exchange rate seems entirely nuts to me, in terms of magnitude of achievement, and in tacitly rewarding and endorsing entirely the unprofessional athlete over the professional one.
But feel free to convince me that this is justified. Again, I'll find it useful to see the overlap of the justifications with the situation in Acapulco, or how, and I quote myself, "being inconveniently inapplicable this time, [...] are readily replaced by any number of others to achieve the same status quo."

flamingowings · All-time great

I feel that Anna and probably Joss too would be pointless answers on the TV shows Pointless.
Or very close to 0/pointless.

Rightly or wrongly, Dan is a story. Articles about Anna to many, many people will not be of interest but Dan...well it's a story. And maybe part of his rehab PR-wise for these articles are pretty favourable - they seem to follow the "lesson learned" arc.

Edited - we are actually helping perpetuate this by taking over Anna's thread.

-- Edited by flamingowings on Sunday 29th of April 2018 10:58:54 AM

JonH · All-time great

I think blob maybe the point is different - and nothing to do with fairness or who deserves the coverage. The real point is we live in a news society where interesting things sell. People love to read about stuff that grabs the attention. Dans situation transcends tennis and whether it is something people have sympathy for him or despise him for what he did, they largely have an opinion. So that makes people interested and thus they want to read about it. None of the papers can afford not to cover it, so it will always be 21 articles or no articles, not 3 or 4. The cover it, people read and comment ( whether that be well done Dan welcome back or outraged from Tunbridge Wells), and the more his run this week goes on the more the coverage will be. At some stage it will settle down.

But to the general press and public Dan outweighs another pro player reaching a final. It's not fair, it's business.

A fairer comparison could be Dom in the final in Budapest. That compares directly with Anna and her final. I have no idea how that coverage comparison is but I've not seen it mentioned anywhere either so suspect it's close to zero if not zero. If dom is getting more coverage than Anna them that would be very unfair. Dan getting his coverage is about business and satisfying the mawkish quest for gossip and intrigue that goes hand in hand, rightly or wrongly.

Does that make sense? I'm not disagreeing with you just trying to explain how I think it works rightly or wrongly.

blob · All-time great

Which is why I put it in terms of the exchange rate.
What is the tipping point where a scrupulously professional players achievements on court outweigh those of an unprofessional self-inflicted melodrama? Or some lesser or equal achievement gains precedent 95% to (belated) 5%.
Well, we know it's not reaching a full tour final. Would it be winning a full tour title? Wasn't the case in Nuremberg. Wasn't the case for Heather in Acapulco.
Would making the final of a prestige tour event be enough? Wasn't the case for Anna and Joss in Moscow.
Would winning a prestige tour event be enough. Wasn't the case for Heather in Stanford.
Winning the mixed doubles at Wimbledon did it. That was enough. That was the exchange rate.

But, yes, sports coverage is so compleetly not about sport anymore that were Anna to say, punch the umpire - apologies to Anna for even suggesting that, she's lovely, and professional, and never would - but, yes, that would get lots of coverage.
As for hijacking this thread to discuss this again, as opposed to what? Just meekly bowing ones head in obeisance to the statius quo?

A...n...y...way....

blob · All-time great

Warming up on court now for the final.
Last time, in Acapulco, after my unapologetic rant, coverage for Heather came shortly thereafter. I pretend that was a direct result of my, 'appalled from Tunbridge Wells', performance. Of course it wasn't, but either way, hopefully a) Anna & Xenia win b) somebody, somewhere gives it the coverage it deserves.

Come on the warrior princesses

JonH · All-time great

If they win it will get a small para in the news in short. If dom win it will get a para covering both. Perversely the mail will probably cover it as they cover pretty much anything to fill space.

flamingowings · All-time great

The Guardian didn't cover Kyle reaching the final of....Morroco(?) recently. Not online anyway.

blob · All-time great

Started well, 2-0
Continued less well *2-4

blob · All-time great

Saved several set points. There was only 2 points difference between the teams over the set, but Anna & Xenia came out on the deficit side in points and games.
4-6

blob · All-time great

Another good start to the set, can they stay the distance in this one?
4-6 *2-0

blob · All-time great

Again concede their early advantage, and have been losing those crucial deuce deciding points.
4-6 *3-5

blob · All-time great

Conversion rate in WTA finals could use a boost. A very useful week nonetheless, after a slow start to the year

F: Anna SMITH/Xenia KNOLL (GBR/SUI) [3] 123 lost to Chen LIANG/Shuai ZHANG (CHN/CHN) 208 4-6 4-6

If they are both willing and able, maybe this is a partnership to stick with for a while? Xenia has WTA titles, and about the same level in her career as Anna. We'll see. Stability would be good for Anna's continued prospects. It's hard to make a peripatetic doubles living as an ad hoc player.