I just hate how when the camera's are on Hewitt's box there's almost always a shot of Kim Clijsters' hand on her chin showing off that tacky engagement ring. It looks like bad costume jewlery.

I hardly think that Andy Roddick is the only player on the tour to show frustration when losing a match or is the only player to argue calls.



Get the Tennis Channel, because ESPN wants ratings. A majority of people don't watch when Americans aren't playing. Look at the dismal French Open ratings for both the men's and women's finals. Yes, the time change meant having to get up in the morning to watch the finals, but when a Grand Slam championship pulls in the lowest ratings in years, you can recognize the problem.

It's not that he argues calls, it's the manner in which he does it. He almost completely loses it. Looking over the top 10, I can think of only Hewitt or Safin that get so crazy. Go down another 10 spots, and I would only add Kiefer to the list. Of course all players get frustrated, but Andy's frustrating just strikes me as very brattish - again, it's the body language and my interpretation of it-- certainly it's just my opinion, YMMV. It rubs me the wrong way. Some people like that attitude, I do not.



I don't think it's as simple as that. I think that people don't watch players unless they know them, regardless of nationality. Even non-tennis fans know who Agassi, Roddick, Capriati, and the Williamses are, so they might be interested in watching them. However, those same casual fans would have no clue who Ginepri, Fish, Dent, and Granville are. They're americans also, but I bet they don't get any ratings either. On the other hand, ratings for Rafter, Guga, Graf, Hingis, Edberg, Becker, etc were probably fairly good (I don't have the numbers) - I would wager they would be better than for someone like Ginepri now. So it's not just a matter of nationality. If Roger Federer went on saturday night live like Roddick did, or appeared on tons of endorsements in the states, his ratings would be higher too, it's just a matter of marketing.

Which is why I think ESPN is missing out on an opportunity to market some of the lesser known but top ranked players when they get a chance. They marketed the heck out of Sharapova, and now she gets ratings. Imagine that. The Wimbledon final this year was almost equal to last year's Williams sister final, which should tell you people want to watch Sharapova. By highlighting someone like Coria, perhaps ESPN wouldn't have such poor roland garros ratings when he gets to the finals the next few years in place of Roddick or Agassi. The problem with the RG finals this year was that nobody in this country knew any of the finalists. And I'd bet it would not have been any different had it been Myskina vs Granville and Coria vs Morrison.

From personal experience watching people's reactions to matches at the US Open, if they see someone playing high quality tennis, american or not, they're going to come back for more next time that player is on the court. Just ask Max Mirnyi.

Mmm, Max Mirnyi (cannot be said enough).

As for the Andy and Andre semifinal? I TiVo'ed it to watch when I got home--and ended up staying awake until 2:30 watching. It was so stress-inducing (for me) that I would speed up each game and watch the game score to make sure Andre wouldn't lose his serve and then go back and watch the game. I did like the big hug from Andy at the end and while I agree that the line calling was awful, as it was the entire tournament, it was equally bad for both players and Andy is going to have to start letting that stuff go.

I wish I could talk about the Hewitt-Robredo match but, as TVGuy mentioned, ESPN decided the Roddick quarterfinal was more important to show. And since Andy-Andre was the semifinal up last. . . I kinda figured out who was going to win that, and--thanks to the time left--Hewitt, match.

Did anyone else watching Cincinnati notice that the cameramen really love women? They would do these lingering shots of some random female in the crowd and I would wonder who the hell they were. Then I figured out the cameramen were just getting their jollies.

ETA: I just finished reading the transcript of the post-match Andre interview and I liked this bit:

Yep, that's pretty much correct. When Andre Agassi leaves tennis, Andy Roddick should not have to feel any burden in having to "rescue" American tennis. None whatsoever. With no indication that any of Ginepri, Spadea, Fish or Dent making any moves to being a mainstay in the top 20, it could very well be "All Andy All the Time" by the end of this decade.

People become fans of players only if they can watch them, simple as that. The ridculousness of "Coria Who?", "Nalbandian who?" and "Ferrero Who?" during last year's US Open had to have been the nadir. Even on the women's side, Anatasia Myskina will be higher ranked but probably will get zero air time so that USA can show glamour girl Maria Sharapova or even Ashley Harkeload.

No kidding on the Harkeload bit. The USA Network loves her for some reason, I blame the USTA though. I remember a few years ago at the start of week 2 of the US Open her Juniors match was the first match of the day on Ashe Stadium. Man, talk about yawn inducing. Tracy Austin & co. had a hard time trying to talk about the girls since they knew very little about them. The tennis? Moonballs galore.

I agree with this statement however you have to remember that Andy is 21 years old. I mean he may be legal but he's still a kid. You can't expect him to handle things the way that Andre does. It just won't happen.



Two words: sex sells.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the Agassi/Roddick semifinal. The final, meanwhile, I just kinda felt deflated. I don't know, the excitement just wasn't there for me, but still I applaud Andre for his win.

Being 21 is no excuse to act like a brat. Just look at Federer, a little over a year older than Roddick and way more mature. Even a player like Ancic who is 19/20 exhibits more maturity than the Rod.

Maybe I'm blind. But I still don't see where Roddick is a brat. True, he gets mad as hell. But I think it's more at himself then at his opponent. When he is out there, he expects to play his best and win. When he is not playing his best, and he KNOWS he is out there screwing up easy shots, he gets pissed. He doesn't try to hide it. But maybe he should. I don't know. I am trying to see what everyone else sees, but I don't. At least he's not Hewitt. I have always felt that Lleyton was 3 times worse. Oh, how I hate him. I will never forgive him for that racist comment he made a while back when he got that foot fault.

kathy: I am with you, girl.

My two favorite players: Andre Agassi and whoever is playing Lleyton Hewitt. The Hate.

I tend to agree about Roddick too. In the post-match interviews that I've seen when he's lost (and I will confess to missing all of the Cinci Masters, *sigh*), he's always been self-depracating and also complimentary to his opponent.

But I will always have a soft spot in my heart for both Andy and Younes El Aynoaui (sp?) following their AWESOME Australian Open match a few years ago. Now THAT was some tennis!

You know what is great? That Andy Roddick garners such strong opinions, pro and con. Everyone loves him or hates him. Now that is fun for tennis. Now (broadcasters) show us more about some other players.

Younes El Aynaoui and his countryman Hicham Arazi are the most entertaining players on tour. Their matches against whomever are always the best. Must be something in the Moroccan gene pool.

I should have known TWoP would have a thread for tennis! (Love the title btw, it's so true.)

Anyway, just had to add my two cents on the Andy hate.
For me, it's his personality combined with the type of game he plays.
I don't care how good his serve is and how talented or how hard he worked to achieve it, it's just BORRRRING. His serve and forehand/one-two punch type game bores me to tears. The only times I find his game interesting is when anyone beats him (Oh Max, you were so close).
This type of power game along with his cocky/angry persona on court is just really off-putting. His little mannerisms after he aces someone or plays a winner(that cool 'oh yeah, I've got it' kind of look and the jaunty walk --am I the only one who sees this?) and his funny(not) wisecracks at the umpire("thank you captain obvious," which btw Pee Mac(hee!)thought was hilarious) make me want to vomit.

I used to kind of like him too back when he played El Aynoui (sp?), but ever since he got together with Brad Gilbert (who I also hate by the way--maybe Brad's personality has rubbed off on him), all the potential he had to be an annoying tennis persona has come out in full force.

So yeah, I hate Roddick.

I think that's a given. I remember one of the millions of tidbits I've heard about Andy since his coronation at Queen's last year was that Brad decreed: no more visor (it's uncool) and no more backwards hat (see previous reason). So Brad is definitely affecting Andy's personality.

Disclaimer: I don't hate Brad.

I kinda feel for all you who hate Roddick. He's pretty much the crowned Prince of American tennis and will be for many years to come at least here in the States. So you're probably going to have at least a decade of watching someone you hate. A lot.

I guess I just don't see it either. I mean I watch pretty much every Roddick match and don't see the taunting that some of you have mentioned. Hewitt's COME ON!!!! When he's up 6-1 6-1 5-0 on some no name? Yeah annoying. Ancic's fist pumps and gestures after many winners? Annoying. Justine's (I can't spell it....a french word she utters after virtually every winner) annoying and taunting. Capriati's swearing? The williams sisters lack of ability to give their opponents credit at all when they lose? Safin's temper tantrums?

Where are the pages of people complaining about them?

Thank goodness for that--it looked so dang stupid. Actually, what Brad said was that it "wasn't intimidating" and boy, do I agree. That spiky hair flopping all over the place was not scary looking. As wacky as I think Andy still is (for me, an endearing trait), Brad has been great for him--mentally as well as game-wise. The tennis world was throwing their collective hands in the air over all that wasted talent when Brad reined him in.


For me, the need to discuss the Andy love/hate is to respond to the golden god status the press has given him.

Yes, I think a lot of the Roddick hate most definitely has to do with how much he's shoved down our throats.

alexias, with Safin, I see all the temper tantrums and that just makes him more interesting to me, so go figure. Maybe if Safin were shoved down my throat and Pee Mac worshipped him, then I'd hate him too. On the other hand, he has a much more interesting game than Roddick, and plus he's HOT! (whereas Roddick? Not so much. I hate that he's made out to be this sexy guy. He does nothing for me.)

heh I was just going to post the Safin hotness ; )

Though I also think Andy is rather Yummy.

My best friend yells at me because I think Roger is cute.

Justine Henin-Hardenne's famous yell is "Allez!" or "Go" in French, akin to what Amelie Mauresmo and Sebestian Grosjean do as well. Remember in the past, Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario would yell out "Vamos!" or "Go" is Spanish.

Yeah, I've also got a friend who keeps getting upset that I find Roger (bizarrely) attractive. Of course, her absolute favorite was Yevgeny Kafelnikov so she's one to talk. (And we argue about Juan Carlos Ferrero--she finds him too delicate, I don't have a problem with that.)

Juan Carlos. I REALLY liked him. Till he frosted his hair.

Men should never frost their hair.

Ever.

Color? Fine! Hightlights? Go nuts.

Frosting?

Step away from the Froster Juan Carlos!!

So true. But I still think he's hot.
Other hot tennis men (besides Safin, the god of hotness): Moya, Haas, Robredo.
Too bad Rafter retired. Swoon.

All of these players are so marketable. Why don't ESPN see that?

Oh, and while I don't think Federer is particularly attractive, I'd still take him over Andy.

Rafter?

Godlike!!

Haas I think is trying to take over for him with the ponytail and all. Not quite Tommy. But you're really cute too.

Lonecrane, I am in total agreement - you hit it right on the head, the exact
reason why Roddick bothers me so much. You're right, it's that walk after he hits a big ace that just screams arrogance (to me, anyway). He might as well be looking at the opponent and shouting "I own you!"

Alexias, the difference to me between Roddick's walk and attitude and Henin's is that Roddick's seems directed towards the opponent as in "look at the shot I just hit" whereas Henin's "allez" seems to just be directed internally. Henin mutters Allez under her breath to pump herself up, half the time the opponent wouldn't even hear it. And Capriati's swearing and grandstanding - I hate that as much as Roddick's outbursts. Also agree about Hewitt. It's just a metter of interpretation, I suppose.

I also find Andy's style very boring to watch. For example, in that Agassi-Roddick semi, Agassi would play two great points to get to 0-30, then Andy would blast 4 aces/unreturnables. Snore. I actually want to see points, not huge serving. There is little drama in Roddick matches because he holds serve so easily on every surface save clay. Certainly, it's not his fault that's his game, but for me, I'd rather watch someone else. I had the same problem with Sampras.

And therein lies the problem - once again, as Lonecrane said, the resentment is because some of us don't want to see Andy 24/7, and ESPN gives us the choice of Andy or nothing. That is why there is so much Roddick hate. Does he deserve it? Probably not. If ESPN started showing nothing but Safin, that would get old too. Just a little variety would be nice. That one day in Toronto we got to see Federer twice, Agassi, Roddick, Keurten twice, Henman, Moya, Hewitt and Santoro. Now that was awesome coverage, and I did not mind that Roddick was part of because I got to see other players as well.

I would also note that ESPN's intention to cater to casual tennis fans with their 1pm broadcasts of masters series events is pointless. First off, casual fans (I know plenty) wouldn't even know a tournament is occuring unless it's the US Open or Wimbledon. Second, even if they knew it was occuring, they would not know what time. Third, even if they did, most have jobs, and would not tape tennis. The only people who would know what time the coverage is on and would tape it are hardcore fans. And most of those (at least everyone I know and seemingly many on this board) want to see good matches whomever is playing, not a steady Roddick diet. Nightime coverage, cater to the casual fan, but daytime coverage, why bother? Am I off base here?

Why do think that the daytime broadcasts are aimed at casual fans? I would think the opposite is true.

TVGuy: That's exactly the point most of us on this board are arguing. I did tape some of the Cinci Masters but my schedule was so crazy last week I haven't watched any of it and likely won't. But that's the point, I'm one of those diehard fans who will watch tennis whenever it is on. And have been known to just listen when it's on HDTV and I can't even see the picture. Sad. I know. It's just sad.

Marat Safin is cute, but he's no Mark Phillipousis. Wow he is hot. I am surprised he does not get more attention. He's a damn good player too. If not for all his injuries he could give Federer and Roddick a run for their money. IMO.

kathyowens1977, I can't believe I left out Philippoussis! He is a hottie.
I also have a crush on Googa. He seems like such a sweetheart. Did you see him during the French Open when Chris whatshisname had him in for a chat after he beat Federer? He was wearing this so-not-stylish!white warm-up jacket and grinning like a six-year-old. So cute! Mr. Lonecrane would do dorky impressions of him. Hee.
Plus he has a fun to watch game--beautiful backhand, line-painting shots, drop-shots, and that funny grunt! I feel so bad about what his injury has done to him. Same with Philippoussis.

Another guy that I love to watch is Nalbandian. I used to think he was a solid but boring player, but after watching him at the USOpen last year, whoa, he rocks! I even kind of think he's hot now because his game is. I SO wished he would beat Roddick.

Anyway, I'm in tennis withdrawal this week. When does the next coverage start?
I can't remember what USA's coverage of the USOpen was like. I hope I get to see some of the aforementioned players in their early round matches instead of having to pray that they make it to the quarters or semis to see them.

Back to my Roddick hate, I hate when Pee Mac says things like "Federer and Roddick have really separated themselves from the pack" because I personally think Roddick should not be mentioned in the same breath as Federer. Federer's game has grace, beauty, balance, and style.

But that is the kind of contrast of styles that makes for exciting matches. Becker and Edberg. Chris and Martina. Pete and Andre. The big server and power player against the more baseline all court player. And like him or not, and I'm getting the sense that few people here do like him, Roddick IS the # 2 player in the world and a former #1. Aside from Federer he really has been the most dominant player in, say the past year or so. So I understand why he gets mentioned with Federer.

Again I am also not quite ready to bestow the crown of greatness on Federer. Is he an excellent player? Yup. No question. But I think we're too quick these days to put that title of one of the best ever on someone. Luke Jensen said it about Capriati the other night. Now I love Jennifer but I wouldn't say she is one of the greatest women's tennis players of all time.

Those accolades belong to the true legends of the game. I'd put Andre there without question. But no one else on the tour, male or female should be on that list just yet. Not even my beloved Lindsay who I certainly think is up there on the list should be called one of the greatest womens tennis players of all time. Not with three slams. Chris and Martina? 18 a piece. Steffi? 22! Monica? Nine and who knows how many more had she not gotten stabbed. Pete? Laver? Borg? Agassi? Lendl. Connors. McEnroe. These players were masters of their craft. All with multiple slams, each with at least 7. Borg has 11 by the way! I wasn't aware of that until earlier today. Everyone mentions his Wimbledon titles but no one talks about his 11 slams.

Will Federer be on that list someday? Probably. I would say probably yes. But please. Let's not put him there yet.

I totally agree. That just drives me nuts everytime I hear Pee-Mac or anyone else say that. I don't see the Roddick hotness either but I do love me some Safin. And I think Roger is adorable, not necessarily cute, but adorable in a really sweet guy sort of guy.

I finally figured out what bugs me about Andy, it is his walk. His ass sticks up and out when he walks. It looks like he has something shoved up his ass.

Borg won Wimbledon five times and he won the French Open six times. He never won the Australian Open or the US Open. I consider Agassi's eight slams, with at least one win at every slam, far more impressive than Borg's eleven wins at only two slams.

For the first five or six years I couldn't stand Sampras for that exact reason. When he started picking up the rest of his game and had more of an all-court presence I really started liking him. As good as his serve was, it couldn't match the speed of Ivanisevic (speaking of yummy) or Phillipousis or even Rafter (triple yum) so he got better at other stuff and I liked that.


Me too. The next televised men's tournament (I think) would be Washington. According to their website Tennis Channel (dang you Castallack!) will have almost all of the coverage until Saturday the 21st when Fox Sports Channel will add a little and the singles final will be on CBS that Sunday.

You must also remember that back then no one PLAYED the Australian. Chris Evert played in Australia like 5 times in 20 years and Borg didn't play it at all until late in his career. The australian is a much bigger deal than it was back in the days of those champions.

And remember that Borg won 11 slams BEFORE THE AGE OF 26!!!

That? Is impressive. No doubt Andre's 8 slams is impressive but in my opinion not FAR more impressive then 11 slams by age 26. Especially when you consider that he had a real shot at the record which was of course 13.

Certainly an argument could be made for both sides. Certainly, Andre's Career Grand Slam is impressive in that only one other player in the Open Era was able to achieve that feat (Laver, 69). We add in the number of Super 9/Masters Series titles and gap between time in the top 10 (now standing at 16 years).

It must be remembered that Borg rarely played at the Australian Open if ever during his career (as did a lot of other players). In total, Bjorn Borg had a 11-5 Grand Slam finals record, compared to Andre's 8-6

And let's not forget that Andre has the Golden Slam. The Olympics fan in me loves that asterisk on his resume.

Jon Wertheim joins in the discussion on pro-Andy, or as Jer2002 put it, "blah blah Andycakes":

He's actually one of my favorite players at the moment. I just need someone who isn't going to have a meltdown and with the exception of the match you mentioned, he seems really tough mentally.


<Ducking>
You know, I did a search via ReplayTV and none of that came up. Maybe the Tennis Channel secures their rights at the last minute but the fact that they never say in advance what they're going to cover is highly irritating.

Re: casual fans. I know my office is unusual as we're in media and most of us have TV's but if you say something like "Roddick is on ESPN2" or "Venus is playing Capriati" more people will flip channels to watch than if it's Hewitt v. Federer. There's only me and one other woman who will watch any match that happens to be on. But I agree that ESPN's strategy is nutty and neglects those who really love the sport.

My tennis crushes chronologically:
Borg, Wilander, Noah, Edberg, Cash, Emilio Sanchez (those legs!)

My point? Roddick couldn't carry their tennis bags. If he is the 'hot' player on the tour, something is seriously wrong.

Obviously ratings are not all important for ESPN during the daytime hours--what, are they showing all the NFL highlight films in the 1pm to 4pm slot this week?--so I see no reason why they cannot show some lesser-known players during the daytime. Of course, those courts might not have TV camera capabilities. . .

Oh and I'm a big fan of Nalbandian. I can see why his brain melted during that semi-final match. It must be overwhelming to know every single official is rooting against you--and cheating to make sure you lose. Hell, there was even a CBS executive standing in one of the tunnels cheering Roddick on when Roddick was down so far!

And how about at the year-end ATP championships in Houston where the tournament promoter was wearing a US flag on his shirt and very openly and loudly cheering for Roddick and Agassi? Even the pro-American broadcasters thought it was too much.


I'm aware that years ago many players did not go to the Australian Open. It's why Roy Emerson's 12 Slams and Margaret Court's 24 are deceptive numbers because 6 of Emerson's Slams and 11 of Court's were won at the Aussie Open. But that really started to change in the mid-seventies as jet air travel improved and players started to become more aware of how their Grand Slam total affected how people looked at their overall career. Winners from 1974 - 1982 (Borg's era) included Jimmy Connors, Vitas Gerulaitis, and Guillermo Vilas, all top players who were not Australians, so you cannot say that "no one" played in Australia back then. Like it or not, the fact that Borg chose not to compete there does impact how his career is assessed.

Borg and Evert are pretty much from the same era, though Evert played longer. So they were the #1 and/or #2 player in the world during the time you claim the Australian came into prominance. And neither played the event more than 5 times (Evert 4 I believe). So when the #1 and/or #2 players in their fields do not compete at an event I believe I can in fact say that no one played back then.



And like it or not, Borg has 11 slams without playing the Aussie which, as your point would seem to indicate, could have padded his #'s if he had competed there.

Like it or not, the Aussie wasn't taken very seriously till after Borg was very late in his short career.

No, you really can't say that unless you are dismissing Jimmy Connors and Guillermo Vilas as nobodys. Vilas and Connors were star players who regularly played the Australian Open during the same period that Borg did not, so you can not say that nobody played the Aussie Open back then.

Borg did not play in Australia because he regularly took off four or five months from the tour and then came back for the clay court season to get ready for the French Open and then Wimbledon. Are you aware that one of the reasons that Borg retired early is because the men's tour started requiring players to enter a minimum number of tournaments? This would require Borg to play pretty much year round like the other players. Borg refused and tour officials told him that if he did not comply he would have to enter qualifying rounds in future tournaments. This was quite an insult to a champion like Borg. He ended up retiring.

Would he have won more Slams had he not retired? Maybe, but we can't know for sure. Would he have won some Aussie Opens if he had played there? Maybe, but we can't know for sure. After all, he played at the US Open but never won there although he reached the final several times.

I was following tennis back when Borg played and was a fan of his especially because he regularly beat McEnroe who I despised (and still do actually). So don't get the impression that I'm bashing him. His total of eleven Slams is very impressive. I just think that Agassi's record of winning at each of the majors is more impressive. That's my opinion. I'm entitled to it. I'm not saying that Agassi is necessarily a better player than Borg. I think that head to head they would be pretty even. On clay, I'd go with Borg. On hardcourts, Agassi. And on grass, I'd give Borg the edge.

You totally are entitled to your opinion. It's just when you say things like "You can't say that", or "Like it or not, Borg will be judged by etc..." it seemed like you were dismissing mine.

Hence what might have come across as attitude was my reacting defensively to feeling like you were telling me I could feel a certain way.

No, not at all. I didn't mean to come across that way. I propose that we call a truce and get back to what this thread is intended for - bashing the generally lousy TV tennis coverage.

By the way alexias, if you haven't seen it yet, there is a tennis thread over at 'The Olympics' forum. Thought you might be interested since Andy is playing there.

I whole heartedly accept your proposal : )

My heart is not in the Olympics this year. While I understand completely her desire not to play, and think it is probably a really smart move on her part come the U.S. Open, I was really hoping to see Lindsay compete for another gold medal.

That being said, you know I'm heading over to the Tennis Thread!
Thanks : )

It was a lot worse than that. "Mattress Mack" actually had the tournament volunteers painting "Go Andy" signs! And then he gave those signs to people sitting in the luxury box! I was talking to a few while waiting for the bus to take me back to the hotel (the Year-End Championships was my crazy tennis vacation last year) and I explained just why that was not a good thing--it was an international tournament, employees shouldn't be showing favoritism (especially the owner!), there were many people there from other countries and it just made us Americans look really bad, etc--and the volunteers felt pretty bad and promised to tell their supervisor that I had complained. I know nothing came of it, but I felt better.

According to a comment Cliff Drysdale made at the Australian Open, Federer was so appalled at his treatment in Houston he refused to go back for the Clay Court tournament in the spring. "Mattress Mack" said he didn't care, and then Roger kept getting better and better and Mack realized he needed Roger at his tournament. Roger still refused so I say "YEAH" to Roger.

Oh, and the year-end Championships is where I saw PeeMac cheering "Go USA!" during a Bryan Brothers match. There was absolutely no call for an "us vs. them" attitude and that cemented a deep-down hate for PeeMac at that point.

I'm told by a friend in Houston that Mattress Mac never leaves his house without wearing an American Flag shirt but I thought his behavior reinforced every awful stereotype about American xenophobia that exists. Apparently he has done a huge amount for the sport but every time I see that commercial (if you've seen 10 minutes of tennis this year you've seen it) where the guys in the red, white, & blue paint are cheering I cringe.

Please. Try being there. Those guys were members of the country club (that the site is the rest of the year) and were given carte blanche to be in any seat they wanted. . . EVERY SINGLE MATCH! It was awful. They were screaming and racing around between points and acting like total asses.

While I am in total agreement that it is completely annoying and cringe worthy, is it really that different than Brazillian fans coming out in force with the flags and bells and such at matches where a Brazillian player is featured? Or when Swedes do the same with the flags and rallying behind their players? Sometimes sanctioned tour matches take on the feeling of a Davis Cup match, and it's not just U.S. involvement in it.

Personally I would like to see cracking down on all of that stuff. Support the players absolutely, but leave the national pride at home. Americans too. It's a sport, not world domination people.

Except these were the tournament officials, not the fans. Those painted guys were given carte blanche by the officials--the ushers were letting them go wherever they wanted, right down to all the courtside seats. They should not have had free rein to race around the stadium just because they were loud and obnoxious. Also, they got so caught up in being on the jumbotron that they stopped paying attention to the matches and started moving around and making noise during the points.

I, too, would like to see the backing of the player instead of the country. Although, I actually really like it when the countrymen show up in a foreign land to cheer on their guy. I guess because it is then a small group and they always end up with really lousy seats at the top of a stadium and are having a great time.

ETA: Wow, zap2it is reporting just how badly John McEnroe's show is doing:

I agree with LT. I think it's okay to cheer a national on, whether you're an American or a Brazilian, but not (at least overtly) if you are a tournalment official or broadcaster. While ideally, it would be nice to cheer on players as opposed to countries, it's easy for nationalistic feelings to come into play in international sports and can be part of the fun of it for some fans. However, it should never go overboard to the extent that it makes other nationals feel unwelcome, and it's especially the officials' jobs to see to this.

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but who is Mattress Mack(is it John Mac?), and why is he called that?

I used to kind of like John McEnroe as a broadcaster, mainly because he seems less biased than his brother, but since reading these boards and learning about his atrocious behavior as a player (I was really young back when I saw him play and can't remember first-hand his antics other than throwing his racquet and yelling "you can't be serious!"), such as spitting/throwing dirt at the umpire/linespeople, I've become really turned off by him and hence am glad his show is failing. Plus, I tried to sit through his show and couldn't manage it.

It's the nickname for Jim McIngvale. He's a local Houston furniture retailer who fell in love with tennis and is now the owner of the Westside Tennis Club there and the tournament director of the ATP championships (at least until they move from Houston). Here's a description I found:

"Gallery Furniture and its founder, Jim 'Mattress Mac' McIngvale, have become something of a Houston institution. McIngvale's animated television ads, which promise they "really will save you money", seemingly resonate with the masses; the company's single-site location has evolved into a leading furniture retailer in the region. Gallery Furniture sells bedroom, dining room, home office, and living room furniture."