Road Bike Racing - NY Times article about OLN coverage

Two Calls as Different as Cycling and Tennis
By RICHARD SANDOMIR


hile the daily live coverage of the Tour de France on the Outdoor Life Network since 2001 has been a positive, the network is making a mistake in assuming that all viewers are cycling aficionados.

Why, for example, did sprints suddenly occur during yesterday's Stage 2, like show tunes in a musical? The commentators Phil Liggett and Jeff Sherwen made no attempts at an explanation. No start and finish lines seemed to be delineated. Who signals the start of the sprint? Which racers are part of one? How do racers join?

And why, as Liggett said, were the cyclists engaged at one point in a race for third place? Don't they want to win? How could that happen if they are tens of kilometers from finishing?

The announcing was a mishmash of inside knowledge, and the graphics were lazy.

Liggett is a wonderful and evocative announcer, but nearly all I've seen of him has been on tape, for the Olympics, where scripts demand that he describe races for a broad, uninitiated audience. One could argue that OLN is a niche market serving core cycling fans and subscribers of Velo News, all of whom know what I do not. Fine, but as OLN expands, it must want to attract casual viewers who get a taste of the Tour de France during CBS Sports' taped coverage on Sunday afternoons and want more.

Much of OLN's coverage of Stage 2 focused on the enormous lead that Lilian Jégou and Frédéric Finot had over the peloton, or the pack. Because OLN's live telecast began about midway through the stage, viewers did not see how Jégou and Finot had accumulated a lead of more than six minutes. How did that happen? Were they so much better than the 196 other cyclists for four hours? Again, no explanation beyond "preparation."

Eventually, Jégou dropped back and Finot was alone in front. His lead was eroding, and Liggett and Sherwen flip-flopped over whether he could stave off the peloton (another term, albeit a simple one, left unexplained, as were the intricacies of team strategy within the peloton).

With four kilometers left, and Finot's once apparently insurmountable lead shaved to 1 minute 50 seconds, OLN broke for two minutes of commercials. When it returned to its coverage, having missed the peloton's surge to the front, the lead was merely 17 seconds. And which cyclist overtook Finot first? No one said.

Who then took the lead, as the camera focused on him? No one said.

After a frantic and exciting race to the finish line in Sedan, Liggett apparently looked at the wrong riders and needed help from Sherwen to declare the victory for Baden Cooke of Australia.

"I completely forgot about Baden Cooke," Liggett said. We noticed.

OLN could use some Telestrators to help viewers by pointing out who is who in the crowded race, and someone with the talents of Al Trautwig to call it for a broad audience without offending cycling enthusiasts. The rules of the Tour de France must be explained; it need not be done constantly, but within the context of a stage, much as Mike Emrick explicates hockey rules during Devils games.

NBC Sports served viewers far better on Saturday when Serena Williams beat her sister Venus to win the Wimbledon women's final. What marked the broadcast was the way Mary Carillo and Ted Robinson never veered from the Serena-Venus psychodrama. Dr. Phil must have been in the family box, providing private counseling to the sisters' mother, Oracene Price, and their older sisters.

They were engaged in an "emotional spin cycle" (Carillo), part of a recent "family reunion" (Robinson) that was "more of an intervention" (Carillo). Their uninspired play meant that "wherever you are, you're having a better time than these two" (Carillo). Serena's weak return to end the first set, which Venus won, was "perplexing" (Robinson), or, for a greater diagnosis, "downright nutty" (Carillo).

The Venus-Serena dynamic "has become quite a reality series" (Carillo), in which there is more survival than triumph, more errors than winners, more disappointing finals than memorable matches.

Venus's weak serves and Serena's failure to play them aggressively "would be punished" (Robinson) had they come from another player, but even in warm-ups Serena "babied the ball" to Venus (Carillo).

"You don't have to go too deep into psychology to see that the kid sister can't pick on big sis" (Robinson). Venus's joy is absent; she seems "a million miles away from the sensation of the moment" (Carillo). Their rare relationship is such that after Venus's abdominal injury "there must be a part of Serena that wants to go over to her to ask, 'Are you O.K.?' but she can't" (Carillo).

Maybe the ennui of the players - and their match - led to the 13 percent decrease in overnight Nielsen ratings to a 4.0 from a 4.6 last year when Serena also defeated Venus. The men's final on Sunday, won by Roger Federer, produced a 2.7 overnight rating, the worst since at least 1987.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/sports/tennis/08sandomir.html

So what they are trying to say, is that they like tennis better than cycling. They should piss off. If more Americans gave a crap about understanding cycling, then NBC would be covering the race. We are lucky that OLN is. All the other networks want to cover is the final winner. They dont want to show you how he won either. Buy a damn cycling dictionary, and shut the hell up. :)

In my view they do a damn good job of making the play by play understandable to the non-roadie. Heck if my girlfriend can understand it plainly with her limited cycling background anybody should. Tennis blows.

I think they have a point. If you don't understand about the green jersey or what "King of the Mountains" means, and how intermediate points are awarded, you won't learn it watching OLN's coverage.

And it's absolutely true that viewers expect and deserve a recap when coverage joins an "event in progress." The OLN coverage has been poor at this.

Don't get me wrong: I'm infinitely grateful to have OLN and the daily coverage, and there's a lot I like about it. But it's far from perfect, and really doesn't do enough to introduce newcomers to the sport.

RichC

couple of points here,
OLN is just rebroadcasting whatever the French Station
decides to show, they have no control whatsoever over
what gets onto the camera, or when it starts.
I think that the Prestage show, instead of doing the
loopy "Napoleon once stopped to pee in this castle" tourist
schtick, could talk about actual cycling, the terminology, the
strategies, etc.
That said, I really enjoy the OLN coverage and I'm glad
to have it. I sure would hate to see the coverage be
handled by one of the big networks, then we could all
get inundated with syrupy human interest stories similiar
to the pap we get with the olympics.
Message to NY Times. GET OFF OLN's back
or as stated above "piss off"

end of rant
Marty

I don't think they said they like tennis better, just the coverage of it.
I agree with the reporter to a certain extent. I do think they are exaggerating it some, but it could understandably be difficult for a "non-rider" to understand. I know when hockey was first introduced here in South Florida, there was a LOT of coverage that really simplified the "call" of the game, and made it much easier for "non-fans" to understand. OLN SHOULD gear thier coverage more in that direction. While it would be tiresome for true fans to watch, it would also help get more people watching, and maybe out riding, which is a good thing. I could put up with some elementary commentary, if it benefits the sport as a whole.

Originally posted by Raiyn
In my view they do a damn good job of making the play by play understandable to the non-roadie.

First off, I would rather watch cycling over tennis, so that's a moot point. However, I have to disagree with you, Raiyn. I could use a beginner's course in the TdF lingo. I don't think it's neccessary to give a blow-by-blow (see John Madden on Monday Night Football), but maybe some terminology on the web site? Maybe a better explanation in the replay in the evenings?

I dunno, just SOMETHING to make following a tad easier for the novice. ......SIGH.....

I actually lay the blame for the flaws in OLNs coverage with Kirsten Gum and Bob Roll. As the local (i.e. national) anchors, it is up to them to explain the rules, the strategies, and generally fill in the gaps that the play-by-play guys leave. Liggett and Sherwen are the best--at on the fly announcing. Stage racing is difficult for the uninitiated to understand. The pre-race and mid-race explanations could be done by the people sitting at the desks.

All in all, though, OLNs coverage has been great.

I hate to say it but last year when I was watching the TdF it was very difficult to understand. I had no idea as to which jerseys were good to have and what meant what. Other than the fact that Lance wanted the yellow jersey I was completely lost.

Kristen Gum and Bob Roll don't help in these explanations to us newbies at all. Just on a side note, what is up with the chick and the goats and the goat cheese? I HATE that segment everytime! *sigh*.

It does help though to go to the TdF website to get some info for each stage.

Don't get me wrong I love the coverage and I like Phil and Paul, but when I was new I had a very difficult time understanding the intricate nuances of the sport, still do. ;) I hope that the coverage stays with OLN and doesn't go to a larger network. I agree that they would pack it in with a bunch of human interest stories.

Only slightly off-topic. Bicycling Magazine has a pretty good primer on Tour basics.

Click here. (http://www.bicycling.com/tourdefrance/facts/article/0,6721,4605,00.html)

I know cross-posting is a no-no, but I think this information also belongs on BikerDawg's TdF question thread. Forgive me.

go to velonews.com and read all about it.....

go to the news stand and get the velonews tour magazine.... it has all the rules and such in it.....

Originally posted by rory
go to the news stand and get the velonews tour magazine.... it has all the rules and such in it.....

Really?? Excellent, thanks! :D

And, RegularGuy, that link was very helpful, too! Thanks!

Originally posted by BikerDawg
....snip.... Maybe a better explanation in the replay in the evenings?

....snip.... They DO give a better explanation at night.

Originally posted by Raiyn
They DO give a better explanation at night.

They do?? Seems like it's just a second airing of the live morning show to me. Hmmmm, maybe I'll have to watch a bit more closely. Thanks!

It's obvious that these guys aren't big on cycling, but as for them explaining things, that's just bupkiss. How often do baseball announcers stop and explain things for someone who is watching their first game? I guess it's because cycling coverage is still new in the US and so there is a huge crowd out there who know nothing. Phil and Paul have been broadcasting for years to an audience who is in the know, so they figure we all know what's going on. I guess for that reason, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to explain briefly every so often. Bob Roll does do that a bit, and every so often they do answer audience questions like "whyd doesn't the stage winner lead the race?" IT depends how much explanation these guys think we need or want. I agree, I don't need everything explained from the ground up and I like it that they assume we at least know what's happening. However, I could do with fewer ads. I noticed the live coverage has more ads.

I agree with wabbit. If you were to watch a football or baseball game for the first time or first 10 times you would have no idea what was going on and that is not explained during their telecasts.

I do agree that some explanation would be nice for the newbie cyclists watching OLN but the coverage is very good and better something than nothing. Anyone who is really interested in what is going on will no where to find that info on the web.

Actually I think Bob has been doing a good job of explaining things. Today he did the "madden drawing on the screen" thing to describe the TT eschelon and that's something I hadn't completely understood before.

There's too much action for them to explain every single nuance all the time. You can tell the announcers are out of breath during attacks and mid-race sprints; there's rarely a quiet moment for them to explain ALL the rules. I enjoy picking stuff up from race to race but you have to be willing to do that.

This sportswriter is a neophyte to roadbike racing that's all. Very few of us are neophytes to Tennis. It's not apples to oranges--or logical comparison. Last year the neophytes were complaining that Lance is not a real athlete; this year it's almost as if they've conceded that maybe he is and decide to sit down watch a race only to find their short span of attention challenged.

I liken the Tour to a game of Chess. Sure you can learn all the rules in one sitting and how each piece moves, but it takes a long time to "understand" the game. It's not just who can cross the line first, it's a whole bunch of "little" races and a constantly changing strategy. As one team or even team member attacks or sprints, or when someone gets hurt, your strategy must change to counter another teams move. It's really a beautiful choreograph that's total confusion as it evolves. (if that makes sense!).

L8R

Yeah, maybe it takes a few years to understand the Tour. I have been watching football for many years and still don't understand everything....move the ball toward the goal -- good thing! ;)

I'll keep watching and reading....I don't have a problem with that. :D

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
I liken the Tour to a game of Chess.

If you ask me, the Tour is like the stock market. The only main difference is that the tour only last 2 weeks while the market goes on and on and on.

Teams in a tour are like companies that compete in the same marketplace (so, different tours are different markets). Each team in the peloton is exposed to the same predictable elements (climb, curves, etc.) and unpredictable elements (headwind, tailwind, spectators, other teams, etc.) along the way. They compete for about 5 hours a day and continue the next day for another 5 hours, till the end of the tour. One minute/second gain is like $1 gain. Wrong judgements can cause crashes that can lead to bankruptcy (out of the tour). Everything that happens inside the peloton is short term gain or loss. When a breakaway occur (new opportunity), the peloton reacts and tries to achieve balance. In some cases, the breakaway rider manage to hold his position and win the stage. But that's pretty rare, I think. At the end of the day, the one that understands the market better and takes the right opportunities win the stage. But even a stage winner can make bad judgement the next day, crash, and go bankrupt. The winner is the one who survive the entire stages and gain the most time along the way. That's pretty damn hard.

Hmmm... if only the tour coverage was done like the stock market coverage, it could gain more viewers :D

I sort of agree, though I thought they did a better job of explaining things, at least last night (Petacchi's 2nd win, whatever stage that was). When I first saw the TdF two years ago it was very mysterious, but I don't mind that and just watched transfixed by the countryside if nothing else, then finally caught on to the strategizing, but it's still mysterious in many ways. I love Phil and Paul, but they take a lot for granted. Whoever said the stateside announcers should do the explaining is right--but even Roll doesn't seem to comprehend how much people here don't know. They should explain everything, the bikes, the funny clothes, the gear, the food--IF they want this to go over in this country. But then I hate to see it all dumbed down, too.

Originally posted by RegularGuy
I actually lay the blame for the flaws in OLNs coverage with Kirsten Gum and Bob Roll. As the local (i.e. national) anchors, it is up to them to explain the rules, the strategies, and generally fill in the gaps that the play-by-play guys leave. Liggett and Sherwen are the best--at on the fly announcing. Stage racing is difficult for the uninitiated to understand. The pre-race and mid-race explanations could be done by the people sitting at the desks.

All in all, though, OLNs coverage has been great.

I noticed this morning that they did have a quick segment with those two explaining how drafting works in a time trial... it was fairly informative if you didn;t haev a clue what was doing on

Jeff

I've been watching the TdF off an on for liek 14 years..e ver since I heard of it when I was 14 and Lemond was winning his first or second one... it does take time to figure it all out... I'm still not 100% sure of everything.. and just when i think I know everything.. my wife will ask me some random question about bike racin that i don;t now the answer to... Paul and Phil do explain some things.. but i believe that they pander to the cycling fan... someone who watches races on a regular basis, and understands it...

Jeff

The thing that's different about cycling is that most of the people who watch, are also cyclists themselves, even if they don't race. Whereas, many people watch football or hockey who've never played those games. That's why they probably don't feel that they have to explain certain things since we all know about drafting or climbing or gears because we do that stuff ourselves! We don't need as much explained to us. Maybe they take that for granted, but I think these NYT guys are expecting a lot here.

Originally posted by wabbit
It's obvious that these guys aren't big on cycling,
:confused: If I'm not mistaken, Phil, Paul & Bob have all ridden in the TdF, which means they have each been elite cyclists. Bobke was a member of 7-11, the first US team to compete in Europe and the TdF! Harumph.

Paul has ridden a few tours and finished 3 or 4. So has Bob.

I don't know that Phil ever did anything more than some amateur racing.

I thought I should mention that I was in Italy during the 2001 Tour, and I followed it every day while I was there. The broadcasting over there, which was done on RAI TRE (one of thier big networks) was FIVE hours of live coverage, with NO, I repeate NO COMENTARY AT ALL!!! I didn't mind since I know what I'm seing, and given that a big network would give so much time away, I don't think that the Italian public minded either.

The commentary on OLN is absolutely fine by me, and to be honest I don't really want to hear some of the explanations that they DO have because it's tedious to me. European nations agree with me. I think that if you are a novice and interested in getting in on cycling, then you ought to talk with a person who's in the know, and watch a few races with them by your side. I'm sure that most little boys don't learn the rules of baseball just by sitting in front of the TV, but by having their fathers (and mothers) explain it to them while observing, and by taking them to the games.

- Maurizio

I watched Phil, Paul and Bob do last year's Tour de France, the Vuelta and the Giro and find that they are taking more time to explain the elements of tour racing with this years Tour de France.

OLN has done a very good job in showing us the different aspects of this Tour. Bob did a great job during stage 3 explaining why a group of riders had to split off from the peloton due to the crosswinds and narrowness of the road. In today's TTT, Frankie Andreu did a fine job in explain how USPS's skinsuits were made, the type of material and the reason's why this suit made for less drag. I found it informative when Frankie showed us Lance's TT bike and helmet. He went over Lance's bike and explained the material used, the design and why these things helped Lance ride faster. We also saw in today's TTT, Jan Ullrich's bike being inspected to make sure it followed certain specifications as Paul explained what those specifications were. OLN has gone the extra mile (or kilometer) to inform the viewer of what's going on.

The one big mistake that OLN made for this Tour was add Kirsten Gum to the team. She's totally lost and doesn't know what to do with unscripted time. On Tuesday, after Bob's piece on the peloton, she got lost, started to fumble her words and said that they would get back to Phil and Paul in a couple of minutes. In fact, OLN just finished a set of commercials and they cut directly to Phil and Paul. At the end of today's TTT race she was starting to sign off when she realized that they still needed to go over tomorrow's stage route.


I'm sure that most little boys don't learn the rules of baseball just by sitting in front of the TV, but by having their fathers (and mothers) explain it to them while observing, and by taking them to the games.
Great point! I learned about sports while going to the games or watching on TV with my dad and grandfather. Expecting the sports announcers to teach us about the rules of the game is the same as expecting our schools to parent our children.

Originally posted by Revenig
The one big mistake that OLN made for this Tour was add Kirsten Gum to the team. She's totally lost and doesn't know what to do with unscripted time.

Yup, she’s kinda fun to look at, but she obviously doesn’t have a clue as to what she’s talking about. I think that Bob Roll is doing a great job, and should be anchoring this thing with Frankie. There are many qualified women cyclist out there to choose from. Obviously she’s just network fluff.

Originally posted by roadbuzz
:confused: If I'm not mistaken, Phil, Paul & Bob have all ridden in the TdF, which means they have each been elite cyclists. Bobke was a member of 7-11, the first US team to compete in Europe and the TdF! Harumph.



I dont think he means Phil and Paul. He is referring to the NYtimes author.

Originally posted by ~LongRider~
I dont think he means Phil and Paul. He is referring to the NYtimes author.
My bad... it's just that Phil's my hero! (He's also an editor for Cycle Sport Magazine ;).)

I have to agree with the folks that posted it is friends and parents that teach the rules of the games. I cannot remember every hearing on TV when I was young what constitued and offsides in football. My father explained it to me, the same way I explain the jerseys and strategies of cycling to my daughter. It is embarrasing though when my 6 year old comes to a race and tells me I attacked to early.

Maybe when they write there articles they should explain what a 4.9 Neilson rating is. How does that correspond to a set or match? Is that 4.9 out of 5.0 or 4.9 out of 10 or 100? They need to educate people in there writing.

I just figured out on my own what the stuff meant with regards to the tour- the websites for the tour are very good, and if people really want to know, they can go to letour.com or bicycling.com and get a pretty good explanation. Once they read that, they just need to tune in and listen to the commentary- it will all become clear the more you watch.

I enjoy watching the tennis a lot- the women more so than the men, and I think the commentary for the tennis is pretty good, but sometimes, it gets stupid bad commentary too. They sometimes had guest spots, and I'm surprised this guy didn't mention that these guests were not very knowledgeable, or even if they knew tennis, they didn't know how to do a commentary on tennis, so it was bad anyway. They had one of those idiots from the "Friends" show on one night talking about tennis, and I was rolling my eyes like this- :rolleyes: . Another night, they had that guy Reuben, the winner of American Idol on the show, and I thought that was also ridiculous. I like Mary Carillo, and I think McEnroe is a dumb@ss in general- making stupid commis own behae women tennis players, when his own behavior when he was playing tennis was 20 times as bad as the most bad-tempered tennis player out there right now. He's a hypocrite.

What OLN should do is send a television crew out there to cover the tour- a full crew with television cameras and live commentators who can follow the tour accurately. And dump the heffas out there that don't have a clue. Eye candy is not necessary to keep the tour interesting to the rest of us!

Oh- for the Neilson ratings, each point represents just a little over a million homes. So if the tennis match got 4.9 in the Neilson ratings, that means about 5 million folks were watching that match. That's all.

Phil and Paul rock. Bob Roll is a true character. I don't think television is his best medium, but, he adds knowledge and flavor to OLN's coverage. Besides, I love his "Tour DAAAAAAY Frants" commercial. Frankie Andreu always seems ill-at-ease in front of the camera, especially when he is without a script, but he has credibility and great access to the riders.

I get annoyed, quickly and easily, with Kirsten Gum. She adds nothing to the race coverage. In his race notes for stage 5 (on
www.letour.com (http://www.letour.com/2003/us/index.html)) our Mr. Liggett had some nice things to say about her.


Kirsten Gumm, who presents our preview show, had never seen a cycle race before. She loves the Tour and has a great feel for it already with her enthusiasm. It is so hard to come in cold, but I hope you think as I do. She, as Bob Roll would say, IS OOOOOOOOON!

She never saw a bike race before? Whodathunkit? If she has no knowledge of the sport, then why hasn't she been given the role of asking the newbie questions? It would have been a better way to use her. I hate to disagree with St. Phil, but Kirsten Gum is OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFF!

Oh, and the Goat Cheese woman? Give me a break! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Maurizio
I'm sure that most little boys don't learn the rules of baseball just by sitting in front of the TV, but by having their fathers (and mothers) explain it to them while observing, and by taking them to the games.


Except baseball doesn't cost an arm and a leg to get into. The reason road cycling isn't such a popular sport is partly because it is so inhibitively expensive to get into. Chances are, you'll have father and son playing ball rather than hopping on their $5k litespeeds for a ride around the block.

Originally posted by KennethToronto
Chances are, you'll have father and son playing ball rather than hopping on their $5k litespeeds for a ride around the block.

I'm not so sure that everyone starts on $5k litespeeds. I always thought that people started on much cheaper rides and gradually bought more expensive gear as they progressed and became more serious about the sport - even if it means they have to jump on a $100 w*lmart heap of junk to go around the block initially.

Originally posted by Chris L
I'm not so sure that everyone starts on $5k litespeeds. I always thought that people started on much cheaper rides and gradually bought more expensive gear as they progressed and became more serious about the sport - even if it means they have to jump on a $100 w*lmart heap of junk to go around the block initially.

yea, except the $100 walmart bike usually comes with "full suspension" that's supposedly made for off road cycling. I don't know about you, but I don't see many road bikes, even cheap ones, sold at the Walmarts or Toys r Us around here.

Originally posted by KennethToronto
yea, except the $100 walmart bike usually comes with "full suspension" that's supposedly made for off road cycling. I don't know about you, but I don't see many road bikes, even cheap ones, sold at the Walmarts or Toys r Us around here.

Point taken, but how many road riders actually started on road bikes as kids? The point is that the interest in riding on the road comes first, followed by the equipment.