Updated: 5:23 p.m. ET Sept. 12, 2005
NEW YORK - The ratings for Roger Federer's win over Andre Agassi in the U.S. Open men's final Sunday were up 100 percent from last year, which saw the lowest-rated championship match ever.
Federer's 6-3, 2-6, 7-6 (1), 6-1 victory Sunday over Agassi earned a 6.2 overnight rating with a 12 share for CBS. That's up from the 3.1 with a 16 that Federer's 2004 win over Lleyton Hewitt received.
Let's see, what's different...US Open, 2004, Federer and Hewitt...lowest ever ratings.
Wimbledon, 2005 (just 8-weeks ago)...Federer and Roddick...among the lowest ratings ever (I think the Hewitt-Nalbandian final did just a tad worse).
I wonder what happened...let me rephrase, I wonder WHO happened???
"What kind of shape am I in now? Well round is a shape." said Roddick with a laugh. "I had a very detailed retirement plan, and I feel like I've met every aspect of it: a lot of golf, a lot of carbs, a lot of fried food, and some booze, occasionally — I've been completely committed ... The results have shown."
These ratings are impressive, undoubtedly a US player's presence plays a big role. On top of that a well known one for years.
But these are only US ratings. In Australia, I am sure last year with leyton's playing the ratings were higher for the finals than they are for this year. Similar, since 2003 I am sure Schweiter/deutsch TV has higher ratings for Wimbledon than any time even when Pete played. It is not very surprising that there is this parochial nature to ratings
Agassi did help, but the reasons it beat Wimbledon are numerous. Wimbledon is not the US Open... Americans like things with "US" in them. Also, the Wimbledon final is on relatively early, when all the good Americans are in church and the rest of us are in bed.
Le Poussin! Faithfully ignoring the haters since 1995.
The time zone thing is a MAJOR factor. If you live on the West Coast, you have to get up around 7:00 on SUNDAY to watch the Wimbledon final. Only for us die-hards is it worth the lack of sleep to watch another predictable beatdown of Andy Roddick.
So let that be the end of threads asking why ESPN always shows Americans when possible and does not give the public a chance to appreciate foreign stars.
Lets not kid ourselves here. Fed is probably the most skilled player yet but he doesn't draw crowds. Most people don't even know the guy though they will after the final. Many people watched because it was on at a convienet time and featured Agassi. I'm not saying Fed sucks because he doesn't but i'm just pointing out the facts.
Originally Posted by NYCtennisfan
You cannot be great without having haters. It's a fact of life.
I guess Roddick must be the greatest player to ever play the game.