2010 saw TV ratings in the US takes a huge tumble [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

2010 saw TV ratings in the US takes a huge tumble

The Magician
01-05-2011, 12:59 AM
Tennis Television Ratings Tumble

By John Koblin
September 4, 2010 | 10:29 a.m.

Someone order up a Roger-Rafa and Sharapova-Venus final. CBS needs it!

I went through CBS Media Guide last night, and there are three pages dedicated to the ratings of men's and women's Grand Slam finals over the last few decades and—yowza—they have taken a steep decline, particularly in the last year or two.

Let's start with the U.S. Open. For the last two years, thanks to rain, the men's finals have been played on late Monday afternoon (the Judge Judy slot) and both of them have had the worst ratings of any Open men's final since the records start in 1978. Last year's women's final—which was thrown on ESPN2 on a Sunday night instead of its usual spot on CBS on Saturday night due to the rain—was also the worst one ever recorded.

It's not just the Open, either. At Wimbledon, Rafa Nadal-Tomas Berdych's final this year scored a 1.6 rating, the lowest rated men's final on NBC since 1988 (in the CBS media guide, the Wimbledon ratings only go back that far). The women's final of Serena v. Vera Zvonareva scored a 1.6 as well, which is the women's lowest Wimbledon final in the last 23 years.

What finals performed great, and what did poorly? Let's go through the stats! (The number next to each match is Nielsen's "rating," which is the percentage of televisions around the country that tuned in for tennis).

U.S. OPEN MEN'S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED:

1. 1980, John McEnroe d. Bjorn Borg, 11.0

2. 1982, Jimmy Connors d. Ivan Lendl, 9.9

3. 1983, Jimmy Connors d. Ivan Lendl, 9.5

OK, enough with the early 80s! We get it, it was a glory age. What about in the last, say, 15 years? OK, coming right up! Since 1995...

U.S. OPEN MEN'S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED SINCE 1995:

1. 1999, Andre Agassi d. Todd Martin, 6.3

2. 2002, Pete Sampras d. Andre Agassi, 6.2

3. 1996, Pete Sampras d. Michael Chang, 6.1

What conclusions do we draw from this? Obviously we prefer Americans! In fact, in the era of Federer's Dominance, the best rated men's matches have featured Roger Federer v. Andre Agassi (4.8 in 2005) and Federer v. Roddick (4.1 in 2006).

What are the three lowest ever?

U.S. OPEN MEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED:

1. 2008, Roger Federer d. Andy Murray, 1.7

2. 2009, Juan Martin del Potro d. Roger Federer, 2.3

3. 2004, Roger Federer d. Lleyton Hewitt, 2.5

As we explained before, two of those are easily explained by the Monday final.

Let's move over to the ladies. Also, it's worth nothing that the women moved from Saturday afternoon finals to Saturday night finals in 2001. Let's look at the best rated:

U.S. OPEN WOMEN'S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED:

1. 1981, Tracy Austin d. Martina Navratilova, 7.7

2. 1985, Hana Mandlíková d. Martina Navratilova, 7.3

3. 1984, Martina Navratilova d. Chris Evert, 7.1

Enough with the 80s! Let's take a look at it since 1995.

U.S. OPEN WOMEN'S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED SINCE 1995:

1. 2001, Venus Williams d. Serena Williams, 6.8

2. 1999, Serena Williams d. Martina Hingis, 6.3

3. 1995, Steffi Graf d. Monica Seles, 5.2

And the worst?

U.S. OPEN WOMEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED:

1. 2009, Kim Clijsters d. Caroline Wozniacki, 1.1

2. 2007, Justine Henin d. Svetlana Kuznetsova, 2.1

3. 2004, Svetlana Kuznetsova d. Elena Dementieva, 2.3

Lesson: CBS wants nothing to do with Kuznetsova!

Let's check out the other tournaments. First of all, Wimbledon's ratings are way better than the French Open. This proves that NBC did a beautiful job of marketing "Breakfast at Wimbledon." But, of course, who doesn't prefer watching tennis on a beautiful grass court versus clay (where it's often difficult to see the ball).

For reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, ratings are only available starting in 1988 in the CBS Media Guide:

WIMBLEDON MEN'S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED (SINCE 1988)

1. 1992, Andre Agassi d. Goran Ivanisevic, 5.6

2. 1989, Boris Becker d. Stefan Edberg, 5.2

3. 1999, Pete Sampras d. Andre Agassi, 5.0

Same as before: If you've got Americans, you're gonna do well. Federer's final against Roddick last year did well (3.8) and the legendary 2008 final against Rafael Nadal also scored highly (3.5). But what hasn't?

WIMBLEDON MEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED (SINCE 1988):

1. 2010, Rafael Nadal d. Tomas Berdych, 1.6

2. 2005, Roger Federer d. Andy Roddick, 2.1

3. 2003, Roger Federer d. Mark Philippoussis, 2.2

WIMBLEDON WOMEN'S FINALS, HIGHEST RATED SINCE 1988:

1. 1992, Steffi Graf d. Monica Seles, 5.3

2. 1989, Steffi Graf d. Martina Navratilova, 4.5

3. 1988, Steffi Graf d. Martina Navratilova, 4.4

Fair enough. Over the last decade the three finals that did best were in 2000 (Venus Williams d. Lindsay Davenport with a 3.7), 2005 (Venus d. Davenport again with a 3.4) and 2002 (Serena d. Venus with a 3.4).

WIMBLEDON WOMEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED SINCE 1988:

1. 2010, Serena Williams d. Vera Zvonareva, 1.6

2. 2006, Amélie Mauresmo d. Justine Henin, 2.0

3. 2007, Venus Willias d. Marion Bartoli, 2.2

I'd say if we got a Roger-Rafa final this year, CBS would be in good shape. Yes, Roger has been involved in every lowest rated U.S. Open match ever, and Rafa played in the lowest rated Wimbledon final ever. But I have a feeling that since these two guys haven't played in New York together and the storyline is a great one—Roger tries to win one back here and Rafa tries to win his first here—CBS can market the hell out of it and after the early afternoon NFL games are over next Sunday, people will keep their TVs on to watch those two slug it out. If they somehow can get Venus and Sharapova for Saturday night, watch out Graf v. Seles. We might have a new no. 3 for the highest rated matches since 1995.


Now, this article was written before the 2010 US Open final, but I don't think anyone needs to be told it had awful ratings. The strongest correlating factors in GS finals are obviously the presence of Nadull and Fed, which the article mentions. However, I think Fed's low ratings at the USO can be written off as not his fault because of the high ratings for the Wimbledon 2009 final and his media friendly personality and multi-lingual abilities. We'll see what happens in 2011, but we definitely need some new blood winning Gs, especially not Nadull.

Also, putting the US Open/Wimbledon on ESPN surely didn't help ratings, as did lack of a good American player, and there are a million other possible reasons for the drop in ratings. But no one can deny 2010 had a serious lack of quality play, a lack of variety at the top, and a lack of compelling stories and no one to challenge Nadull.

Ignore the WTA parts, it's not really relevant and WTA is unsalvageable as even entertainment. The question is what do you think can be done to save tennis in 2011 as a business and do you think Nadull is bad for tennis ratings?

moon language
01-05-2011, 01:02 AM
High ratings for Wimbledon 2009 in the US were due to Roddick, sad as that may be.

fast_clay
01-05-2011, 01:03 AM
The federer nadal rivalry is bad for the sport, not good for it... many youngsters are now encouraged not to pick up the racquet because they know they'll never be that good.. and many kids are putting the racquets down for the same reason as evidenced by the rising average age of the top 100 and the extreme lack of tennagers in even the top 200...

fed and nadal are killing the sport

moon language
01-05-2011, 01:07 AM
The federer nadal rivalry is bad for the sport, not good for it... many youngsters are now encouraged not to pick up the racquet because they know they'll never be that good.. and many kids are putting the racquets down for the same reason as evidenced by the rising average age of the top 100 and the extreme lack of tennagers in even the top 200...

fed and nadal are killing the sport

This is a strange theory. Why would kids think they could never be that good? Great athletes usually inspire kids.

The Magician
01-05-2011, 01:10 AM
The federer nadal rivalry is bad for the sport, not good for it... many youngsters are now encouraged not to pick up the racquet because they know they'll never be that good.. and many kids are putting the racquets down for the same reason as evidenced by the rising average age of the top 100 and the extreme lack of tennagers in even the top 200...

fed and nadal are killing the sport

I do think the extreme athleticism of tennis, led by Nadull, is bad for the sport because that type of person will always choose NFL/Basketball/Athletics over tennis, which is much more expensive to get into and is much harder to make a lot of money from. However, that's a separate problem for tennis, this thread is about tennis as a business and 2010 being a bad year in that regard.

Chiseller
01-05-2011, 01:15 AM
Okey, and where's the Easter egg? Hardly a surprise, that yanks lost the little interest in tennis they once had.

elena_k
01-05-2011, 01:22 AM
this is just 1 country. this is probably because no americans are doing well at the moment.

Topspindoctor
01-05-2011, 01:23 AM
What a surprise: a final involving Americans is more popular than the one without in America. Another dumb topic from Mugician :zzz:

fast_clay
01-05-2011, 01:24 AM
Great athletes usually inspire kids.

true... but these guys are too good... it's out of order... i even left mtf for the best part of a year because their greatness had discouraged me in my own life... i needed to regain control of my life again... i had set some ridiculously high goals which, to be frank, were impossible to reach... federer and nadal hurt me somewhat... i would be lying if i said i didnt require mental help... i am just one story...

navy75
01-05-2011, 01:27 AM
I don't read anything more into it than simply that many American fans don't care about anything or anyone outside of America. The USA is geographically isolated, monolingual for the most part (outside of immigrants), and generally aloof. I personally think that it is a tremendous shame, but it's something that ain't changing any time soon either.

The casual American fan would probably rather watch Donald Young vs Roddick than perhaps the two greatest players of all time play against one another.

The Magician
01-05-2011, 01:29 AM
Well, since America is where all the sponsorship money and advertising dollars come from, I think it's still very important. Unless you think tennis should become a local sport in Spain like table tennis or handball. Also, Americans have been doing better than in a long time. Isner-Mahut didn't bring up ratings for Wimbledon 2010 and that story got more news coverage than I have seen tennis get in decades. It's clear that's not the reason behind it.

moon language
01-05-2011, 01:39 AM
Well, since America is where all the sponsorship money and advertising dollars come from, I think it's still very important. Unless you think tennis should become a local sport in Spain like table tennis or handball. Also, Americans have been doing better than in a long time. Isner-Mahut didn't bring up ratings for Wimbledon 2010 and that story got more news coverage than I have seen tennis get in decades. It's clear that's not the reason behind it.

There is plenty of sponsorship money outside of the US.

As for 2010 there are several reasons for lower ratings. Look at the slam finals. AO had Federer vs Murray. The American mainstream doesn't care about Murray. RG and Wimbledon had Soderling and Berdych who are even less interesting to the US mainstream. And the US Open final was completely ruined by rain delays.

Right now in the US there is interest in Federer vs. Nadal finals, and then finals that involve Roddick. Anything else is going to get poor ratings.

The Magician
01-05-2011, 01:50 AM
There is plenty of sponsorship money outside of the US.

As for 2010 there are several reasons for lower ratings. Look at the slam finals. AO had Federer vs Murray. The American mainstream doesn't care about Murray. RG and Wimbledon had Soderling and Berdych who are even less interesting to the US mainstream. And the US Open final was completely ruined by rain delays.

Right now in the US there is interest in Federer vs. Nadal finals, and then finals that involve Roddick. Anything else is going to get poor ratings.

All of these reasons are correct, but you're still missing the man who defined 2010 in your analysis. The American public has never cared about anyone but the top players and Americans, that's unchanged throughout history. The question is then why do the top players not captivate interest like top players of the past (including non-Americans), even though the highly touted "history making" of Nadull only tanked ratings further.

Here's ratings from the last 30 years:
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/07/04/wimbledon-tennis-viewership-1973-2008/4209

Becker and Ivanisevic were popular despite not being Americans, and the 80s were clearly the height of tennis popularity.

nobama
01-05-2011, 02:09 AM
Just curious what are the ratings for other sports in America. Is tennis in the dumps while baseball, football, basketball, hockey and golf are thriving?

The Magician
01-05-2011, 02:20 AM
Just curious what are the ratings for other sports in America. Is tennis in the dumps while baseball, football, basketball, hockey and golf are thriving?

Soccer did extremely well:

http://www.epltalk.com/world-cup-tv-ratings-break-new-records-on-espn-and-univision/21149

Nascar apparently did poorly:

http://jayski.com/pages/tvratings2010.htm

Baseball did awful:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5757137

And NFL did well:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295198

Seems to be a mixed bag. Obviously tennis will never be a top sport just because of timezone issues and not being easy to advertise with, but there's no indication to me that the poor year tennis had in 2010 is part of a wider sports trend, and in my mind is related to the dominance of Nadull and the uninteresting games and personalities of Murray/Fakervic/Soderling.

james82
01-05-2011, 02:23 AM
unless your a nadal or fed fan whats the point of watching anymore?
nobody else is gonna win outside of those 2 for the next 2-3 years

fast_clay
01-05-2011, 02:32 AM
unless your a nadal or fed fan whats the point of watching anymore?
nobody else is gonna win outside of those 2 for the next 2-3 years

exactly my point... nadal and federer are actually killing tennis... making a mockery of the history of the game...

not only that, regular tennis fans have been hit hard too, people whose favourite players include cilic and blake have been d.... oh... yeah... sorry... your sig....

my apologies...

james82
01-05-2011, 02:38 AM
exactly my point... nadal and federer are actually killing tennis... making a mockery of the history of the game...

not only that, regular tennis fans have been hit hard too, people whose favourite players include cilic and blake have been d.... oh... yeah... sorry... your sig....

my apologies...


i just really hope guys like Soderling,Tsonga,Berdych,Roddick,Murray and Djokovic can raise there game and become GS threats
also cant wait for Del Potro to come back to his best

GlennMirnyi
01-05-2011, 03:12 AM
Yep. Nobody wants to watch Nadull. Anywhere.

samjones
01-05-2011, 03:22 AM
Now, this article was written before the 2010 US Open final, but I don't think anyone needs to be told it had awful ratings. The strongest correlating factors in GS finals are obviously the presence of Nadull and Fed, which the article mentions. However, I think Fed's low ratings at the USO can be written off as not his fault because of the high ratings for the Wimbledon 2009 final and his media friendly personality and multi-lingual abilities. We'll see what happens in 2011, but we definitely need some new blood winning Gs, especially not Nadull.


Certainly some of the problem is that there hasn't been a final that has been perceived in advance as one that would be closely contested since AO '09. JMDP may have beaten Fed at USO in '09 and Andy gave him a good run at Wimbledon but I think that your man on the street would have considered those 2 and all other finals that Rafa and Roger have played in to be a lock for them - unless they played each other but that hasn't happened in a slam for (almost) a couple years.

This year's USO final doesn't count because of the disastrous weather delays.

Tennis Channel is going strong - something must be going right!

nobama
01-05-2011, 11:40 AM
Soccer did extremely well:

http://www.epltalk.com/world-cup-tv-ratings-break-new-records-on-espn-and-univision/21149

Nascar apparently did poorly:

http://jayski.com/pages/tvratings2010.htm

Baseball did awful:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5757137

And NFL did well:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295198

Seems to be a mixed bag. Obviously tennis will never be a top sport just because of timezone issues and not being easy to advertise with, but there's no indication to me that the poor year tennis had in 2010 is part of a wider sports trend, and in my mind is related to the dominance of Nadull and the uninteresting games and personalities of Murray/Fakervic/Soderling.What you just posted proves that ouside of the NFL most sports in the USA have taken a ratings dive. Golf's ratings are in the toilet - average Sunday share in 2010 was 2.2 (http://www.thegolfchannel.com/golf-forum/2010-pga-tour-television-ratings-190279/?go=1&dz=4F622975-5CBF-4FC9-B12D-FD22A1219072
). And unlike tennis the PGA tour is a US based tour and the tournaments are on TV every weekend. And they still pull in dismal numbers, except when Tiger Woods is in the hunt on Sunday. With tennis you have to hunt and peck to find things, and often times are forced to watch crappy livestreams. It's hard to get tennis matches consistantly covered on TV in the US. Even the tournaments played in the US (outside of the US Open) are hardly ever on network TV (or ESPN). US Open series has helped a bit, but still I'm not surprised ratings are so low when there's not that much live tennis on network TV.

Just like heaven
01-05-2011, 11:59 AM
U.S. OPEN MEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED:

1. 2008, Roger Federer d. Andy Murray, 1.7

2. 2009, Juan Martin del Potro d. Roger Federer, 2.3

3. 2004, Roger Federer d. Lleyton Hewitt, 2.5

WIMBLEDON MEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED (SINCE 1988):

1. 2010, Rafael Nadal d. Tomas Berdych, 1.6

2. 2005, Roger Federer d. Andy Roddick, 2.1

3. 2003, Roger Federer d. Mark Philippoussis, 2.2

:o

Yep, everybody wants to see Roger.

bokehlicious
01-05-2011, 12:06 PM
Yep. Nobody wants to watch Nadull. Anywhere.

There will always be teenie fangirls to back him up, not too sure they're really the ATP money makers though :o :)

Lleyton_
01-05-2011, 12:08 PM
Nadull living up to his nickname.

Snowwy
01-05-2011, 12:33 PM
Nadull living up to his nickname.

Did you read the thread? Looks like Roger is in fact the "problem". ;)

But really neither are, in NA tennis just isn't on enough for us to be fans of the game unless we are willing to watch it on the internet. It's so easy to find the other sports anywhere, everyone knows when its a Sunday, we have office suicide pools for football, office fantasy pools for football, and in Canada for hockey and that's just in the offices.

bokehlicious
01-05-2011, 12:36 PM
Did you read the thread? Looks like Roger is in fact the "problem". ;)

I don't think Roger was the ATP Big Boy in 2010... :scratch:

Snowwy
01-05-2011, 12:38 PM
I don't think Roger was the ATP Big Boy in 2010... :scratch:

It was a joke based on this post.


U.S. OPEN MEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED:

1. 2008, Roger Federer d. Andy Murray, 1.7

2. 2009, Juan Martin del Potro d. Roger Federer, 2.3

3. 2004, Roger Federer d. Lleyton Hewitt, 2.5

WIMBLEDON MEN'S FINALS, LOWEST RATED (SINCE 1988):

1. 2010, Rafael Nadal d. Tomas Berdych, 1.6

2. 2005, Roger Federer d. Andy Roddick, 2.1

3. 2003, Roger Federer d. Mark Philippoussis, 2.2

bokehlicious
01-05-2011, 12:40 PM
That's weird, because you seem to love to talk about that "cheating grunting moonballer" all the time.
And since you talk about him so much, it's obvious that you also follow his matches. You just don't want to admit it. :hug:

I think you must confuse me with somebody else, I rarely bother commenting on the manacorian cheat :shrug: ;)

Pirao666
01-05-2011, 12:41 PM
Wow americans don't watch a sport because there are no americans on top anymore? What a surprise :rolleyes:

Just like heaven
01-05-2011, 12:42 PM
I think you must confuse me with somebody else, I rarely bother commenting on the manacorian cheat :shrug: ;)

Of course. :)


Why are my posts deleted?

MariaV
01-05-2011, 12:49 PM
Of course. :)


Why are my posts deleted?

Oh yeah weird, some posts have disappeared?
Just wanted to say that JM is a closeted Nadulltard. ;)

Lleyton_
01-05-2011, 12:55 PM
Did you read the thread? Looks like Roger is in fact the "problem". ;)

But really neither are, in NA tennis just isn't on enough for us to be fans of the game unless we are willing to watch it on the internet. It's so easy to find the other sports anywhere, everyone knows when its a Sunday, we have office suicide pools for football, office fantasy pools for football, and in Canada for hockey and that's just in the offices.

Another heavily biased moderator :zzz:

Just like heaven
01-05-2011, 01:56 PM
Just wanted to say that JM is a closeted Nadulltard. ;)

It's quite obvious. :)

bjurra
01-05-2011, 02:31 PM
I think the title in this thread is missing a "US".

FormerRafaFan
01-05-2011, 02:32 PM
I don't know.. the media seems kinda biased towards Federer. So they naturally didn't write many articles about tennis when Rafa was dominating. Tennis will probably be more popular as soon as Fed start dominating again and the media's fedtards can start milking their hero once more.

Priam
01-05-2011, 02:40 PM
How about they cover more events on TV? Most fans stick to live streaming instead.

cheriamor
01-05-2011, 03:20 PM
How about they cover more events on TV? Most fans stick to live streaming instead.

That would be nice. Unless you have The Tennis Channel in the States, you can only see the Grand Slams. Plus, The Tennis Channel doesn't even show enough live matches. It is a bunch of old matches and rehashed specials.

jaana
01-05-2011, 03:24 PM
I think the title in this thread is missing a "US".
+1
misleading title

GlennMirnyi
01-05-2011, 03:30 PM
Did you read the thread? Looks like Roger is in fact the "problem". ;)

But really neither are, in NA tennis just isn't on enough for us to be fans of the game unless we are willing to watch it on the internet. It's so easy to find the other sports anywhere, everyone knows when its a Sunday, we have office suicide pools for football, office fantasy pools for football, and in Canada for hockey and that's just in the offices.

Yep Frauderer's a problem too but Wimbledon's lowest rating makes Nadull live up to his nickname easily.

MaryWalsh
01-05-2011, 04:41 PM
I live in the US and have given up watching tennis on TV's main channels and sports channels. I am unable to get the Tennis Channel where I live. I watch on foreign streaming sites. Even hugely important matches are interrupted, moved, delayed. I was watching a final once, I think it was Roland Garros, and it was interrupted for an interview with Lindsay Davenport. Another important match was moved in order to feature a hot dog eating contest. I kid you not. I cannot abide the announcers either. I would rather listen to announcers in a language I don't understand. American tennis coverage is a total disgrace.

Pfloyd
01-05-2011, 04:45 PM
Who gives a fuck about the NFL outside the US?

Snowwy
01-05-2011, 04:45 PM
Yep Frauderer's a problem too but Wimbledon's lowest rating makes Nadull live up to his nickname easily.

I just think that tennis isn't a major sport in the US, in Canada we get teh Masters on TV sometimes and the Majors but only the American feed so we see all the beat down and Serena's match 4 times. It just turns you right off.

MaryWalsh
01-05-2011, 04:49 PM
Exactly Snowwy. I don't see why a network buys rights to a tournament and then does such a horrible job presenting it. I think if tennis were better presented in the US, with some better information to the public of non-American players, the ratings would go up again. In men's tennis with Roddick unable to be hyped as in the past, or Blake, or Agassi--it is a TV wasteland.

Snowwy
01-05-2011, 04:52 PM
Exactly Snowwy. I don't see why a network buys rights to a tournament and then does such a horrible job presenting it. I think if tennis were better presented in the US, with some better information to the public of non-American players, the ratings would go up again. In men's tennis with Roddick unable to be hyped as in the past, or Blake, or Agassi--it is a TV wasteland.

Especially in the earlier rounds, I would love to see more matches, switching from match to match when matches are at an interesting point. I don't need to see Federer beat down Dabul for two hours. I don't need to see Nadal destroy some player at the French Open in three hours 61 62 60. And thats what they show.

fast_clay
01-05-2011, 04:53 PM
i wish duck didnt suffer from mono in his backhand and volleys back in 2003... he could have been something...

GlennMirnyi
01-05-2011, 04:55 PM
I just think that tennis isn't a major sport in the US, in Canada we get teh Masters on TV sometimes and the Majors but only the American feed so we see all the beat down and Serena's match 4 times. It just turns you right off.

That's what happens when you have a market completely free of regulations. No respect for the customer (viewer).

I can't help feeling that this weak era is killing tennis ratings everywhere. Broadcasters couldn't care less about tournaments, they only show those :bs: Fraud-Nadull matches. This doesn't build interest for the sport. It kills it. Nobody wants to watch the same thing over and over and over.

MaryWalsh
01-05-2011, 04:56 PM
What you mention, Snowwy, is better than what I have encountered. Lots of little league All-star games, matches delayed, shown at midnight here.

Snowwy
01-05-2011, 05:01 PM
Exactly Gu, I like seeing Roger and Rafa, but I like seeing other matches too. Its just too much to see them all the time.

delpiero7
01-05-2011, 10:06 PM
The OP tries to make excuses for Federer being involved in 5 of the 6 least viewed Wimbledon & US Open finals, and then tries to shift the blame of falling ratings on Nadal, despite the fact he only appears once across ALL of the lowest viewed finals lists.

Smells like hate to me.

Pirao666
01-05-2011, 10:53 PM
Who gives a fuck about the NFL outside the US?

A couple of guys :lol:

timafi
01-05-2011, 10:55 PM
not everyone likes the butt picker:tape:

nobama
01-05-2011, 10:57 PM
How about they cover more events on TV? Most fans stick to live streaming instead.Fact is US TV and sports media doesn't give a shit about tennis anymore. I think that has little to do with the current crop of players (though it probably would be more popular if an American was dominating). If US dominated sports like baseball, basketball, PGA tour, etc. are getting shit ratings why would anyone expect tennis to be different? I think it would be a lot different if say there was a tennis tour in the USA and every weekend the matches were shown on CBS or NBC. But even now I'm hearing rumblings that golf may go global and some of the tours may combine into one world golf tour. If that happens and more tournaments are played outside the USA expect golf ratings to take a dive even further too.

Jimnik
01-05-2011, 11:25 PM
fed and nadal are killing the sport
Nails in the coffin. The decline already started with Sampras and Agassi.


I think the title in this thread is missing a "US".
"Global" would fit just as well.


i wish duck didnt suffer from mono in his backhand and volleys back in 2003... he could have been something...
Indeed, and it's not just an American thing. Roddick had more charisma than Federer and Nadal put together.


Yep Frauderer's a problem too but Wimbledon's lowest rating makes Nadull live up to his nickname easily.
Nadal is an alien to the English speaking world. Americans will never warm to him but not because of his playing style.

Jimnik
01-05-2011, 11:31 PM
We needed someone like Nishikori or Young to step up but neither came close to living up to their extreme hype.

We're stuck with Del Potro and Cilic for the next decade. Looks like tennis is being cremated.

straitup
01-06-2011, 12:10 AM
Especially in the earlier rounds, I would love to see more matches, switching from match to match when matches are at an interesting point. I don't need to see Federer beat down Dabul for two hours. I don't need to see Nadal destroy some player at the French Open in three hours 61 62 60. And thats what they show.

This is true...but they are targeting the casual fan, not the hardcore fan like most of us here. It's kind of conflicting, because then again you'd think a passionate 5 setter between 2 lesser known players would do more for the sport than a Roger beatdown. But the US, in general, is mainly about star appeal...I mean, people are gonna watch the Lakers because of Kobe. With a sport like tennis which has extended coverage for practically 10 hours a day during the slams, they're going to show the people that they think will bring in a casual viewing base, because they know that the casual fan is not going to sit in front of the TV for all 10 hours like us :lol:

Bad Religion
01-06-2011, 04:35 AM
People watch less television these days
Where I live the ratings for television in general are low. Some years ago , 30-40 were routine , now if a program marks 17-20 points , there is celebration in that channel

Snowwy
01-06-2011, 04:39 AM
This is true...but they are targeting the casual fan, not the hardcore fan like most of us here. It's kind of conflicting, because then again you'd think a passionate 5 setter between 2 lesser known players would do more for the sport than a Roger beatdown. But the US, in general, is mainly about star appeal...I mean, people are gonna watch the Lakers because of Kobe. With a sport like tennis which has extended coverage for practically 10 hours a day during the slams, they're going to show the people that they think will bring in a casual viewing base, because they know that the casual fan is not going to sit in front of the TV for all 10 hours like us :lol:

But you watch Kobe because the shit he pulls off in close/competitive games is unreal. The shots Roger pulls off in a beatdown of Brian Dabul aren't exciting, if he misses them, so what, we all know the final result.

And basketball isn't just Kobe for 3 hours, its the Lakers, where tennis is JUST Roger or just Nadal. It's just boring after a while when its not close.

And they would rather show Serena's match twice or three times in one eight hour broadcast. I don't care who that player is, no one deserves that, and its a huge disrespect to the games of the game.

straitup
01-06-2011, 05:45 AM
But you watch Kobe because the shit he pulls off in close/competitive games is unreal. The shots Roger pulls off in a beatdown of Brian Dabul aren't exciting, if he misses them, so what, we all know the final result.

And basketball isn't just Kobe for 3 hours, its the Lakers, where tennis is JUST Roger or just Nadal. It's just boring after a while when its not close.

And they would rather show Serena's match twice or three times in one eight hour broadcast. I don't care who that player is, no one deserves that, and its a huge disrespect to the games of the game.

Very good points you make. I agree with all of it, and I'm not trying to say what they do is right but from the sense of TV ratings, it makes a slight bit of sense (except for showing repeats of matches).

But still, they put those specific people on because that's who the casual folk knows. I haven't met too many people who say their favorite player is someone other than Fed, Nadal, Roddick, Serena, or Venus (maybe because they only show those players). It's about establishing a liking for a particular player...for instance, if someone watches Roger play and loves him, they will be guaranteed pretty much to see him again on TV. Compare that with seeing a cool match with Mahut for example...he's not gonna be shown too much on TV here, and so they can't establish a liking here. At least with us Americans, people like to root for a specific player or team and not necessarily watch the sport for the beauty of it